Fully Baked Left Wing Vegan Cookies

Absolam

silverharp wrote: »

but you would accept that "feminist theory" should not be included in state programmes? as its just a form of indoctrination.

I'm not sure feminist theory is a form of indoctrination; probably fairer to say that someone might be indoctrinated with feminist theory as easily as with any other theory, and those who find feminist theories unpalatable would find such indoctrination unpalatable.

silverharp wrote: »

And surely "being skeptical" means looking at potential problems or the motivations of the individuals involved in putting the programme together.
sure I havnt read the material, it wont affect my kids so Im just not that interested but Im sure somebody will over time or parents will start giving feedback after its rolled out, however if the material has been put together by ideologues then its good if everyone is on notice? someone linked this article , highlighting not mine but it seems to raise legitimate concerns.

I'd say being skeptical means looking at the actual programme first, rather then questioning the motives of those involved based on someone else's opinions of the programme? It really should stand or fall on it's own merits, rather than being damned for the perceived failings of those connected with it.

Peregrinus

Absolam has it. Unless you're advocating an "education" entirely devoid of values, theories or beliefs of any kind (even if such a thing is possible) what you term "indoctrination" is unavoidable. The question is not whether we inculcate beliefs and values in our children, but what beliefs and values we are to inculcate. Terming the inculcation of particular beliefs and values "indoctrination" tells me that you don't share those particular beliefs and values, but nothing more.

And I'd just point to the irony of quoting an opinion piece from The Australian to show that the editorial stance of The Australian is justified.

silverharp

Absolam wrote: »

I'm not sure feminist theory is a form of indoctrination; probably fairer to say that someone might be indoctrinated with feminist theory as easily as with any other theory, and those who find feminist theories unpalatable would find such indoctrination unpalatable.

its indoctrinating kids with feminist theory and the kids will not know its unpalatable and most of the parents will be oblivious. wasnt there some Australian initiative about curtailing religious indoctrination on the basis that the state requires kids to attend school, the same care should be taken here.

Peregrinus

Look, a world in which Tony Abbot can become Prime Minister of Australia is clearly a world which needs more feminist theory, not less!

silverharp

Peregrinus wrote: »

Absolam has it. Unless you're advocating an "education" entirely devoid of values, theories or beliefs of any kind (even if such a thing is possible) what you term "indoctrination" is unavoidable. The question is not whether we inculcate beliefs and values in our children, but what beliefs and values we are to inculcate. Terming the inculcation of particular beliefs and values "indoctrination" tells me that you don't share those particular beliefs and values, but nothing more.

And I'd just point to the irony of quoting an opinion piece from The Australian to show that the editorial stance of The Australian is justified.

ok but whats is your view of feminist theory? should boys be thought about dismantling "the Patriarchy" "white male privilege" and all the other stuff that come out of gender departments as received fact? surely if you are putting a programme together for kids on relationships there are good academic methodologies out there to highlight why bad things happen in relationships and so educate kids without reference to political ideology


I get it you dont like the australian, but there are some academics named in the piece, if the paper misrepresented their views or the academics are charlatans maybe you could find a hole instead of relying on impugning the source

Peregrinus

I''ve told you, silverharp, I haven't looked at the course materials and have no opinion about them. I just don't trust the Australian - and particularly not an opinion piece by Bettian Arndt - to give me a balanced presentation of the issues at stake here. I'm certainly not impugning the academics she quotes, but nor am I assuming that they would agree with her presentation of their views, or with the conclusion she draws.

Basically, if I cared to know about this, I wouldn't be starting my researches with the Murdoch press. That would really be a better starting point for someone who did't care to know about this. This thread is for calling attention to "fully baked left wing vegan loonies", which is a noble and worthy cause, but it's not a cause that's advanced - if anything, the reverse - by reposting chunks from The Australian. The Australian exemplifies attitudes for which another thread is maintained.

"Should boys be thought about dismantling "the Patriarchy" "white male privilege" and all the other stuff that come out of gender departments as received fact?" Well, none of the news reports - not even Bettina Arndt in the Australian - says that this course does teach that. It looks to me as if you're just having a Pavlovian reaction to the word "feminist", to be honest.

silverharp

Peregrinus wrote: »

I''ve told you, silverharp, I haven't looked at the course materials and have no opinion about them. I just don't trust the Australian - and particularly not an opinion piece by Bettian Arndt - to give me a balanced presentation of the issues at stake here. I'm certainly not impugning the academics she quotes, but nor am I assuming that they would agree with her presentation of their views, or with the conclusion she draws.

