US college course bans the words 'male' and 'female'

c_man

Can you actually imagine the level of knobends you'd get in classes like these? They'd have to be Olympic standard at the very least.

Old Jakey

the evasion_kid wrote: »

Never It seems....

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feminists-upset-over-statue-of-man-and-woman-talking/article/2565164

Is there anything feminists don't find oppressive?

c_man

Cienciano wrote: »

They were right, a fúcking college course in america and people are going mad over it like it's the end of the world and it actually effects their lives :rolleyes:

Eh I dunno, there's plenty of people around who lay most of the world's ills on the Chicago Boys and their college education.

DeadHand

Cuban Pete wrote: »

threads full of people whipping themselves into a frenzy about immigration?

Not a "frenzy" so much as an expression of truth and facts that are uncomfortable to some.

These threads are quickly censored when the pro immigration argument is comprehensively defeated, as it has been lately, because of the obvious left wing bias in the moderation of AH.

The Randy Riverbeast

As we see there's a sizeable group who are always silenced, so silenced that they just keep going on about it instead of moving to a website with moderation that suits them, like 4chan.

NI24

osarusan wrote: »

Yeah? Which campuses?

:pac: Good one.

DeadHand wrote: »

Not a "frenzy" so much as an expression of truth and facts that are uncomfortable to some.

These threads are quickly censored when the pro immigration argument is comprehensively defeated, as it has been lately, because of the obvious left wing bias in the moderation of AH.

You know, I agree with you about immigration, but the moderation on these threads is not what the poster was talking about. The vast majority of posters on AH are neoconservative types (almost always men, with a smattering of female groupies) and as such, so are their posts/opinions. It's quite bizarre to suggest otherwise.

The Corinthian

NI24 wrote: »

The vast majority of posters on AH are neoconservative types (almost always men, with a smattering of female groupies) and as such, so are their posts/opinions.

So in which US college did you do (or are still doing) your undergraduate degree?

NI24

The Corinthian wrote: »

So in which US college did you do (or are still doing) your undergraduate degree?

Why do you ask?

zeffabelli

Overheal wrote: »

To wit, for those interested, Texas teaches Creationism, bashes Evolution and instructs children on the dangers of vaccinations:

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/01/creationism_in_texas_public_schools_undermining_the_charter_movement.html

Their history text is similarly bad:

You know ...a friend of mine in the South East, got in trouble for teaching basic biology if you get my drift. She holds a masters in bio technology and was forced to withhold very basic fundamentals about the human body.

osarusan

zeffabelli wrote: »

You know ...a friend of mine in the South East, got in trouble for teaching basic biology if you get my drift. She holds a masters in bio technology and was forced to withhold very basic fundamentals about the human body.

Seeing as how you are still on the thread, any chance you could answer my earlier question?

osarusan wrote: »

Yeah? Which campuses?

zeffabelli

osarusan wrote: »

Seeing as how you are still on the thread, any chance you could answer my earlier question?

I can't remember.

osarusan

zeffabelli wrote: »

I can't remember.

That's very convenient.

The Corinthian

NI24 wrote: »

Why do you ask?

To confirm a suspicion, based upon your almost stereotypical adherence to the many very paradigms that are the subject of this thread.

Even your vocabulary is straight out of this US college scene - for example, the term neoconservative is completely meaningless, at least in the context you appear to be using it in, for an Irish or European reader. Here, neoconservative refers to the Project for the New American Century or the Bush administration around 2003. If it's definition has broadened since, it hasn't made it to this side of the Atlantic yet and so calling people neoconservatives just sounds silly to us.

Anyhow, your response was sufficient confirmation, although if you do choose to answer, you'll probably be answering osarusan's question too.

NI24

The Corinthian wrote: »

To confirm a suspicion, based upon your almost stereotypical adherence to the many very paradigms that are the subject of this thread.

Even your vocabulary is straight out of this US college scene - for example, the term neoconservative is completely meaningless, at least in the context you appear to be using it in, for an Irish or European reader. Here, neoconservative refers to the Project for the New American Century or the Bush administration around 2003. If it's definition has broadened since, it hasn't made it to this side of the Atlantic yet and so calling people neoconservatives just sounds silly to us.

Anyhow, your response was sufficient confirmation, although if you do choose to answer, you'll probably be answering osarusan's question too.

Well, first of all, I got the term neoconservative from Wibbs. He frequently used neoliberal to describe his "opponents", for lack of a better word, and I hijacked it (with my own spin) to describe the posters you frequently see in these types of threads. So if you have a problem with that terminology, take it up with him. Though I sincerely doubt he came out of the US college scene :pac:.

Anyhow, the rest of your post is typical of your posting history. Trying to bait people because one has nothing but ad hominems and conjecture --oh, excuse me, "suspicions"--to debate with (all this evasion and digression is familiar. Oh, I know, it's the calling card of an SJW! Ironic how you gave such a lengthy spiel about them and your posts are, as you say, the "stereotypical adherence" of one). Then again, I expect nothing less, or, rather, more.

zeffabelli

NI24 wrote: »

Well, first of all, I got the term neoconservative from Wibbs. He frequently used neoliberal to describe his "opponents", for lack of a better word, and I hijacked it (with my own spin) to describe the posters you frequently see in these types of threads. So if you have a problem with that terminology, take it up with him. Though I sincerely doubt he came out of the US college scene :pac:.

