The first and last thing I will ever write about the arse-clenchingly awful 'tone 'debate' in psychology http://neurochambers.blogspot.co.uk/2017/08/why-i-hate-tone-debate-in-psychology.html …
-
-
I haven't visited in months so not sure but "tone debates" were big there in past. This week it was mostly on Twitter about Primestein.
-
For me a lot of twitter was me being tagged in SIPS related posts on inclusivity even though I wasn't even at that conference.
-
Gave thoughts here and elsewhere in same thread, as have others:https://twitter.com/o_guest/status/893147040942895104 …
-
So
@sampendu I'm sure you can see my week's experiences have been different and colour my understanding of posts without explicit context. -
Perhaps - but I don't see talking about inclusivity or various -isms as being related to "tone". At least I haven't seen it being used such.
-
They are related.
-
See this side thread (replies above mine too)https://twitter.com/o_guest/status/894109081694326784 …
-
Yes I can understand why one could interpret it differently. Anyway, it seems this thread has already clarified Chris' intention.
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.
