Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Fully Baked Left Wing Vegan Cookies
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
silverharp wrote: »but nobody can control who jumps on your bandwagon. I could care less about what stormfront does because they have no power and only appeal to a small number of low IQ and angry people. The progressive exremists on the other hand seem to be influencing how Universities go about their business for instance and are better placed to be part of the media, so they are worth calling out
Throwing acid in women's faces is bad. Agreed?
That's a statement that I don't think anyone here could argue with, it's unambiguous and straightforward and nobody in their right mind would disagree. That seems like it has nothing to do with anything, but it'll be relevant in a while so just keep that in mind.
Now, you say you could care less about what Stormfront does, I didn't mention that, I said The Daily Stormer which is a different thing entirely, it's a neo-nazi "news" site. And you should care, because they (and those like them) are quite openly recruiting and they are breeding extremism. Here's an article from the Daily Stormer, Reddit is Fertile Ground for Recruitment. The scary thing is if you look at all the racist subs on Reddit they are growing, and before it was finally banned, "Coontown" was getting bigger than stormfront. Reddit isn't the only place where neo-nazi ideology is being proliferated either, look at what happened with 4chan and /pol/. This is important because Charlseton shooter Dylann Roof was an avid reader and commentor on the Daily Stormer and believed that there was a Jewish conspiracy to destroy white culture.
Likewise Anders Breivik believed in cultural marxism, he believed that political correctness and cultural marxism was a plot to destroy Europe and erase white christian culture. I'm always reminded of the Voltaire quote, 'Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities' and both Roof and Breivik as well as others like them certainly believed absurdities. There's a rather interesting and relevant part in the Atlantic article that was posted here previously.Last fall, Omar Mahmood, a student at the University of Michigan, wrote a satirical column for a conservative student publication, The Michigan Review, poking fun at what he saw as a campus tendency to perceive microaggressions in just about anything. Mahmood was also employed at the campus newspaper, The Michigan Daily. The Daily’s editors said that the way Mahmood had “satirically mocked the experiences of fellow Daily contributors and minority communities on campus … created a conflict of interest.” The Daily terminated Mahmood after he described the incident to two Web sites, The College Fix and The Daily Caller. A group of women later vandalized Mahmood’s doorway with eggs, hot dogs, gum, and notes with messages such as “Everyone hates you, you violent prick.” When speech comes to be seen as a form of violence, vindictive protectiveness can justify a hostile, and perhaps even violent, response.
Don't get me wrong, can things go to far to the left? Oh my yes! Can political correctness go to extremes? Hell, the rise of insane amounts of trigger warnings and overt tumblrisms are a whole other kettle of fish, it's not even funny. If someone thinks that a bit of satire is worthy of such hostility, then that is certainly an extreme. It definitely deserves criticism, and nothing should be free from criticism I think you'll agree?
But what if someone believed there was a grand scheme that was hatched by marxist Jews to destroy white culture and that all the media, higher education, atheists, LGBT groups and just about any group that could be reasonably considered left wing were all in on it? If people believed that, what do you think they could justify doing in response? Don't be so focused on left wing extremism that you ignore the right wing extremism that's on the rise, and often times being injected into other groups and movements.
Now lets take a look at science fiction and what happened with the Hugo Awards shall we? The nominations were a pretty democratic process and anyone who payed for Wondercon membership could make their nominations. Right wing activist groups called the Sad Puppies and the Rabid Puppies got together to bloc vote a particular set of authors who reflected their conservative and far right politics because they felt the awards had been pushing a cultural marxist agenda. George R.R. Martin said on the subject, “The Sad Puppies have broken the Hugo awards, and I am not sure they can ever be repaired.”
