I've been following this conversation a bit, and it's a very strange one. Aurelian, you seem to be suggesting that when Goodwin was investigating radicalisation, academics should have pre-empted his own radicalisation when they had no evidence to do so. When they had that evidence they distanced. - ThreadSky

thombeckett.com • 3 days ago

I've been following this conversation a bit, and it's a very strange one. Aurelian, you seem to be suggesting that when Goodwin was investigating radicalisation, academics should have pre-empted his own radicalisation when they had no evidence to do so. When they had that evidence they distanced.

Comments

aurelmondon.bsky.social•3 days ago

Not quite what I'm saying. I'm saying there were signs that were clear and pointed as such by some colleagues long before most distanced themselves

This is what we need to reflect about but has been ignored

robfordmancs.bsky.social•3 days ago

You say "there were signs that were clear", but you won't say what they were. You say some colleagues had more foresight, but you wont say on what grounds. You say others need to reflect, but you won't say what they did or failed to do that they should reflect upon.

robfordmancs.bsky.social•3 days ago

You say the need to reflect has been ignored. I have specifically asked you, multiple times: "Tell me what I have done or failed to do that I should reflect upon". You won't say. But now you tell others your call for reflection is being ignored.

thombeckett.com•3 days ago

I'm going to step back out here, other than to say, I think the position you're holding is totally baffling to me.

thombeckett.com•3 days ago

I dispute that those signs were clear. I also dispute that it's incumbent on all academics to be aware of all negative signs of colleagues before they become clear. When the clarity existed, the distancing happened. I think the person that should be held responsible for Goodwin's views is Goodwin.

robfordmancs.bsky.social•3 days ago

I 100% agree with this, which puts the case concisely and well. If Aurelian wishes to contest it, he should provide specific grounds for doing so. If the case was as clear and obvious as early as he claims it to be, then that should not be hard.

aurelmondon.bsky.social•3 days ago

And that's fine, dispute it, you've got every right to.

Does that make it wrong for me to say it though, particularly as I have researched these things and made my case in great detail in my publications? Again, you may disagree with my findings but you can't say it's not thoroughly explained

thombeckett.com•3 days ago

Where are these publications? I don't remember seeing any links in the thread?

aurelmondon.bsky.social•3 days ago

You can find them all here and most are open access (recent ones at least). If you can't access one, send me an email:

https://researchportal.bath.ac.uk/en/persons/aurelien-mondon

thombeckett.com•3 days ago

I don't have time to read these right now, but are there any specific ones that you think make the case well?

benstanley.eu•2 days ago

Yes, early Goodwin had some vaguely conservative views (or so it seemed to me on the one occasion I met him), which gradually evolved in the direction of Brexit-sympathising right, and then rapidly in the direction of populism and nativism. Rob became more critical of Goodwin around the time he

benstanley.eu•2 days ago

started to play fast and loose with data to support the kind of positions he (Rob) otherwise acknowledged it was legitimate for Goodwin to hold. Indeed, much of the initial criticism of and disquiet about Goodwin was occasioned by his cavalier use of methods he was inadequately trained in. As his

benstanley.eu•2 days ago

views and rhetoric became more radical, the focus shifted to condemnation of his positions and his dishonest mischaracterisation of others’ positions. Goodwin’s radicalisation was a process, as was the evolving response to it from people like Rob. The idea that this could all have been foreseen

benstanley.eu•2 days ago

from the start - or even from the moment of Goodwin’s turn towards a more Brexit-sympathetic position - is for the birds.

thombeckett.com•2 days ago

Really interesting context, thank you!

thombeckett.com•3 days ago

Maybe you have the foresight to know what anyone you come into contact with will think in the future, but it seems like a high bar to me.

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply