God, no. Still can't escape it tho. V difficult to write abt women's history outside it
By all means, think a different approach wld have been better & perhaps do it yourself.
-
-
The hoax was what it was & we can all talk about what it shows. Interesting how differently ppl read it.
-
This isn't a Rorschach test. There are standards of good scholarship, and this paper failed to meet them (a serious irony/hypocrisy.)
-
If you mean the hoax, I agree.That was the point. If u mean the piece in skeptic abt it, its appropriate
-
Ppl look at public institutions in all sorts of ways, using all sorts of approaches & mediums.
-
You don't have to like satire or popular pieces but why get so angry if others do?
-
I get angry at bad reasoning, bad arguments, bad evidence. The 'hoax' is all three.
-
You're refuting claims that haven't been made. This is known as a strawman.
-
“The echo-chamber of morally driven fashionable nonsense coming out of the postmodernist social ‘sciences’ in general, & gender studies..."
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
This isn't my field. I'm all for criticism of a field, but to do that you actually have to take the field seriously.
-
Not at all. Satire is very effective. It did a lot to make ppl think abt religion & politics.
-
Make people think about something without first making them understand that thing is how propaganda works, not satire or scholarship.
-
What? People write at all levels in all styles. You choose your own. Let others do the same.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.