Anyhow, the rest of your post is typical of your posting history. Trying to bait people because one has nothing but ad hominems and conjecture --oh, excuse me, "suspicions"--to debate with (all this evasion and digression is familiar. Oh, I know, it's the calling card of an SJW! Ironic how you gave such a lengthy spiel about them and your posts are, as you say, the "stereotypical adherence" of one). Then again, I expect nothing less, or, rather, more.

Spiel and your stubborn and repeated misuse of the word irony would be a give away too.

It is meaningless to apply neo conservative to any European. Yeah sure you got it from Wibbs. Pull the other one, it plays jingle bells.

The Corinthian

NI24 wrote: »

Well, first of all, I got the term neoconservative from Wibbs. He frequently used neoliberal to describe his "opponents", for lack of a better word, and I hijacked it (with my own spin) to describe the posters you frequently see in these types of threads. So if you have a problem with that terminology, take it up with him.

Oddly, a quick search for the terms neoconservative or even neocon, by Wibbs results in only one 7-year old post. Would you like to let us know where Wibbs has used this term?

Though I sincerely doubt he came out of the US college scene :pac:.

Is this because you are far more versed with that scene than the rest of us?

Anyhow, the rest of your post is typical of your posting history. Trying to bait people because one has nothing but ad hominems and conjecture --oh, excuse me, "suspicions"--to debate with (all this evasion and digression is familiar. Oh, I know, it's the calling card of an SJW! Ironic how you gave such a lengthy spiel about them and your posts are, as you say, the "stereotypical adherence" of one). Then again, I expect nothing less, or, rather, more.

It would help if you understood what an ad hominem is.

Were I to simply attack you, the person, without reference to what you have written, then you'd have a point. However, you'll note I have at all times backed up any conclusions precisely with what you've written.

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it's hardly an ad hominem to point out that it probably is a duck, and even in this instance - where I sought to confirm your alma mater, it was based on the evidence of what you have posted as you have repeatedly demonstrated the very belief structure that we are discussing in this thread; that you're probably a product of it.

And guess what? Looks I was right.

NI24

zeffabelli wrote: »

Spiel and your stubborn and repeated misuse of the word irony would be a give away too.

It is meaningless to apply neo conservative to any European. Yeah sure you got it from Wibbs. Pull the other one, it plays jingle bells.

Ooooh touched a nerve I see. Gotta love how those who have nothing but speculation on their side become increasingly frustrated when called out on it. Fitting into that neoconservative mold more and more as the posts roll on. Btw, feel free to supply the list of colleges you spoke of earlier.

zeffabelli

NI24 wrote: »

Ooooh touched a nerve I see. Gotta love how those who have nothing but speculation on their side become increasingly frustrated when called out on it. Fitting into that neoconservative mold more and more as the posts roll on. Btw, feel free to supply the list of colleges you spoke of earlier.

Must be happy hour at Applebee's.

NI24

The Corinthian wrote: »

Oddly, a quick search for the terms neoconservative or even neocon, by Wibbs results in only one 7-year old post. Would you like to let us know where Wibbs has used this term?

Why don't you actually read what I wrote? But by all means, continue to misread/misinterpret what people are saying. Your posts are a comedy goldmine for that kind of stuff.

The Corinthian wrote: »

It would help if you understood what an ad hominem is.

Were I to simply attack you, the person, without reference to what you have written, then you'd have a point. However, you'll note I have at all times backed up any conclusions precisely with what you've written.

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it's hardly an ad hominem to point out that it probably is a duck, and even in this instance - where I sought to confirm your alma mater, it was based on the evidence of what you have posted as you have repeatedly demonstrated the very belief structure that we are discussing in this thread; that you're probably a product of it.

And guess what? Looks I was right.

Actually, you've done nothing but speculate about my educational background so you can hurl accusations. Which is fine, but hardly logical or rational debate. It's basically stereotypical digression. You haven't "backed up anything", except in your own mind. Then again, this is the hallmark of the SJW.

NI24

zeffabelli wrote: »

Must be happy hour at Applebee's.

Speculation and an ad hominem?! I love it! But seriously, take your time on that list.

zeffabelli

NI24 wrote: »

Speculation and an ad hominem?! I love it! But seriously, take your time on that list.

Live by the sword, die by the sword.

You are throwing neo conservative labels at a European constituency.

Did they not teach you about ethno centricity it's in your liberal studies 101?

The Corinthian

NI24 wrote: »

Why don't you actually read what I wrote? But by all means, continue to misread/misinterpret what people are saying. Your posts are a comedy goldmine for that kind of stuff.

You claimed that Wibbs "frequently used neoliberal to describe his "opponents"" and you appropriated the term from him. A search of his posts reveals that he did not. It's pretty clear that what you've claimed is untrue.

