They are basically the bad guys in "Atlas Shrugged".
-
-
Replying to @JimBobgraholski @HeatherEHeying
Jim and Heather, you guys should read the original papers and make up your own mind. Here's my analysis of just one. I include a link to all the papers. http://www.thisweekinstupid.com/2018/10/11/profs-perpetrate-hoax-just-not-the-one-you-think/ …
#SokalSquared2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @WeekInStupid @HeatherEHeying
Data presented was still malarkey though, they just claim to have learned a better method of what amounts to essentially psychologically unlocking the doors to being accepted without merit. That's bad.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JimBobgraholski @HeatherEHeying
They did succeed in getting falsified data accepted as ethnography. But their conclusions were largely removed from the paper since they were not supported by the data. It became exactly what it was--a single site participant ethnography.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
But did you read how their jargon-y drivel was eviscerated by reviewers? Gorgeous.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @WeekInStupid @JimBobgraholski
You guys misunderstood my intention: I meant that the perpetrators of Grievance Studies themselves, the wokest academics, are preserving their unearned privilege. Not the authors of the hoax—far from it. My very brief take is included here:https://www.chronicle.com/article/What-the-Grievance/244753 …
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @HeatherEHeying @WeekInStupid
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @JimBobgraholski @WeekInStupid
Got it. And yes:
@HPluckrose,@ConceptualJames and@peterboghossian are all not only “very smart individuals,” but creative and courageous as well.2 replies 1 retweet 5 likes -
Replying to @HeatherEHeying @JimBobgraholski and
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.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @WeekInStupid @HeatherEHeying and
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
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
“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.
-
-
Replying to @HeatherEHeying @WeekInStupid and
"Bad scholarship" good enough to get into major journals with merely a few months of experience. Haha.
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likes - 6 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Replying to @HeatherEHeying @JimBobgraholski and
The Hooters paper (the only one I studied in detail) showed exactly the opposite. Reviewer after reviewer took them to task for opaque jargon.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.