Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Fully Baked Left Wing Vegan Cookies

1…1314161819…75

Comments

  • #452
    silverharp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,853 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    pH wrote: »
    And it failed horribly - and now Freethought blogs too is on its last legs. In general I guess people want their organisations to focus on the issues at hand and not be co opted to the pet causes of those in charge.

    Take animal rights for instance - Michael Nugent (AI chairman) has blogged a number of times on his veganism - which comes from his ethical view on animals and their rights. This is an opinion which I guess if you asked him he'd say he arrived at using some from of critical thinking, in that he didn't just do it on a whim. So should AI campaign for animal rights and veganism? Whats the difference between this as a cause and "economic justice" that a recent poster has said that atheists should be campaigning for? What about the environment, racism, poverty and the corruption in world football?

    As much as I supported gay marriage, you could argue that AI supporting it was a mistake, because it had little to do with AI's core objectives (except possibly gay marriage for atheists at a stretch)

    Indeed, it depends on the issue I guess, gay marriage was a religious versus a secular debate (mostly) so it seems logical for Atheists to have rounded in on that one. On the other hand there is something on Atheist Ireland literature about Travellers , here I dont see the connection, its got nothing to do with Atheism.

    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



  • #453
    silverharp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,853 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    KomradeBishop wrote: »
    I suppose people like thunderf00t, bringing the MRA/anti-feminist baggage under the 'atheist' label, wouldn't also be 'infecting' the movement; uh-huh...

    in his case he is a science guy who splits his time to talk about different issues. Creationists being anti-science will be an obvious target. Overall most of his videos arent about Religion so I wouldnt even describe him as a primarily Atheist advocate. There does seem to be a group of Youtubers who see problems arising from the Feminist extremists for example, but I wouldnt call them part of the Atheist movement although they would be Atheists.



    KomradeBishop wrote: »

    I think the Atheist movement, trying to portray itself as focusing purely on secular issues, and apolitical on issues other than secularism, isn't really a sustainable position (especially when its members and people who identify as Atheist, carry much more detailed values, beyond just secularism); from one perspective, it might make sense to try and portray it that way, to maximize the movements popularity, but instead the core of the movement should be the unwavering application of critical thinking and skepticism, to all areas of thought/policy - not just issues involving secularism (it's a bad idea for a movement, to be defined by its opposition to another movement/group - i.e. religion - rather than to have its own defining identity).

    Otherwise, the movement just opens itself up to potential co-optation by groups who are faux-'skeptics', who really have disdain for skepticism/critical-thinking, and are trying to push a specific political agenda (this is the new 'Atheist friendly' form of anti-intellectual conservatism these days) - which would undermine the core values that seem to underpin people within the Atheist movement, neutralizing the movements potential - it is precisely those faux-'skeptics' who should be drawing ire and deep criticism/rejection, from the Atheist movement, if critical-thinking/skepticism really are supposed to be defining aspects of Atheism.

    It is definitely a mistake to carry such a weak definition of Atheism, in the aim of maximizing the movements potential member base. I think that the Humanist movement has already been partially co-opted to soft-pedal skepticism/critical-thinking on key political issues, and I think the Atheist movement is at risk of the same thing; the 'official' parts of the movement, really needs to grow some balls politically, on issues other than secularism, to avoid being co-opted and sacrificing its values of true skepticism.

    It is that, unwavering application of skepticism/critical-thinking to all areas of politics, which should be the defining feature of the movement - not secularism.

    But there is no central command and it would be fake to invent a Philosophy that everyone would have to buy into. When it comes down to it there isnt a logical way of deriving all policies (as of now) but there are logical reasons to take bad ideas off the table ie fighting for a secular Islam or to encourage Progressive Muslims or encourage Atheism in Islam. Or the Christian versus secular war in the US and elsewhere.
    The Atheist movement as I see it is anti Ideologue , so that would include Religious Ideologues primarily but also the various "cultural marxists" as the effects are being seen in attacks on free speech etc

    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



  • #454
    Links234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,944 ✭✭✭✭Links234


    silverharp wrote: »
    The Atheist movement as I see it is anti Ideologue , so that would include Religious Ideologues primarily but also the various "cultural marxists" as the effects are being seen in attacks on free speech etc

    I think the Cultural Marxism bit is exactly what KomradeBishop is talking about about, the consevative talking points and conspiracy theories, stuff you wouldn't have heard outside of far right circles before is almost commonplace, and it's bleeding into a supposedly skeptic movement.

