More from Raju Ranjan
More from Navinflourine
NAVINFLUOR
Double Top Buy triggered above 3704.66 daily close on 3% Box Size chart. https://t.co/b5KkTmtjl5
Double Top Buy triggered above 3704.66 daily close on 3% Box Size chart. https://t.co/b5KkTmtjl5

NAVINFLUOR
— Saket Reddy (@saketreddy) March 2, 2021
Double Top Buy above 2839.32 daily close on 3% Box Size Chart and Double Top Buy active on 1% Box size chart. https://t.co/HiLu17wobZ pic.twitter.com/6JIStAhaSO
#NavinFluorine Looks headed to 4100 / 4200 levels next https://t.co/z5sc88chFt

#NavinFluorine A breakout above 3566, this one could head next to 4100/4200 levels. Long term levels have shared already. #Dare2DRM https://t.co/FvexrxG0T8 pic.twitter.com/DHYAiEZ1j9
— Dare2Dream (@Dare2Dr10109801) May 1, 2021
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" thing—physical 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" thing—physical 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?