There is no way on God’s Green Earth people in unrelated disciplines could get up to speed in under a year in the two fields in which I have postgraduate qualifications (law & classics). That you three could do so suggests ‘grievance studies’ is intellectually underpowered.
-
-
Well, let's see. Helen has written here & there about how gender and critical studies *is* her area. Paul is, as I understand, a professional philosopher. Combined, that gives neighboring competence in the basics of a lot of the target fields. What counts as 'unrelated'? ...
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @briandavidearp @_HelenDale and
I published a paper recently in a law journal, co-authored with a historian, though neither of us is formally trained in law (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2986449 …). I'm not sure how to read your God's Green Earth claim, accounting for interdisciplinarity and basic scholarly competence
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
If you had to deal with the legal history around the link between bans on circumcision & anti-semitism, you’d struggle, even though circumcision is your hobby-horse. Noting, of course, that the hoaxers had no particular hobby-horse & scattered their papers across several fields.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
That's true, I would certainly have struggled if that were the focus of my paper. This gives me a better idea of what you were referring to in terms of the degree or kind of unrelatedness of discipline.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
The legal history is the reason why you are not winning this argument & will likely never win it. I’ve read a lot of your papers & I like Robert’s work, but the use of bans on circumcision to attack Jews looms large; it goes back to the Bar Kochba revolt in 135 AD.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
I don't call for a ban, and have explicitly argued against doing so in various venues. Most of my work presents moral arguments that I hope people will find persuasive. I'm not sure what measure you are using for 'winning this argument' though I must say
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
It’s just as well you don’t call for a ban, shall we say.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
I'm really not sure what this comment as saying ... it feels vaguely threatening, but perhaps I am misreading it
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Your argument would be much weaker if you did call for a ban, but as it is the moral arguments are probably only persuasive to people who are half-way to being on your side already (like me).
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
That is precisely the audience I am writing for; I have no illusions that I'll somehow convert every last person to my point of view; I am also always willing to reconsider & adjust my point of view in response to those who disagree with me (as I have done iteratively over time)
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.