    Someone else brought up gamergate, and that's another good example. Whatever the whole "ethics in games journalism" thing may have been about, it exists now mainly as far right recruitment tool, just look at how many conservative, libertarian and even neo-nazi opportunists have hopped on board the gamergate train. Even Breitbart have been pretending to care about ethics in games journalism, despite the fact they make the Daily Mail look reputable by comparison, and are just about the least ethical "news" source you can get. Likewise neo-nazi site the Daily Stormer are constantly on about gamergate, I'm not gonna link to them, but just google 'daily stormer gamergate' and you'll see. Who would've thought nazis were such ardent advocates of ethics in games journalism? It's far right recruitment, they see a bunch of angry young men who are furious and outraged over something something games journalism and they see an opportunity.


  • #455
    silverharp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,853 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    Links234 wrote: »
    I think the Cultural Marxism bit is exactly what KomradeBishop is talking about about, the consevative talking points and conspiracy theories, stuff you wouldn't have heard outside of far right circles before is almost commonplace, and it's bleeding into a supposedly skeptic movement.

    Someone else brought up gamergate, and that's another good example. Whatever the whole "ethics in games journalism" thing may have been about, it exists now mainly as far right recruitment tool, just look at how many conservative, libertarian and even neo-nazi opportunists have hopped on board the gamergate train. Even Breitbart have been pretending to care about ethics in games journalism, despite the fact they make the Daily Mail look reputable by comparison, and are just about the least ethical "news" source you can get. Likewise neo-nazi site the Daily Stormer are constantly on about gamergate, I'm not gonna link to them, but just google 'daily stormer gamergate' and you'll see. Who would've thought nazis were such ardent advocates of ethics in games journalism? It's far right recruitment, they see a bunch of angry young men who are furious and outraged over something something games journalism and they see an opportunity.

    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
    Using the logic that if you cant explain something to your grandmother you dont understand it Ill admit I couldnt explain gamergate to my granny but based on what I have come across about Anita Sarkeesian for example, she does seem to be a spoofer of the highest order. Her "sexism in video games" is as nutty as when the religious right used to go after video games in the 80's
    New Atheists demand the right to be critical of all "bad ideas" be it Christianity or Islam , and in fairness they are as likely to be as critical of neocons as uber progressives.

    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



  • #456
    Links234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,944 ✭✭✭✭Links234


    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... :o

    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.


  • Advertisement
  • #457
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    Great points, and it's notable how extremists on the right have historically been encouraged and take advantage of economic hard times, to further Corporatist/Fascist ideals, while other forms of political dissent on the Left get attacked/shut-down.

    You'd be surprised just how quickly the political landscape can change, and how far the 'Overton Window' (range of 'acceptable' discourse) can shift, with a bit of well-orchestrated and well-funded astroturfing/propaganda - as is notable through the recent rise in a lot of right-wing extremism.

    This is something I've distinctly noticed with Libertarianism as well: The right-leaning form of it has a very close history with fascist supporters in the US (including e.g. a history of supporting fascism in South Africa), and it doesn't take a lot of reading of Libertarian ideals, to see that a lot of it bee-lines to many of the same ideals; flimsily hidden by utopian promises, that try to hide an extreme form of (economic) Social Darwinism.

    This is why I find it quite interesting, to see that parts of the Libertarian think-tank/propaganda network are funding anti-feminst views, i.e. directly providing ammunition for MRA's; they're not just limited to extreme economic views (that's just the primary focus, as controlling economic discussion is the best way to neutralize any 'Left' political dissent), there's a lot of tacit support for all sorts of screwed up stuff, and the funding and breadth of that, is only going to grow - and that funding is going to be used to try and co-opt/influence more and more movements as well.