The man behind the Rabid Puppies is one Vox Day. He's a sci-fi author, fundamentalist Christian and right-wing extremist nutcase. He really hates atheists too, and wrote 'The Irrational Atheist: Dissecting the Unholy Trinity of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens' among other nonsense. Atheism is another branch of cultural marxism, don't forget. He's a perfect example of an extremist trying to push his agenda and his politics into media. How much of an extremist is he? Well, bringing us full circle here, Vox Day thinks throwing acid in women's faces is a good thing, he actually said that "a few acid-burned faces is a small price to pay for lasting marriages, stable families, legitimate children, low levels of debt, strong currencies, affordable housing, homogenous populations, low levels of crime, and demographic stability."
Yeah...
Point is, a few years back you wouldn't have heard of cultural marxism outside of Nick Griffin and the BNP or the ramblings of neo-nazis, but now? It seems a lot of people have donned that particular tinfoil hat and aren't being very critical of it at all, the vernacular of far right extremism is entering the mainstream and that's a worrying thought.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Throwing acid in women's faces is bad. Agreed?
That's a statement that I don't think anyone here could argue with, it's unambiguous and straightforward and nobody in their right mind would disagree. That seems like it has nothing to do with anything, but it'll be relevant in a while so just keep that in mind.
Now, you say you could care less about what Stormfront does, I didn't mention that, I said The Daily Stormer which is a different thing entirely, it's a neo-nazi "news" site. And you should care, because they (and those like them) are quite openly recruiting and they are breeding extremism. Here's an article from the Daily Stormer, Reddit is Fertile Ground for Recruitment. The scary thing is if you look at all the racist subs on Reddit they are growing, and before it was finally banned, "Coontown" was getting bigger than stormfront. Reddit isn't the only place where neo-nazi ideology is being proliferated either, look at what happened with 4chan and /pol/. This is important because Charlseton shooter Dylann Roof was an avid reader and commentor on the Daily Stormer and believed that there was a Jewish conspiracy to destroy white culture.
But it still leaves Neo Nazis as being a marginal group that no one takes seriously, for sure they can actually commit criminal acts but then they will enter the justice system. Will Neo Nazis get their own tv shows , influence what happens in Universities, effect the legal system? if looking at the US and relative populations ought there not be 70 ot 80 odd Dylann Roof's for every home grown Muslim terrorists in the US? or is it more fair to say that in terms of extremist terrorism the "Dylann Roof" variety is exceptionally rare and maybe more a comment on US gun laws rather then a nation wide conspiracy problem based on extremist ideas.?Likewise Anders Breivik believed in cultural marxism, he believed that political correctness and cultural marxism was a plot to destroy Europe and erase white christian culture. I'm always reminded of the Voltaire quote, 'Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities' and both Roof and Breivik as well as others like them certainly believed absurdities. There's a rather interesting and relevant part in the Atlantic article that was posted here previously.
that doesnt get you anywhere, I am not going to not criticize Islam for instance because neo Nazis dont like Islam. As far as I am concerned "cultural Marxism" is just short hand for political correctness, extreme progressism, extreme feminism and the like. I dont believe its " a plot" , its just a hodge podge of bad ideas that have got out of control in certain circles.Don't get me wrong, can things go to far to the left? Oh my yes! Can political correctness go to extremes? Hell, the rise of insane amounts of trigger warnings and overt tumblrisms are a whole other kettle of fish, it's not even funny. If someone thinks that a bit of satire is worthy of such hostility, then that is certainly an extreme. It definitely deserves criticism, and nothing should be free from criticism I think you'll agree?
Well I see this as quite serious as it potentially has implications for free speech, effecting the quality of third level education, and possibly negatively effective they way kids are educated even.
Here is an interesting short enough discussion with Dave Rublin formally of the TYT network so a very progressive commentator with University professor Gad Saad. They actually seem to agree with the main criticisms of the Left. It goes into "safe spaces" and the rest
But what if someone believed there was a grand scheme that was hatched by marxist Jews to destroy white culture and that all the media, higher education, atheists, LGBT groups and just about any group that could be reasonably considered left wing were all in on it? If people believed that, what do you think they could justify doing in response? Don't be so focused on left wing extremism that you ignore the right wing extremism that's on the rise, and often times being injected into other groups and movements.