Actually, you've done nothing but speculate about my educational background so you can hurl accusations. Which is fine, but hardly logical or rational debate. It's basically stereotypical digression. You haven't "backed up anything", except in your own mind. Then again, this is the hallmark of the SJW.

Actually, I identified your educational background based upon your views as a demonstration of what is being discussed in this thread.

This thread is about the indoctrination presently taking place in US colleges, such as the insane example that was offered in the OP. That this indoctrination has become so blatant is exemplified by your posting style and views, otherwise I would not have been able to guess where you had received (or will receive) your undergraduate degree.

Basically you're exhibit one in this discussion; a cautionary example of what can go wrong in academia. That's the topic, I'm afraid, and no amount of verbal acrobatics from you is going to change that.

Wibbs

NI24 wrote: »

Well, first of all, I got the term neoconservative from Wibbs.

*Ears burning*.

Wibbs

The Corinthian wrote: »

It would help if you understood what an ad hominem is.

All too often it's a term wheeled out when an argument is failing. A quieter version of accusing another of some "ism" or other. It also angles for victim status. Basically it's designed to shut down debate. Common in arguments, but extremely common from the left, The Offended and neohippies*








*Open licence on that word if anyone wants to use it. TBH I'm surprised I used the word neocon.

NI24

The Corinthian wrote: »

You claimed that Wibbs "frequently used neoliberal to describe his "opponents"" and you appropriated the term from him. A search of his posts reveals that he did not. It's pretty clear that what you've claimed is untrue.

Well you didn't search hard enough. :rolleyes:

The Corinthian wrote: »

Actually, I identified your educational background based upon your views as a demonstration of what is being discussed in this thread.

Yeah, or the fact that I'm from the US. But give yourself a gold star for your brilliant detective work.

The Corinthian wrote: »

That this indoctrination has become so blatant is exemplified by your posting style and views, otherwise I would not have been able to guess where you had received (or will receive) your undergraduate degree.

Says you and your groupies.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Basically you're exhibit one in this discussion; a cautionary example of what can go wrong in academia. That's the topic, I'm afraid, and no amount of verbal acrobatics from you is going to change that.

And you're exhibit one of a neoconservative/SJW. And what can happen when said neoconservatives/SJWs go unquestioned inside an echo chamber/their own head. And no amount of straw man arguments or convoluted logic is going to change that.

zeffabelli wrote: »

Live by the sword, die by the sword.

Lamest comeback ever.

zeffabelli

NI24 wrote: »

Well you didn't search hard enough. :rolleyes:



Yeah, or the fact that I'm from the US. But give yourself a gold star for your brilliant detective work.



Says you and your groupies.



And you're exhibit one of a neoconservative/SJW. And what can happen when said neoconservatives/SJWs go unquestioned inside an echo chamber/their own head. And no amount of straw man arguments or convoluted logic is going to change that.




Lamest comeback ever.

It would only matter if I cared what you thought.

But you are too amusing throwing your labels around at a constituency where it does not apply, using self centredly a set of values produced by another culture to diminish an other, the other.

I'm surprised they did not teach you about ethno centricity in whatever your induction classes were. It is likely you are only two years or so out of a brainwashing institute, maybe you were out that day, or failed the quiz in ego/ethno centric attitudes and behaviour, often noted in neo conservatives military strategies, and now noted again in your posts.

The Corinthian

NI24 wrote: »

Well you didn't search hard enough. :rolleyes:

I did. Stop trying to waste my time looking for something that isn't there. You were telling porkies - it's pretty clear to everyone by now.

Yeah, or the fact that I'm from the US. But give yourself a gold star for your brilliant detective work.

I've no idea if you are or not from the US. All I can tell is that you've clearly drank the coolaid that is now prevalent in undergraduate courses in many US colleges and that we're discussing.

Says you and your groupies.

Of course, it must be be just because they're 'groupies'. God forbid it might be true.

And you're exhibit one of a neoconservative/SJW. And what can happen when said neoconservatives/SJWs go unquestioned inside an echo chamber/their own head. And no amount of straw man arguments or convoluted logic is going to change that.

What straw man arguments? You're just flinging crap at this stage in the hope some will stick and distract from the fact you've been pretty much exposed.

And still with the 'neoconservative' - you're the only one here who uses that term in that way.

It must be very disappointing to realize that you can be so easily identified as a stereotype. Still, thank you for presenting us with a live subject on the this thread's topic to study.

The Corinthian

Wibbs wrote: »

TBH I'm surprised I used the word neocon.

You didn't. She's the only person who uses the term outside of PNAC or the former Bush administration, which I expect is a US college fashion that hasn't crossed the Atlantic yet. She tried to claim she's copying you, but a quick search for the term in your past posts will show you don't use it.

Thinkingaboutit

US colleges tend to be ultra liberal. The story looks something that's clickbait in this or that right leaning newspaper, maybe the Daily Fail, don't know.

Wibbs

In fairness I have used neoliberal. Neoconservative no. Takes too many keystrokes.