More from Shubham Mishra๐ฎ๐ณโก
GNFC
Channel Update
I know many are holding it thats why posting this..I dont have any personal positions https://t.co/csDKE29Cp5
GNFC
Decision time coming soon๐
Channel Update
I know many are holding it thats why posting this..I dont have any personal positions https://t.co/csDKE29Cp5
#GNFC
— Shubham Mishra\U0001f1ee\U0001f1f3\u26a1 (@shubhfin) April 25, 2022
Coming back inside the channel https://t.co/5LRx3TrAjP pic.twitter.com/0Z6r5g3bks
GNFC
Decision time coming soon๐
More from Tataelxsi
#Tataelxsi-6580
Objective is to move higher towards
Fibonacci extension
6.857%(7294)
#Probability
Objective is to move higher towards
Fibonacci extension
6.857%(7294)
#Probability
#TATAELXSI-6277
— Waves_Perception(Dinesh Patel) \u092e\u0948\u0902Schedule Tribes) (@idineshptl) October 6, 2021
Objective is to move higher towards Fibonacci extension
6.857%(7294)#Probability https://t.co/M4rSDCf5kt
You May Also Like
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thingโphysical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thingโphysical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?