Now lets take a look at science fiction and what happened with the Hugo Awards shall we? The nominations were a pretty democratic process and anyone who payed for Wondercon membership could make their nominations. Right wing activist groups called the Sad Puppies and the Rabid Puppies got together to bloc vote a particular set of authors who reflected their conservative and far right politics because they felt the awards had been pushing a cultural marxist agenda. George R.R. Martin said on the subject, “The Sad Puppies have broken the Hugo awards, and I am not sure they can ever be repaired.”
The man behind the Rabid Puppies is one Vox Day. He's a sci-fi author, fundamentalist Christian and right-wing extremist nutcase. He really hates atheists too, and wrote 'The Irrational Atheist: Dissecting the Unholy Trinity of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens' among other nonsense. Atheism is another branch of cultural marxism, don't forget. He's a perfect example of an extremist trying to push his agenda and his politics into media. How much of an extremist is he? Well, bringing us full circle here, Vox Day thinks throwing acid in women's faces is a good thing, he actually said that "a few acid-burned faces is a small price to pay for lasting marriages, stable families, legitimate children, low levels of debt, strong currencies, affordable housing, homogenous populations, low levels of crime, and demographic stability."
Yeah...
Point is, a few years back you wouldn't have heard of cultural marxism outside of Nick Griffin and the BNP or the ramblings of neo-nazis, but now? It seems a lot of people have donned that particular tinfoil hat and aren't being very critical of it at all, the vernacular of far right extremism is entering the mainstream and that's a worrying thought.
if people are actually advocating violence then they are actual extremists so they will preach to the wilderness where they belong. Ans sure there is a religious right wing out there, which is why "new atheists" feel they have a platform to take on some of their issues but in a rational way and to undermine right wing extremists to the extent that they value christianity and make invalid argument based on race.A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer
0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
It's pretty silly to brush off the growing threat of right wing extremism by saying "oh, nobody takes neo-nazis seriously, they're only a marginal group" but the fact is that yes, there is a growing right-wing terror threat in the US.
but it comes back to relative numbers again ~80% of the US pop. is white and "christian" , less than 1% of the US population is Muslim , that means White extremists would need to kill 80 people for every 1 killed by Muslim terrorism before Muslim violence would becomce background noise.
It's strange that whenever people talk about Islamic terrorism in he US, it's always radical Islam and there's a unifying trait, but when a white person commits an act of terrorism, they're called a "lone wolf" and media will puzzle over their motivations. Dylann Roof isn't a lone wolf, he's just one of many people who've been radicalized through internet hate sites, just have a read of this, and keep in mind it was written before the Charlseton massacre.
have you to admit that the Islamic terrorism lends itself to wrapping itself up in a neat bow. To the extent there is other domestic violence its a bit of a hodge podge , either based on racism or anti Fed types. Ideally there should be equal criticism of both and not sweeping anything under the carpet.And by the way, "Cultural marxism" isn't shorthand for political correctness or extreme feminism or whatever, it is quite literally a conspiracy theory. It's kook-talk that a few years ago you wouldn't have heard anyone bar the far right using. From the wikipedia article, "According to Chip Berlet, who specializes in the study of extreme right-wing movements, the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory found fertile ground with the development of the Tea Party movement in 2009, with contributions published in the American Thinker and WorldNetDaily highlighted by some Tea Party websites." If you want to criticise overly PC notions, say that, if you want to be critical of feminism, say that. Cultural marxism is specifically the language of nutcases, extremists, and religious bigots, Alex Jones styled tinfoil hatters, as well as a certain friend of ours.
Terms morph but Im happy to stick to SJW's in the future. the way I believe people use "cultural Marxism" is to get at the underlying theory that everything is a social construct which for me is akin to a secular form of Young Earth Creationists , it means having very tightly wound theories which have to be heavily defended as any chink would unravel the lot.