Basically, if I cared to know about this, I wouldn't be starting my researches with the Murdoch press. That would really be a better starting point for someone who did't care to know about this. This thread is for calling attention to "fully baked left wing vegan loonies", which is a noble and worthy cause, but it's not a cause that's advanced - if anything, the reverse - by reposting chunks from The Australian. The Australian exemplifies attitudes for which another thread is maintained.

"Should boys be thought about dismantling "the Patriarchy" "white male privilege" and all the other stuff that come out of gender departments as received fact?" Well, none of the news reports - not even Bettina Arndt in the Australian - says that this course does teach that. It looks to me as if you're just having a Pavlovian reaction to the word "feminist", to be honest.

whats balanced media this day? whatever the Oz equivalent of the Guardian , might well want boys to hear about white male privilege so they aint going to run critical articles. Pavlovian is a bit of a smear word so Ill not agree to that however if feminists or self proclaimed Marxists are involved in this I would have a default scepticism because they tend not to be rigorous academics

silverharp

nice juxta here


https://t.co/cekMpj7voQ




South African vegan cookies wanting to get rid of western science and start over

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9SiRNibD14

Peregrinus

The Australian equivalent of the Guardian is, in fact, the Guardian, which has an Australian bureau and produces an online Australian edition (having spotted a gap in the Australian media landscape for a left-of-centre quality daily). A search on their Australian site for "respectful relationships" produces this opinion piece. The author, by way of background, is a well-known activist on family violence who became so when her 11-year old son was murdered by her estranged and mentally-ill husband.

Absolam

silverharp wrote: »

its indoctrinating kids with feminist theory and the kids will not know its unpalatable and most of the parents will be oblivious. wasnt there some Australian initiative about curtailing religious indoctrination on the basis that the state requires kids to attend school, the same care should be taken here.

Is it? How much of the programme have you read?

silverharp

Peregrinus wrote: »

The Australian equivalent of the Guardian is, in fact, the Guardian, which has an Australian bureau and produces an online Australian edition (having spotted a gap in the Australian media landscape for a left-of-centre quality daily). A search on their Australian site for "respectful relationships" produces this opinion piece. The author, by way of background, is a well-known activist on family violence who became so when her 11-year old son was murdered by her estranged and mentally-ill husband.

you cant teach boys to not be mentally ill as adults, so already we have a case that wouldn't fit into this programme and in fairness an "activist" doesn't have the same weight as a group of respected academics. domestic violence goes both ways, the tone of that article seems to make it an issue that only affects women which if so framed would mean boys would have to sit through classes where they are being shamed as a group. its an issue that needs a holistic approach and possibly include smart approaches like teaching young people to spot likely abusers or learn about different personality types from a psychological perspective or ways to spot that one is in an abusive relationship. maybe it contains some of that who knows.

Absolam wrote: »

Is it? How much of the programme have you read?

I believe I said I havnt read any of the material, the 2 points of interest for me are the people behind it and secondly that in a pilot, concerns were raised but they appear to be rolling it out anyway. Ill row in behind respected academics that appear to have been stonewalled.

Absolam

silverharp wrote: »

I believe I said I havnt read any of the material, the 2 points of interest for me are the people behind it and secondly that in a pilot, concerns were raised but they appear to be rolling it out anyway. Ill row in behind respected academics that appear to have been stonewalled.

So without even having read any of it you know its indoctrinating kids with feminist theory and the kids will not know its unpalatable and most of the parents will be oblivious. Impressive.

silverharp

new word for today "manterruppting"

secondly, internet cookie for anyone that can reconcile points 4 & 5

robindch

What's a "reproductive difference" and how can one react negatively to one?

Pherekydes

I find women are the worst "manterrupters".

recedite

robindch wrote: »

What's a "reproductive difference" and how can one react negatively to one?

A whole box of internet cookies to anyone who can answer that one.

Absolam

robindch wrote: »

What's a "reproductive difference" and how can one react negatively to one?

Off the top of my head, I have known people to say "Uurgh... breeders. Can we go somewhere else?" Would that count?

Absolam

Pherekydes wrote: »

I find women are the worst "manterrupters".

Pherekydes

Pherekydes wrote: »

I find women are the worst "manterrupters".

I take it back. George Hook is the worst manterrupter and mansplainer of all time. :mad:

PopePalpatine

I take it you've tuned into his dumpster fire of a radio show? :pac:

robindch

Pherekydes wrote: »

George Hook is the worst manterrupter and mansplainer of all time.

