What’s the egregious part? What do you find so embarrassing? What source are you considering? Why “useless”? What’s true and untrue academic freedom? Where’s there something authoritarian?
You know what I see? I see a veiled attempt to dismiss the academic freedom of two particular scholars, with no evidence or argumentative merit being brought to challenge their research. Curious. Curious.
If you want to hear the talk that brought about the above tweet, if you want to have your own thoughts on it, it’s here:
It’s very good.
Claire is gracing us with her hundreds of years of knowledge in philosophy. 😂
The reactionary shallowness of Claire’s “I’m not reactionary!”
Jon, puzzled: How can an attitude of “Nothing here is racist!” ever be racist?!
Jon, certain: If this academic is going to disagree with other academics, that’s definitely a witch hunt! And a black list!
He didn’t manage to work “academic mob” into it. Sad.
Anti-CRT reply dudes are so bad. Struggle to make a point. Fail to provide evidence. Refuse to read/watch scholarship on which they comment. But they have big bad feelings about it! No wonder they’re always irked that most scholars don’t think like them.
Ah, that's disappointing. Since Adichie has not publicly commented for a while on trans issues, I hoped she was thinking more critically following from earlier disappointing claims.
Linked below: my thread on why Rowling's anti-trans essay is not perfectly reasonable.
If you’re not in the middle of debates about trans rights & research on trans lives, you might be wondering what critics mean when they say Abigail Shrier’s work is transphobic. Allow me to lay a few points out for you, taken—for convenience—from her article in #Quillette. 1/
Shrier frames her work with the familiar stance of: I’m just asking questions! I’m only reporting on these ideas some have, what can be wrong with that?! Don’t stop the messenger of common sense ideas!
Then she lines up her words to make it sound like that’s what she’s doing. 2/
It is noticeable, however, that reporting on current research relating to trans girls isn’t what she’s doing. She’s made up her journalist mind that groups of professionals—with researched & constantly re-evaluated guidelines & ethics behind them—are merely “rubber-stamping.” 3/
I laughed. Malinda Smith argues with Jon Kay, points out several times how ill-informed he is on the issue and how disappointing his attempts at argument.
It has some of his favourite tropes, the ones that make him feel good when he’s been beaten at the game he was trying to play.
He’s got some back channel into your institution going! 2/
You are partly being paid by public money, you must be incapable to make it in the rough and tumble market where he, #Quillette editor, claims to do so well! 3/
A "sudden increase in expenses when you are living well below the poverty line creates an urgent crisis. And yet it would seem no one has responded as if disabled people are even part of this public health crisis, let alone uniquely at risk from it."
"Some have characterized the current situation as disabled people having been forgotten in the response to COVID. I disagree. Disabled people have been excluded, not forgotten."
"The highest numbers of deaths have occurred among residents of long-term care and other congregate care facilities. Who lives in these facilities if not disabled people? Why then was the 'D' word never used?"