    So yea, it's pretty much a mostly-powerless/non-existent/MIA/completely-contained 'Left' (which has been completely politically defeated on economic issues, to the point that 'Left' economics, is really just watered-down right-leaning economics), vs the gradual rise of the above; what seems like over-the-top/silly right-wing extremism today or 5+ years ago, is going to gradually shift closer to the mainstream, because all it needs for that to happen, is enough funding, encouragement and persistence.


  • #458
    silverharp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,853 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    Links234 wrote: »
    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.?






    Links234 wrote: »
    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.


    Links234 wrote: »
    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

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6yNBSxQ_tE




    Links234 wrote: »

    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... :o

    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



  • #459
    Links234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,944 ✭✭✭✭Links234


    KomradeBishop wrote: »
    This is why I find it quite interesting, to see that parts of the Libertarian think-tank/propaganda network are funding anti-feminst views, i.e. directly providing ammunition for MRA's; they're not just limited to extreme economic views (that's just the primary focus, as controlling economic discussion is the best way to neutralize any 'Left' political dissent), there's a lot of tacit support for all sorts of screwed up stuff, and the funding and breadth of that, is only going to grow - and that funding is going to be used to try and co-opt/influence more and more movements as well.

    It's also why I find the whole gamergate thing so fascinating and troubling, you wonder just why it's kept going, how it's even still a thing, and then you look at the sheer amount of right wingers who are keeping it on life support. I mean, you've got this right wing think-tank the American Enterprise Institute wading in on the issue, and then you've got freakin' Breitbart, a "news" source so utterly untrustworthy that if they said water is wet you'd still demand another source, throwing their all in and supporting gamergate with a load of coverage and articles, while at the same time constantly blasting net neutrality as something terrible, and saying that "net neutrality is the cultural marxism of the tech world", no joke. So on one hand they've got a bunch of fairly tech-savvy people who they're keeping outraged over something that could have barely been considered a scandal, while decying what would absolutely be a win for consumers. Seriously, google "breitbart net neutrality", it's like they fueled gamergate to distract from the real, serious consumer issue.

    But anyway, you've got the Koch brothers spending hundreds of millions on all sorts of political groups and think tanks and media ventures, not to mention spending $900mil on the 2016 US elections, then you've got Donald Trump literally buying press, paying Breitbart for giving him positive coverage. They're doing all this quite blatantly too, it's perfectly legal and seemingly uncontroversial enough for a lot of folks. Meanwhile you have people believing in some freakin' cultural marxist La Li Lu Le Lo using the media and political correctness (and nanomachines probably) to take over western civilization and destroy white people.


  • #460
    silverharp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,853 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    KomradeBishop wrote: »
    Great points, and it's notable how extremists on the right have historically been encouraged and take advantage of economic hard times, to further Corporatist/Fascist ideals, while other forms of political dissent on the Left get attacked/shut-down.

    You'd be surprised just how quickly the political landscape can change, and how far the 'Overton Window' (range of 'acceptable' discourse) can shift, with a bit of well-orchestrated and well-funded astroturfing/propaganda - as is notable through the recent rise in a lot of right-wing extremism.

    This is something I've distinctly noticed with Libertarianism as well: The right-leaning form of it has a very close history with fascist supporters in the US (including e.g. a history of supporting fascism in South Africa), and it doesn't take a lot of reading of Libertarian ideals, to see that a lot of it bee-lines to many of the same ideals; flimsily hidden by utopian promises, that try to hide an extreme form of (economic) Social Darwinism.

    This is why I find it quite interesting, to see that parts of the Libertarian think-tank/propaganda network are funding anti-feminst views, i.e. directly providing ammunition for MRA's; they're not just limited to extreme economic views (that's just the primary focus, as controlling economic discussion is the best way to neutralize any 'Left' political dissent), there's a lot of tacit support for all sorts of screwed up stuff, and the funding and breadth of that, is only going to grow - and that funding is going to be used to try and co-opt/influence more and more movements as well.

