There is talk in liberal quarters of people—straight white men, mostly—working to preserve their unearned privilege. And it is true that being born into a phenotype that has historically held power constitutes unearned privilege. We all have some, some more than others. However:
-
-
I understood that from the get go. Been following Ms. Pluckrose for a while now. Very smart individual. I was questioning his assertions to the contrary.
-
Got it. And yes:
@HPluckrose,@ConceptualJames and@peterboghossian are all not only “very smart individuals,” but creative and courageous as well. -
Here's a quote from one reviewer from
@NASPA_MMKC: Toward the end of the paper, he even suggests that the “power always flows from customer to server”—i.e., men have and exert power over women. This analysis is reductionist. The fake authors were in way over their head. -
Or this: The use of “pastiche hegemony” and “ersatz sexual availability” is unnecessary and relieves the author of having to be more specific. They sound smart but really stand in for more tangible identification and explanations of practices. Jargon can't hide bad scholarship
-
“Jargon can’t hide bad scholarship.” Well, yes. This was, after all, one of the main points of their project/hoax, wasn’t it. Whole fields are based on gossamer string and fairy tales, but multisyllabic words and impenetrable syntax confuse many into believing it’s good work.
-
"Bad scholarship" good enough to get into major journals with merely a few months of experience. Haha.
-
With respect, I think a math background has given you an innacurate impression of ethnography. Writing is the easy part. I could win a physics Nobel if they'd just let me fabricate all the data!
-
Can I get a witness
@HeatherEHeying? How many bio papers could you publish this year if you got to make up data? - 4 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Yeah. Got that. I think that reading the papers and reviews will change your mind. Very little of what's being said is true. Jargon can't mask faulty scholarship. Unsupported research which conforms to an agenda does not get a pass. All they did was falsify data.
-
I’ve read most of what they wrote, and the reviews. Was it Hypatia who lauded their work as exemplary scholarship? Back-engineering arguments to fit conclusions is anti-intellectual. Many fields do it; these fields both a) do it constantly and b) promote bigoted conclusions.
-
The review process fixed nearly everything wrong with the Hooters paper except the underlying deception. How does biology detect completely falsified data?
-
In the end, all they could do was fool one editor of a quant journal with fake ethnography. Snore. Check out my analysis above.
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.