3 ms·

Note that one of the two papers she quoted as evidence for the claimed growing trend of "Anthropology of the self" has been retracted: https://journals.sagepub.

Note that one of the two papers she quoted as evidence for the claimed growing trend of "Anthropology of the self" has been retracted: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/14687941221096600 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/14687941221096... The rest of the article also seems to be mostly hot air. Respecting whether people want to be touched or prefer distance? Woke horror! Being accessible to blind people? Ridiculous! Reflecting about colonialism and problematic aspects of anthropology? I better clutch my pearls even harder! Caring about the wishes of indigenous people? Literally 1984 Now yes we might have a discussion about Anthropology "over correcting" a bit too much in certain aspects but not with right-wing media that tries to push a certain narrative. (Like I do think professionals should be able to cope with seeing pictures of mummies. You don't really need to have a trigger warning for every image, just one general warning for the whole presentation. But hey, it's a nice gesture. People trying to be mindful of other people is hardly the beginning of a woke dictatorship though.)

fastball 4y ago
Isn't the retraction of the paper the author's point? That people are pushing nonsense and it is getting into "peer-reviewed" journals? The rest of your comment doesn't really follow the HN guidelines when it comes to the principle of charity – you seem to be trying to deliberately come up with the worst possible interpretation of each point rather than actually attempting to have a constructive conversation about these things.
- vector_spaces 4y ago
  The article is similar though. The "gaze" of the reader is doing all the heavy lifting here. Weiss is relying on us finding e.g. the ribbons indicating proximity preferences, and all the talk titles and so on as silly and as ridiculous as she does. What exactly is there left to engage with when you remove the bad faith ranting against her peers and junior researchers? Personally I don't think the original article itself meets site guidelines. It's culture war content, it's entirely in bad faith, and it's inviting (for the most part) really ugly and uninteresting discussion. There's little to seriously engage with here in a way that meets site guidelines

fastball 4y ago

Isn't the retraction of the paper the author's point? That people are pushing nonsense and it is getting into "peer-reviewed" journals? The rest of your comment doesn't really follow the HN guidelines when it comes to the principle of charity – you seem to be trying to deliberately come up with the worst possible interpretation of each point rather than actually attempting to have a constructive conversation about these things.

vector_spaces 4y ago
The article is similar though. The "gaze" of the reader is doing all the heavy lifting here. Weiss is relying on us finding e.g. the ribbons indicating proximity preferences, and all the talk titles and so on as silly and as ridiculous as she does. What exactly is there left to engage with when you remove the bad faith ranting against her peers and junior researchers? Personally I don't think the original article itself meets site guidelines. It's culture war content, it's entirely in bad faith, and it's inviting (for the most part) really ugly and uninteresting discussion. There's little to seriously engage with here in a way that meets site guidelines