    So yea, it's pretty much a mostly-powerless/non-existent/MIA/completely-contained 'Left' (which has been completely politically defeated on economic issues, to the point that 'Left' economics, is really just watered-down right-leaning economics), vs the gradual rise of the above; what seems like over-the-top/silly right-wing extremism today or 5+ years ago, is going to gradually shift closer to the mainstream, because all it needs for that to happen, is enough funding, encouragement and persistence.

    Where do you want to break the circle of bad ideas? absolutely there is corporatism but grass root type Libertarians dont like them either. I'm pretty sure most Libertarians wanted the banks and Wall St to collapse back in 08 and were horrified that they were all bailed out.

    The way I see it based on my short dip into the area is that feminism is anti scientific and is beginning to have negative effects in areas like children's education, ie that boys education is being neglected. Its kind of obvious that if bad ideas become common place and negative effects are seen that it will generate a reaction and you might not like where some of the negative reaction comes from.

    To me it looks like the "gender studies departments" need to have a reformation , and soak up some input from the more scientific disciplines.

    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



  • #461
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    Lets not forget Timothy McVeigh - a self-described Libertarian - who was inspired by a white supremacist novel, to commit the Oklahoma City bombing, which was the largest terrorist attack in US history before 2001.

    Right-wing extremists are a pretty significant terrorist threat, yet you won't often see that acknowledged, by law enforcement agencies, who engage in excessively discriminatory surveillance and interference, in Muslim communities, in the US - to the point of literally making-up 'attempted' terrorist attacks, where e.g. the FBI literally grooms/radicalises people from the Muslim community, into committing faux-'terrorist' attacks (of the FBI's own design - which is pretty much entrapment), just so they can look like they're doing something to 'stop the terrorists'.


    Also, if we're worried about undue influence on US college campuses - how about how financial control over funding of the colleges, grants political control over their administration, and thus control over what is taught and how it is taught; the abysmal state of economics indoctrination education being a prime example.

    For all the concern about 'political correctness' and free speech - the claim of wanting students to be exposed to all viewpoints (when more often than not, such complaints are loudest, when students express their right to free speech, in opposing bigoted views) - don't see much concern for pluralism and hearing of all viewpoints, where it comes to economic teaching, as well as other areas of teaching in college.


  • Advertisement
  • #462
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    Links234 wrote: »
    It's also why I find the whole gamergate thing so fascinating and troubling, you wonder just why it's kept going, how it's even still a thing, and then you look at the sheer amount of right wingers who are keeping it on life support. I mean, you've got this right wing think-tank the American Enterprise Institute wading in on the issue, and then you've got freakin' Breitbart, a "news" source so utterly untrustworthy that if they said water is wet you'd still demand another source, throwing their all in and supporting gamergate with a load of coverage and articles, while at the same time constantly blasting net neutrality as something terrible, and saying that "net neutrality is the cultural marxism of the tech world", no joke. So on one hand they've got a bunch of fairly tech-savvy people who they're keeping outraged over something that could have barely been considered a scandal, while decying what would absolutely be a win for consumers. Seriously, google "breitbart net neutrality", it's like they fueled gamergate to distract from the real, serious consumer issue.

    But anyway, you've got the Koch brothers spending hundreds of millions on all sorts of political groups and think tanks and media ventures, not to mention spending $900mil on the 2016 US elections, then you've got Donald Trump literally buying press, paying Breitbart for giving him positive coverage. They're doing all this quite blatantly too, it's perfectly legal and seemingly uncontroversial enough for a lot of folks. Meanwhile you have people believing in some freakin' cultural marxist La Li Lu Le Lo using the media and political correctness (and nanomachines probably) to take over western civilization and destroy white people.
    Ya exactly - and the AEI is definitely one of the more ubiquitous think-tanks out there, that you can reliably find stirring such issues.

