Really striking how cavalierly an extraordinary painstaking paper in the top political science journal by a black scholar is dismissed as "bad research" because that line happens to gel with the propagandistic need to downplay the insanity of someone getting arbitrarily fired.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @NathanJRobinson @Yascha_Mounk and
ARE YOU KIDDING? Did you just compare Omar's painstaking, nuanced and very worthwhile research which did not do any of the things you said, like "blaming inner-city rioters", to The Bell Curve? Please get a grip and read the actual paper.
2 replies 2 retweets 130 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @NathanJRobinson and
It's an excellent paper on the mediating role of elite opinion and media, and how it pertains to the interaction between the movement, riots and repression. Your paragraphs below has no relationship to what the paper is about or it says! Quoting Martin Luther King to boot?
pic.twitter.com/dksYe1VMfr
1 reply 4 retweets 62 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @NathanJRobinson and
Nathan: Have you had a chance to actually read
@owasow's paper? Past time to correct your egregious mischaracterization of excellent research (by a black scholar, too!) Maybe also apologize for comparing him to Charles Murray (!!) and erroneously marshal MLK (!!!) in the process?3 replies 5 retweets 119 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @NathanJRobinson and
"Further, scholarly debates continue over how race and genetics determine intelligence, health, and other major life outcomes (Devlin 1997, Duster 2005, Hernstein & Murray 1994)." Quoted from Sen & Wasow (2016), retrieved from http://www.omarwasow.com/wasow_sen_2016_annurev.pdf …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @caribouwireless @NathanJRobinson and
Any more pathetic trolling today from papers you haven't read? You lot have too much time on your hands but not enough of anything else.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @NathanJRobinson and
You found the comparison to Murray egregious; I noted that Sen & Wasow (2016) cites Murray as one aspect of a "scholarly debate" on race. Do you find the concept of Murray as a scholar on race egregious as well, or was there something else you meant?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @caribouwireless @NathanJRobinson and
Seriously, that's all you got? A careful and important review of a very complicated question in a lengthy paper cited Murray as someone who has had a major impact on how the society discusses race? That's it? This.. is not even rising up to pathetic.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @NathanJRobinson and
I'm sorry I'm not properly entertaining you this
#Juneteenth. I found it odd that an article on 1960--1972 protests didn't include the word "Vietnam," and also found it odd that comparing Murray to someone who cites him was an offense. You've insulted me twice.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
That article is not about all protests in that era (try reading). Citing people who have had an impact on society is what scholars do. Who on earth mistakes citing for endorsement? Next up, everyone who mentions Hitler is a Nazi? Seriously, I'm embarrassed for Nathan here. Bye.
-
-
Replying to @zeynep @NathanJRobinson and
Wasow (2020) does not cite King after 1964. Black protest after that point, including King's, was profoundly shaped by Vietnam, and King was one of many who directly linked militarism and racism after 1964. You don't know who you are speaking to. Fare you well.
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.