Here is Dawkins lashing into Feminist nonsense , I doubt he tunes into Alex Jones
A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer
0 -
silverharp wrote: »but it comes back to relative numbers again ~80% of the US pop. is white and "christian" , less than 1% of the US population is Muslim , that means White extremists would need to kill 80 people for every 1 killed by Muslim terrorism before Muslim violence would becomce background noise.
have you to admit that the Islamic terrorism lends itself to wrapping itself up in a neat bow. To the extent there is other domestic violence its a bit of a hodge podge , either based on racism or anti Fed types. Ideally there should be equal criticism of both and not sweeping anything under the carpet.
That's just getting away from the point. You keep trying to bring the argument back to right-wing terrorism not being as bad as Islamic terrorism (which yes, by the way, does wrap itself up neatly, but my point being so too does the ideologies behind right-wing terror) when the comparison being made is the ills of left-wing vs. right-wing ideology. And the doubtlessly horrendous ills that the left is supposedly wreaking on society is that college students may be being molleycoddled, or something... possibly?
I've previously said that I think that political correctness and the prevalence of trigger warnings can certainly go too far, but if you'll allow me to backtrack for a moment, the more I think about it, the more I think it's not really as huge an issue and maybe one of branding more than anything else? The term trigger warning is relatively new, at least in common usage, but the idea of content warnings certainly isn't, they're commonplace and have been around for ages, and society is used to various forms of content warnings in nearly all walks of life. That's not to say I don't have issue with the term 'trigger warning' and the co-opting of terminology that was previously used in reference to PTSD, I most certainly do.
But let me ask you this, ever read a movie review and the author said "Spoiler warning!" before revealing plot details? Of course, that's just being considerate, it gives the reader a heads-up before potentially spoiling something, and gives them the agency to decide for themselves if they want to read the content. Likewise, you ever see all those "Warning: Explicit Content" on album covers? ESRB ratings on games that warn of violent content, blood and gore, strong language, ect? TV content rating systems? I regularly browse /r/WTF on reddit, and there are big red tags that say "WARNING: DEATH" or similar content warning over gore, or NSFW material. It's great, because I personally don't want to see anything where someone gets killed. All of these sorts of things, giving people heads-ups about content, are perfectly normal, but I wonder how unpopular they would be if these were instead called trigger warnings? Would people be similarly outraged?silverharp wrote: »Terms morph but Im happy to stick to SJW's in the future. the way I believe people use "cultural Marxism" is to get at the underlying theory that everything is a social construct which for me is akin to a secular form of Young Earth Creationists , it means having very tightly wound theories which have to be heavily defended as any chink would unravel the lot.
I think you'll have to elaborate more on that. I'm not quite following you here, what specifically has an underlying theory that everything is a social construct, and what exactly requires having very tightly wound theories? Are you talking the idea social constructs as a whole? Because the term is certainly very useful:social construct
noun
a social mechanism, phenomenon, or category created and developed by society; a perception of an individual, group, or idea that is 'constructed' through cultural or social practice
What we do in this very forum, is critiquing a social construct; religion.silverharp wrote: »Here is Dawkins lashing into Feminist nonsense , I doubt he tunes into Alex Jones
Well Dawkins doesn't make reference to any crackpot conspiracy theories in that vid now, does he? So this is not an apt comparison. But lets take a wee look at the content of that vid for a minute, the supposed postmodernism invading science.
"E=MC2 is a sexist equation"
WTF?! Well I'm glad I wasn't taking a drink when I heard him quote that, because I would've spluttered it all over my monitor! At first I thought, no way would anyone say something so unbelievably, absurdly stupid, that can't be real! Was this a joke or satire that was mistakenly taken seriously? So I had to look it up to see was this actually something that was honestly claimed, and the second hit was this thread on reddit, Did Luce Irigaray ever actually say e=mc^2 is a sexed equation? And it seems unlikely that that was actually said by Irigaray, so it's probably not even a real quote.
But to the claim that post-modernism is invading science, lets look that for a moment. Luce Irigaray (who the above quote was attributed to) had a PhDs in Linguistics and Philosophy, and a masters in Psychology, but from the wikipedia article; "Her first major book Speculum of the Other Woman published in 1974, caused significant controversy within the Lacanian school in France and led to her losing a university appointment at the prompting of Lacan himself." So this doesn't really seem all that relevent, and even if the above quote is true, they're not teaching kids that E=MC2 is sexist in schools now, are they?
