I wrote this as postmodernist parody of #JamesLindsay.
There's a deeper point: History of research disciplines tells us that as you build new knowledge, even through sometimes aggressive critique of others' work, you need to build it with others' concepts and ideas. 1/
Even as you build your knowledge *against* some other knowledge that you think is dead wrong, you need to build it *with* knowledge that's already around, and you need to choose that knowledge with care and scrutiny as to its quality. 2/
Part of the process is that you tell your readers & listeners what that knowledge is. Who are the sources? What are the concepts? How do you relate them together? How do see them apply to your evidence? What questions do you pick up from where, which do you leave aside? 3/
As you do that, you outline your academic or intellectual or epistemic community. Often that's a mixed community--you pick up some aspect from someone's work, but leave others silent or even reject them explicitly. 4/
As a result, even if you claim to do something very very new and unheard of, you cannot claim you do this work without help. You stand with others.
Also, your work will be judged in part by the quality of the work with which you stand.
I teach this in all my courses. 5/
I teach this in the first-year research writing courses. 6/
I get the sense that #JamesLindsay thinks he doesn't need that help. He can do it all himself. Hammer out his own, handmade concepts. Swing them together in loopy motion. Wield them, by himself, in his fight against full research departments and international associations. 7/
And he thinks he's doing great. He tells himself, and his fans, that he's smarter than everyone.
Meanwhile, there are crowds of academics from a range of fields going: "What's that? Where did you get that idea? Who are you building on with that wacky way of thinking?" 8/
I've been fascinated by yet another pronoun discussion that's been happening in various subthreads. It all took off from this tweet. Let me share some interesting observations that have emerged—about the powerful aura of gendered pronouns! 1/
Pronouns are a very functional class of words. I love them, linguistically, because of the intra-situational relations they create and rely upon. Very basically, a pronoun is a word, chosen from a limited set, that is used to stand in for other words, phrases, and concepts. 2/
When analyzing how pronouns are pragmatically used, the first thing you ask yourself is: what is this pronoun's antecedent? What is the word, phrase, or concept which came before (in a text or utterance) or which is part of this situation and which is replaced by this pronoun? 3/
@AmberGloryHole @mashakleiner @skyscaping @AHousefather @marcomendicino @UBC In her own video, several protestors at the encampment speak to Masha. But she keeps claiming—falsely—that they won’t speak to anyone.
@AmberGloryHole @mashakleiner @skyscaping @AHousefather @marcomendicino @UBC In her own video, Masha reads aloud the camp community rule of “solidarity with Gaza & the Palestinian people.” But she keeps claiming—falsely & insistently—that this means, “You have to agree that Israel must be annihilated to go in. This is genocidal.”
@AmberGloryHole @mashakleiner @skyscaping @AHousefather @marcomendicino @UBC Once again, this happens. I engage in dialogue with one of the insistent critics of the UBC encampment, a critic who repeatedly professes to want dialogue and who complains that protestors don’t talk to them as often as they want them to.
Someone tweeted a Riley Gaines clip at me today thinking it unassailably showed we should not teach about trans identities and experiences in schools. The question attached to it was, „Are you okay with enabling this kind of abuse?“
In the clip, Gaines talks about feeling mistreated in a photo op with Lia Thomas. They both won 5th place. Thomas was the tiniest fraction ahead, not enough to effect placement. But enough to say Thomas should hold the single available 5th-place trophy. Gaines got hers mailed.
Gaines gets tearful about the emotional effect it had on her that Thomas was holding the trophy which she had also won.
#NathanCofnas has written a response to recent journalistic articles critical of his appointment as Leverhulme fellow in philosophy at Cambridge. I was tempted to line up the terms he is using to give the impression that his work can't have been debunked.
So, let's do that. 1/
A: terms he uses to describe his own work
B: terms for the work of his critics
A: He works in "philosophy of biology and ethics" and his paper in a "highly respected philosophy and psychology journal" calls for "free inquiry into all possible causes of race difference" in IQ.
B: In response to that story, a "small group of philosophers" had "a meltdown" which is "its own funny story."
I'll leave out the description of his encounters with the journalists at the two news outlets; it's not as relevant to the characterization of his & others' research.
1. Do your white supremacists things. Write blog posts, tweets, articles in which you take white supremacist positions. Attend white supremacist rallies. Take photos with Nazi symbols. Whatever it is you like to do.
2. Do it repeatedly, perhaps more openly in public & more veiled in professional life. Do it enough until your students and colleagues are alert to it and your university administration notices.
3. When an investigation is launched, immediately contact FIRE. Let them in on the public parts.
4. Provide FIRE with receipts that show you engaging in public political expression. Indicate how people have noticed you doing so & have sent career-threatening emails to your uni.
Pit of a puzzle to me how one can say faculty *must* work to make their institutions more equal and inclusive, and then dismiss a request to sketch out how faculty do this work they *must* do as "purity tests" that open some mysterious yet unsavoury doors.