Genuine question - why do people listen to this kind of stuff? Is it to feel annoyed or justified or something else?

On the one occasion I tuned in a few years back, it was like listening to a toddler bang a piano with a stick.

Pherekydes

robindch wrote: »

Genuine question - why do people listen to this kind of stuff? Is it to feel annoyed or justified or something else?

On the one occasion I tuned in a few years back, it was like listening to a toddler bang a piano with a stick.

Sometimes you want roughage and sometimes you want ice cream, with added cream, and maple syrup.

It's garbage for the intellect.

robindch

Pherekydes wrote: »

It's garbage for the intellect.

Three words too many in that sentence.

silverharp

The SPLC have labelled Ayaan Hirsi Ali Maajid Nawaz as "anti-Muslim extremists" :pac: they seem to be getting a bit of flak on Twitter over it.


https://www.splcenter.org/news/2016/10/26/splc-publishes-media-guide-countering-prominent-anti-muslim-extremists

FA Hayek

silverharp wrote: »

The SPLC have labelled Ayaan Hirsi Ali Maajid Nawaz as "anti-Muslim extremists" :pac: they seem to be getting a bit of flak on Twitter over it.


https://www.splcenter.org/news/2016/10/26/splc-publishes-media-guide-countering-prominent-anti-muslim-extremists

Just another bunch of do-gooders who may have had a decent cause at the start but have now fallen foul of the overt political correctness, trigger warning, safe space nonesense perminating across the US now.

Take for example what they say about Maajid Nawaz.

According to a Jan. 24, 2014, report in The Guardian, Nawaz tweeted out a cartoon of Jesus and Muhammad — despite the fact that many Muslims see it as blasphemous to draw Muhammad. He said that he wanted “to carve out a space to be heard without constantly fearing the blasphemy charge.”

OH MY GOD, Adolf Hitler Mark II in the making.... :pac:
I guess half of us atheists here and anyone who bought a Charlie Hedbo magazine is now part of this hate group too.

Then they play the man.

Nawaz, who had described himself as a “feminist,” was “filmed repeatedly trying to touch a naked lap dancer,” according to an April 10, 2015, report in the Daily Mail. The paper apparently got the security film from the owner of a strip club who was incensed by Nawaz’s claims to be a religious Muslim

Well I guess Bill Clinton should feature as well, right?

The whole thing seems like a Student Union hatchet job in an effort to try and stop people saying mean things about Islam, regardless if they are warranted or not.

So, the SPLC can join other former illustrious organisations like the UN in the dustbin of history.

silverharp

Looks like Michael was irked about Ayaan and Maajid making it on the SPLC hit list

Michael Nugent ‏@micknugent · 14h14 hours ago

.@splcenter I've sent these questions to you, and your press team, without any answers to them. Can you please answer? @ayaan @MaajidNawaz

FA Hayek

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/10/29/i-m-a-muslim-reformer-why-am-i-being-smeared-as-an-anti-muslim-extremist.html

Good response from Maajid Nawaz.

In a monumental failure of comprehension, the SPLC have conflated my challenge to Islamist theocracy among my fellow Muslims with somehow being “anti-Muslim.” The regressive left is now in the business of issuing fatwas against Muslim reformers.

Unlike many of these first world keyboard virtue-signallers, I can instinctively identify genuine anti-Muslim bigotry and discrimination. This bigotry must be challenged, alongside the bigotry peddled by Muslim theocrats.
But the solution cannot be to stare too long into the abyss, becoming the very Nietzschean or McCarthyite beast we seek to defeat.

As the political horseshoe theory attributed to Jean-Pierre Faye highlights, if we travel far-left enough, we find the very same sneering, nasty and reckless bullying tactics used by the far-right. Denunciations of traitors, heresy and blasphemy are the last resort of diminutive, insecure power-craving fascists of all stripes. Compiling lists is their modus operandi.

Qs

Seems ridiculous to have Nawaz on the list. He certainly doesn't deserve to be put in a group with some of those others who are genuinely vile.

The Black Oil

I'll be the first to admit I don't know much about trans politics, i.e. I know nothing. But my Lord, parts of this video are so frustrating. More of Prof. Peterson, plz.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-nvNAcvUPE

FA Hayek

Some background of the video.
http://thevarsity.ca/2016/10/24/u-of-t-letter-asks-jordan-peterson-to-respect-pronouns-stop-making-statements/

More insane ideological authoritarian nonsense from the regressive left.