I do know of other folks who are getting their unscientific nonsense into schools, the religious right, and they're definitely pushing their ideology into not just schools, but look at all the climate change spoofing? That's some serious invasion of science right there, I wonder who could be behind it? It wouldn't be those same Koch Brothers who've been spending $900mil on the 2016 elections, they're not pouring money into conservative think-tanks and funding climate change-denial, are they? Oh no, looks like they are!A US activist group that has received funding from energy companies and the foundation controlled by conservative activist Charles Koch is trying to persuade the Vatican that “there is no global warming crisis” ahead of an environmental statement by Pope Francis this summer that is expected to call for strong action to combat climate change.
The Heartland Institute, a Chicago-based conservative thinktank that seeks to discredit established science on climate change, said it was sending a team of climate scientists to Rome “to inform Pope Francis of the truth about climate science”.
So yeah, I'm a little more concerned over what the right is doing, what they're influencing and what they're pushing than the left. Just so I'm clear, that's not an endorsement of the excesses of the left either, there is certainly a lot that deserves criticism there too. But you just might want to take notice of the money the Koch Brothers are putting into influencing schools and universities, oh boy! They might have more influence than some feminist philosopher who lost her job over 40 years ago.
And I apologise for going off on this tangent, I know this is about left wing kooks, but this discussion is just so damn interesting.0 -
-
-
Nobody is stopping you from criticizing Islam though, your previous comment "I am not going to not criticize Islam for instance because neo Nazis dont like Islam" is also creating this notion that you're not allowed your criticisms. That's not the case, I'm not saying don't poke holes in this particular religion, what I'm saying is that it's not relevent to this particular line of discussion, we're comparing left to right and not Christian to Muslim.
But if you keep wanting to talk about Islam, ok then, lets talk about it for a moment. Lets just establish something first, criticism of Islam is not racism, we'll make that clear from the get go. I'm sure that's a point we can both agree on, but here's where things get a little more complicated, because racism against Muslims is rife. Atheist and secular criticism of Islam does not exist in a bubble and we cannot talk about these issues without acknowledging prejudice and racial hatred. We need only look at the Wisconsin mosque shooting, the EDL rallies in the UK, or similar rallies in Australia to see that. You have incidents like this, or you have that lunatic George Zimmerman in the news again because he's raising money for a gun store owner who wants to make his business a "Muslim free zone"!
I was reading an interesting article here about a Muslim woman's experiences with racism and harrassment she recieves.
but my point is that the Left dont criticise Islam and they should because its anti women an gay rights for starters, and dont like that the likes of Bill Maher or Sam Harris criticising Islam and start using the racism label in an attempt to shut down debate , Harris and Maher would label themselves as Liberal, so its not a left/right thing more like centre left wondering what the far left is up to
As for Reclaim Australia its a bit of a messy group as it uses nationalistic symbols, attracts far right, but also attracts normal people. Again you could criticise the left hear for trying to organsise violent counter demonstrations and making a nuisance of themselves , why not organise seperate meetings and trade ideas in the market place as it were?
Only extremists want violence so who is going to condone that in the middle ground? Attacking ideas isnt racist
The issue here is again perhaps one of branding, Islamophobia is a very problematic term because while it describes a fear or hatred of a faith in the same that homophobia describes a fear or hatred of a sexuality, it's more often used as a catch-all for anti-Muslim racism. We're also far too used to Christians pulling the "Help, we're being oppressed!" card, and they've also gone as far as to coin the term 'Christophobia to this end, but we're not buying it. So it's understandable there's a lot of skepticism towards Islamophobia, and that there can be deflection where comments critical of Islam is brushed away as racism, the opposite is most certainly true also, and that there are those who are using the criticism of ideology as a shield for racism and all manner of abhorrent viewpoints.