    As you allude to, it's groups like these, that are actually openly buying enormous amounts of political influence - and influence all throughout business/industry and academia, granting them significant control throughout politics and society - and when you point stuff like this out, supporters of the above try to disparage that as 'conspiracy theories' (even when the whole lot of funding and the think-tank networks, is right out wide in the open), while themselves promoting McCarthy-worthy conspiracy theories of Marxists and feminists taking over academia and such.


  • #463
    jackofalltrades
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,289 ✭✭✭jackofalltrades


    Thought this thread was supposed to be about left-wing fruitcakes.


  • #464
    Links234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,944 ✭✭✭✭Links234


    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.
    In contrast, right-wing extremists averaged 337 attacks per year in the decade after 9/11, causing a total of 254 fatalities, according to a study by Arie Perliger, a professor at the United States Military Academy’s Combating Terrorism Center. The toll has increased since the study was released in 2012.

    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.
    These killings make up the bulk of the nearly 100 people who were murdered over the past five years by registered users of Stormfront, claims a report released Thursday by the nonprofit civil rights organization Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). The report states the forum acts to nurture budding killers and give them moral support — a claim the site’s creator calls “ludicrous.”

    In fact, just read this, it's a downright chilling read. So no, don't brush off stormfront or neo-nazis and other right-wing extremists, they're killing a lot of people. There is a lot of right wing hate, it's a real and serious issue and it is growing.

    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.
    jank wrote: »
    Cultural Marxism alive and well in the world of the comic book.

    *ahem*

    Edit:
    jackofalltrades wrote: »
    Thought this thread was supposed to be about left-wing fruitcakes.

    Ooops, I guess I "SJW"-ed up the thread :pac:


  • #465
    silverharp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,853 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    Links234 wrote: »
    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.
    Links234 wrote: »

    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.



    Links234 wrote: »
    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 :)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1pJ8vYxL3Q

    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



  • #466
    Links234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,944 ✭✭✭✭Links234


    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.


  • #467
    silverharp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,853 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    Links234 wrote: »
    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?

    coming at it from a secular perspective attacks both , attack Christianity and you are attacking the KKK and the gang. Attack Islam and you attack the reasons for all the bad ideas that affect Muslims. If my posting history has anything to go by 90% is aimed at Christianity and 10% is aimed at Islam. Which seems reasonable. The problem I see with the progressive left is that they rate "not attacking minorities" so high that they think attacking Islam is "racist" which is false for a number of reasons and hence partially why "new Atheism" took off to fill the void

    As for the left issue in colleges , what seems to be happening is a weakening of free speech. As far as I am concerned free speech is core value of Western society as should be defended. and there does seem to be a lot of reports of meetings or talks being sabotaged or disrupted by groups opposing either conservative speakers (who I probably wouldnt even agree with) or even people like Ayaan Hirsi Ali for speaking out against Islam even though she is from a Muslim background

    Links234 wrote: »
    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?

    sure some is reasonable, alot has to do with having a quick short hand for judging material for kids. However I think it was discussed on this thread before but if it gets to the point that college students feel they can exempt themselves from material or that lecturers feel pressured to no not teach certain things its gone too far. Universities have to institutions that have freedom to exchange ideas and avoid any kind of self censorship.

    Links234 wrote: »

    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:



    What we do in this very forum, is critiquing a social construct; religion.


    Religion is fine it is a social construct , but it would be wrong to see gender for instance as a total construct. as far as I can see there seems to be push in education to see boys as "broken girls" which is a denial of basic biological differences between boys and girls. If one has theories that depend on it being a construct they are going to be very hostile to contrary scientific evidence.
    Links234 wrote: »

    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!




    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.

    Dawkins to his credit spends most of his time attacking US creationists and it is for sure true that most of the nonsense creeping into schools in the US is from the religious right.

