This thread is a perfect example of woke tactics
They make some claim (in this case @SLYProfessor says New Testament studies is sexist patriarchical etc) and if other scholars disagree (even if they do so gently and in good faith) the woke pretend the disagreement is bullying...
They make some claim (in this case @SLYProfessor says New Testament studies is sexist patriarchical etc) and if other scholars disagree (even if they do so gently and in good faith) the woke pretend the disagreement is bullying...
https://twitter.com/isaacsoon2/status/1499737046327480323
Pic 1: @isaacsoon2 says Kavin Rowe, who disagreed with the woke article, is punching down and being unprofessional.
Pic 2: @SLYProfessor (writer of the woke article) calls anther scholars work trash.
The woke name call, slander, and malign people, then accuse others of bullying
Pic 2: @SLYProfessor (writer of the woke article) calls anther scholars work trash.
The woke name call, slander, and malign people, then accuse others of bullying
Here @SLYProfessor uses a "kafka trap," a circular argument that works like this:
Someone makes an accusation, and when the accused denies the accusation, the accuser uses the denial as proof of guilt.
IE:
"you're guilty"
"I am not"
"That's what a guilty person would say"
Someone makes an accusation, and when the accused denies the accusation, the accuser uses the denial as proof of guilt.
IE:
"you're guilty"
"I am not"
"That's what a guilty person would say"
The kafka trap @SLYProfessor uses goes like this:
@SLYProfessor: "your reproducing a masculine dominated space"
Kavin Rowe "here is an argument that disagrees with your assesment"
@SLYProfessor: "disagreeing with my assesment is how you reproduce a masculine dominated space"
@SLYProfessor: "your reproducing a masculine dominated space"
Kavin Rowe "here is an argument that disagrees with your assesment"
@SLYProfessor: "disagreeing with my assesment is how you reproduce a masculine dominated space"
The argument @SLYProfessor is using is basically this:
1. If you agree with him then he is right.
2. If you disagree with him thst proves he is right.
3. Either you agree or disagree with him and therefore he is right.
1. If you agree with him then he is right.
2. If you disagree with him thst proves he is right.
3. Either you agree or disagree with him and therefore he is right.
This scholar realizes that the response to Kavin Rowe is overblown and absurd. He does not seem to realize that the mode of engagement he is worried about is the *ONLY* mode of engagement for social justice centered (less charitably "woke") scholars...
https://twitter.com/mbird12/status/1499864163987775489?t=1AKuwAU4qNE7pAngRCQafw&s=19
Raising hell, bullying, slandering, playing victim, passive aggressive snark, and invective are coin to the social justice activist realm.
They will also claim social justice centered worldview is a priori the only valid perspective from which to approach the topic.
They will also claim social justice centered worldview is a priori the only valid perspective from which to approach the topic.
Finay, let me just say that I am actually educated in this field. And so I am able to follow all of these debates *VERY* closely.
What they are doing to Kavin Rowe is obscene, and the way @SLYProfessor is behaving is awful.
Oh, one last thing...
What they are doing to Kavin Rowe is obscene, and the way @SLYProfessor is behaving is awful.
Oh, one last thing...
I have no problem with dunking on people if it's done honestly
Dunking is fine, dishonest insinuations are not.
Pointing out errors, inconsistency, or hypocrisy is fine.
Slander and invective are not, nor is pretending that goodfaith arguments are veiled attempts at bullying.
Dunking is fine, dishonest insinuations are not.
Pointing out errors, inconsistency, or hypocrisy is fine.
Slander and invective are not, nor is pretending that goodfaith arguments are veiled attempts at bullying.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