which is why Bill Maher said on his show "its not racist when we do it" . It come down to the pedigree of the people you are dealing with. Dawkins being critical of Islam is different than a skinhead doing it or a fundi christian or neocon doing it.If we accept that the term Islamophobia also encompasses anti-muslim racism, then the position that 'there's no such thing as Islamophobia' is an incomprehensibly stupid one, because it is objectively not true. There is bias against, and discrimination of, Muslims in western society and that is pretty indisputable. The liberal or progressive left position is not one of "don't criticize Islam or you're a racist" that's a gross mischaracterization, it's one of more nuance and that this is a different situation, it's a position of acknowledging that this is a more complex issue and addressing it in those terms. Criticism of Islam is not, as you perhaps fear, verboten.
Yep nobody said there is no such thing as Islamophobia, there is if the group/individuals are generally racist or uber nationalist or makes no attempt to engage with moderate/secular Islam.
There's this notion that free speech is a sort of "I can say whatever I want and you gotta shut up and listen!" or that free speech entitles people to a platform, it doesn't. I keep referring to this xkcd when the subject comes up. Yes, it is a core value of Western society, but so to is the freedom to protest, they are intrinsically linked concepts. Freedom of speech is also the freedom to boycott, protest, petition, and this is often forgotten.
but then its chaos. A university for instance is a market place for ideas, If Iona want to organise an anti abortion meeting at a college, you dont picket it, you dont hit the fire alarm and you dont phone in death threats. You organise your own meeting otherwise it just comes across as being very insecure about your beliefs and it is anti free speech.
for example , the kinda stuff in this video, approve? not approve?
Also, the issue that schools in the US will hold assembleys for some very, very dodgy material like this, is quite a serious one. That's something that should not be happening, and it is quite wrong in the sense that it is foisting propaganda on a captive audience. We quite rightly praise Jessica Ahlquist as a hero for what she and the ACLU did. Likewise, policies of denying platforms to people or groups with certain ideological viewpoints in universities is not a violation of free speech either, and this cuts left as well as right, what with radical feminist Julie Bindel regularly being denied speaking opportunities in universities for her frankly vile rhetoric. Her protests from her Guardian column about being silenced are about as ironic as Breda O'Brien using our national broadcaster and newspapers to say with a straight-face "Help, I'm being silenced!"
In the US its unconstitutional to present religious propaganda in schools so all violations of this should be fought. As for universities again its a private space so the authorities should have some say but it should be in the spirit of genuine educational curiosity and be a market place for ideas.
First off, citation needed for your claim that there seems to be a push in education to see boys as "broken girls".
But yes, gender (not sex) is a social construct in the sense that our roles are societally influenced, that notions about men and women's aptitudes and abilities are cultural, rather than innate. This is a claim that rather than being contrary to scientific evidence, is being proved by science.
Christina Hoff Sommers has written about the area of boys suffering in Education because of misguided Feminist policy . Below is a particular interview where she was getting a hard time , it has its own analysis, cant remember some of the points now as its a while since I watched it.
For your other points , sure society influences but there is also an element of hard wiring tendencies. For instance in gender neutral Sweden , boys still play with boys toys and girls play with girls toys and that is based on biological preferences and even in later life with choices open to everyone, Swedish women "choose" not to go into engineering.
So while under selling girls abilities is wrong of course there isnt necessarily something wrong if more men always want to do engineering. In the end you will have a better education system if you acknowledge difference between the sexes instead of burying it if its contrary to evidence.
interesting talk by an evolutionary biologist on this area in particular about kids.
There is in fact a lot of interesting things out there demonstrating that women being underrepresented in science is an issue of attitude and not aptitude, and it's getting pretty damn clear that these differences between genders are not innate biological differences. Likewise gender roles are most certainly cultural, this isn't ignoring biological differences, it's showing what is not attributable to biology.