    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



  • #468
    Links234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,944 ✭✭✭✭Links234


    silverharp wrote: »
    coming at it from a secular perspective attacks both , attack Christianity and you are attacking the KKK and the gang. Attack Islam and you attack the reasons for all the bad ideas that affect Muslims. If my posting history has anything to go by 90% is aimed at Christianity and 10% is aimed at Islam. Which seems reasonable. The problem I see with the progressive left is that they rate "not attacking minorities" so high that they think attacking Islam is "racist" which is false for a number of reasons and hence partially why "new Atheism" took off to fill the void

    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.
    "From a victim's point of view, Islamophobia is racism," Nasrin said. "People can say Islam is not a race ... but from a victim's point of view this kind of abuse ... affects our lives, how we go on with our daily lives."


    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.


    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.


    silverharp wrote: »
    As for the left issue in colleges , what seems to be happening is a weakening of free speech. As far as I am concerned free speech is core value of Western society as should be defended. and there does seem to be a lot of reports of meetings or talks being sabotaged or disrupted by groups opposing either conservative speakers (who I probably wouldnt even agree with) or even people like Ayaan Hirsi Ali for speaking out against Islam even though she is from a Muslim background


    sure some is reasonable, alot has to do with having a quick short hand for judging material for kids. However I think it was discussed on this thread before but if it gets to the point that college students feel they can exempt themselves from material or that lecturers feel pressured to no not teach certain things its gone too far. Universities have to institutions that have freedom to exchange ideas and avoid any kind of self censorship.

    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.

    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!"
    silverharp wrote: »
    Religion is fine it is a social construct , but it would be wrong to see gender for instance as a total construct. as far as I can see there seems to be push in education to see boys as "broken girls" which is a denial of basic biological differences between boys and girls. If one has theories that depend on it being a construct they are going to be very hostile to contrary scientific evidence.

    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.
    The inspiration for the experiment was a 2008 study published in Science that analyzed the results of a standardized test of math and verbal abilities taken by 15-year-olds around the world. The results challenged the pernicious stereotype that females are biologically inferior at mathematics. Although the female test-takers lagged behind males on the math portion of the test, the size of the gap closely tracked the degree of gender inequality in their countries, shrinking to nearly zero in emancipated countries like Sweden and Norway. That suggests that cultural biases rather than biology may be the better explanation for the math gender gap.

    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.
    silverharp wrote: »
    Dawkins to his credit spends most of his time attacking US creationists and it is for sure true that most of the nonsense creeping into schools in the US is from the religious right.

    Thankfully, but Dawkins is not above criticism himself, and what he does in that video is little more than punching up a strawman.


  • #469
    silverharp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,853 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    Links234 wrote: »
    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




    Links234 wrote: »

    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.


    Links234 wrote: »
    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.


    Links234 wrote: »


    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?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfzUG70nN6k



    Links234 wrote: »

    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.



    Links234 wrote: »

    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.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tV1m71WT9s0





    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.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wRIoE9QJ9M








    Links234 wrote: »

    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.
    Links234 wrote: »

    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 :o

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabend

    Feyerabend 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



  • #470
    silverharp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,853 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    :)

    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



  • #471
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 28,267 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    silverharp wrote: »
    :)

    http://dailycaller.com/2015/08/17/yale-professor-seeks-to-abolish-the-word-master/
    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.

    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.


  • Advertisement
  • #472
    silverharp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,853 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    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.

    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.

    but does she think the "Princess of Wales" might offend people? He still wants to be called some other title, he is not going around asking everyone to call him Jim. I think given that its someone from a University setting that he is just trying to be terribly pc

    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



  • #473
    silverharp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,853 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    A feminist in the UK ran the marathon while she was having her period while wearing no tampon or towel in order to let the blood run down her leg so as to be visibly noticeable on purpose. She said she did this to prove people are (strangely enough) still not comfortable with seeing women bleeding in public due to their period.


