Yep.
Yesterday, Helen tweeted at length at and about me because I didn’t respond to someone else’s tweet about uncharitable reading in a way that she demands. Dozens of tweets and subtweets. Which, fine. Say what you like to say. 1/
#SokalSquared
Yesterday, Helen tweeted at length at and about me because I didn’t respond to someone else’s tweet about uncharitable reading in a way that she demands. Dozens of tweets and subtweets. Which, fine. Say what you like to say. 1/
#SokalSquared
The response I did make to the tweet about uncharitable reading: I reminded everyone of an instance where Helen showed a very limited understanding of the history of Western academia. She didn’t respond to that.
Who has a book coming out on Western academic history?
Helen.
2/
Who has a book coming out on Western academic history?
Helen.
2/
As working academics—who are currently very busy teaching and running university work under pandemic conditions—there should be a point where we can say: that’s the end of it. 3/
Pluckrose, Lindsay & Boghossian have hoaxed. They haven’t managed to make legitimately researched claims on the basis of their hoax. The whole thing has just been a mess.
Now Pluckrose and Lindsay are trying to tell us something about the history of some research fields. 4/
Now Pluckrose and Lindsay are trying to tell us something about the history of some research fields. 4/
They make very outsized claims about how certain research branches—especially their bogeyman of postmodernism—lead to the destruction of Western civilization. They say so all over their public writing. It’s clear they say so again in the book.
5/
5/
Theirs are not good arguments. Many of us have responded and discussed in detail why some of their research is so bad.
Here is Helen’s feeling about criticism she receives from working academics like me—criticism about her work criticizing academics. 6/
Here is Helen’s feeling about criticism she receives from working academics like me—criticism about her work criticizing academics. 6/
Go ahead and read @HPluckrose’s thread linked above.
She is riding on some very high horse.
Riding a very high horse does not mean you have valid arguments about the research fields you criticize. Nor does it gain you credibility in academic discussion. 7/
She is riding on some very high horse.
Riding a very high horse does not mean you have valid arguments about the research fields you criticize. Nor does it gain you credibility in academic discussion. 7/
Willard is right.
We have to be able to say: Hey hoaxers, you’ve taken enough of our time and energy.
8/
We have to be able to say: Hey hoaxers, you’ve taken enough of our time and energy.
8/
PS: If Helen hadn’t blocked me again, I admit I would be tempted to ask her, what is that intriguing, mysterious something that is wrong with me? 9/
Helen Pluckrose has already diagnosed that I am illiterate. That I lack reading comprehension. That I don’t know how arguments or logic work. And that I have a low IQ.
What’s next?
What is that extra thing that is wrong with me, Helen? 10/
What’s next?
What is that extra thing that is wrong with me, Helen? 10/
Saying that your critic is illiterate, can’t comprehend what they read, don’t know how to argue, don’t get logic, have low IQ—these are very familiar responses in discussion with fans of Helen, James, Peter, and the #IDW.
You could call them talking points.
11/
You could call them talking points.
11/
I’ve been addressed with these talking points many times. So many times, I’ve written threads on it.
You know what’s often next?
I tell you: you are mentally very ill.
I wonder if that’s the bush Helen is beating around. She can tell me any time.
12/
You know what’s often next?
I tell you: you are mentally very ill.
I wonder if that’s the bush Helen is beating around. She can tell me any time.
12/
@threadreaderapp unroll