Im not convinced for now , I genuinely dont see a time where the top mathematicians will be women for example unless they are gender quoted in :pac: and the top men are barred. As I understand based on IQ studies that men have a higher variance from the mean so there will be a tendency for men to filter to the top of areas like mathematics or Astro physics. The price men of course is that for one of these high achievers there might be a hundred men living on the streets (and the feminists dont care so much for this group)
You also see it in general behaviour , men get obsessive about small ranges of activity which is a good thing if you are trying to solve a new mathametical proof.
Thankfully, but Dawkins is not above criticism himself, and what he does in that video is little more than punching up a strawman.
there certainly was a post modern attempt to try to get into the hard sciences in the 90's but maybe they have backed away now
the importance of a feminist critique for contemporary cell biology...Anyone?
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3810051?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
Towards a Feminist Algebra
http://flum.blogspot.ie/1994/10/in-toward-feminist-algebra-paper.html
Paul Feyerabend
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_FeyerabendFeyerabend described science as being essentially anarchistic, obsessed with its own mythology, and as making claims to truth well beyond its actual capacity. He was especially indignant about the condescending attitudes of many scientists towards alternative traditions. For example, he thought that negative opinions about astrology and the effectivity of rain dances were not justified by scientific research, and dismissed the predominantly negative attitudes of scientists towards such phenomena as elitist or racist. In his opinion, science has become a repressing ideology, even though it arguably started as a liberating movement. Feyerabend thought that a pluralistic society should be protected from being influenced too much by science, just as it is protected from other ideologies.A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer
0 -
http://dailycaller.com/2015/08/17/yale-professor-seeks-to-abolish-the-word-master/A professor at Yale University is attempting to stamp out the use of the word “master” at the school, claiming it is so offensive to the college’s black and female students that some have had to move off campus to avoid it.
Yale organizes its undergraduate students into one of 12 different residential colleges, which are a core feature of daily life at the school. Besides having their own dormitories, each residential college also has a separate dining facility and library, and can organize its own special events. Additionally, each college has a master, typically drawn from the school’s faculty, who lives in a special house allotted to them on campus.
But now, professor Stephen Davis, master of Pierson College, has said that he no longer wants his students to refer to him as “Master Davis.”
“I have found the title of the office I hold deeply problematic given the racial and gendered weight it carries,” Davis wrote in an email to Pierson students Friday, according to the Yale Daily News. “I think there should be no context in our society or in our university in which an African-American student, professor, or staff member—or any person, for that matter—should be asked to call anyone ‘master’ … And there should be no context where male-gendered titles should be normalized as markers of authority.”A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer
0 -
I don't think this quite qualifies him as a left-wing vegan cookie. All he is asking is that people do not use a particular title that, conventionally, would be attributed to him. Lots of people do that, for a variety of reasons.silverharp wrote: »
If he's a left-wing vegan cookie then so is the Duchess of Cornwall, who doesn't use the title "Princess of Wales" though she is, in fact, the Princess of Wales. And any world-view which requires us to regard the Duchess of Cornwall as a left-wing vegan cookie is, um, a bit skewed.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Is this your paraphrase of Davis's statement that "there have been instances when the title has made students, faculty and guests uncomfortable"?silverharp wrote: »But the reasons aren't about pomposity, its that some students are going near foetal position having to use the term . are these the kind of people we want possibly working in an operating theatre?
This isn't rocket science. Yale is perceived as an exclusive and elitist institution. If people - particularly people from minority groups - are made to feel uncomfortable by this imported and inapprorpiate faux-Oxbridge nonsense, then that's a problem for an institution seeking to establish itself as open to all, and a meritocracy. Obviously it should be dropped. This isn't so much left-wing vegan cookieism as basic common sense. Though if you stand far enough to the right, I grant you it can be hard to distinguish between the two!
0 -
Fairly short and to the point - she raises some very good points indeed.silverharp wrote: »for example , the kinda stuff in this video, approve? not approve?0 -
Advertisement
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6yNBSxQ_tE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1pJ8vYxL3Q
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfzUG70nN6k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tV1m71WT9s0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wRIoE9QJ9M
Advertisement