    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/11793848/Free-bleeding-This-woman-ran-the-London-Marathon-on-her-period-without-a-tampon.html

    When Kiran Ghandi got her period the night before she was due to run the London Marathon in April, she didn’t know what to do.
    She’d never run a marathon before and hadn’t ever trained while she had her period.
    “I thought through my options. Running 26.2 miles with a wad of cotton material wedged between my legs just seemed so absurd,” she has just written on her blog.
    “But then I thought… If there’s one person society can’t eff with, it’s a marathon runner. You can’t tell a marathoner to clean themselves up, or to prioritise the comfort of others. On the marathon course, I could choose whether or not I wanted to participate in this norm of shaming.
    “I decided to just take some midol, hope I wouldn’t cramp, bleed freely and just run.”
    That’s exactly what Ghandi did. She didn’t put in a tampon or sanitary pad – she just ran the marathon and let the blood go onto her clothes.
    Ghandi, a Harvard MBA and former drummer for singer M.I.A, has recently written about this on her blog and shared photographs, in a bid to highlight the plight of women around the world who don’t have access to sanitary products and hide their periods.
    Ghandi, 26, said while she was running, one person who made a ‘disgusted’ face and told her she had started her period in a "subdued voice".
    On her blog, she wrote about the taboo and stigma behind periods: “By establishing a norm of period-shaming, [male-preferring] societies effectively prevent the ability to bond over an experience that 50% of us in the human population share monthly.
    “Because it is all kept quiet, women are socialised not to complain or talk about their own bodily functions, since no one can see it happening. And if you can’t see it, it’s probably ‘not a big deal.’ Why is this an important issue? Because THIS is happening, right now.”



    she might be a victim of a 4chan troll campaign thats managed to Poe feminists

    http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/08/10/apparently-free-bleeding-is-a-thing-now-and-social-justice-warriors-want-you-to-know-all-about-it/
    Although the concept of free-bleeding has existed in the outer corners of the feministisphere for years, it came to real public prominence in 2014 when the 4chan messageboard [quite often very NSFW] hatched a plan to launch a false-flag operation to troll feminists by getting them on-board made-up crusades to humiliate themselves. An archived post from 2014 in a discussion about creating a fake feminist movement explains how the idea should be presented to left-wing media for consumption:

    “What is freebleeding? Freebleeding is a new radfem movement that is quickly taking over twitter. It consists of us womyn bleeding with no restriction. A collective wave of freebleeding would have significant power in social media, it would illustrate the collective force and passion us womyn possess.

    “Why should every woman freebleed?

    “1. We are forced by the patriarchy to feel embarrased and conceal our needs during mensturation
    “2. By using pads and tampons, we are PAYING the patriarchy to oppress us. It has been too lond that us womyn have been paying the misogynist pigs for our physological needs
    “3. It is natural, we must show those pigmen that we can do whatever we want
    “4. Finally, being able to menstruate is something that is a undeniably female characteristic. How DARE they try and oppress it”

    And it worked:

    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



  • #474
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 28,267 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    silverharp wrote: »
    but does she think the "Princess of Wales" might offend people?
    Yes, she does. She think it will offend the (apparently sizable) constituency for whom there can only be one Princess of Wales - viz, Princess Lady St. Diana of Spencer.
    silverharp wrote: »
    He still wants to be called some other title, he is not going around asking everyone to call him Jim. I think given that its someone from a University setting that he is just trying to be terribly pc
    He wants to be called "doctor" or "professor", which are academic distinctions that he has earned. He doesn't feel that his office as head of the college requires any particular title.

    It's probably worth pointing out that "master" as the title for the head of a college at an Ivy League university is a relatively recent invention, and was archaic even when it was adopted. It was adopted in deliberate imitation of the colleges at Oxford and Cambridge, most (but not all) of which call their head "Master", even thought the nature and role of the colleges at Ivy League universities is nothing like the nature and role of Oxbridge colleges.

    He probably feels that the cultural cringe towards Oxbridge is no longer necessary, and may even be a bit of an embarrassment. And the term itself he finds inappropriate because of its sexist and, in the US, racist connotations. He may well feel that Pierson College doesn't need a Master for much the same reason that, in 1922, the Irish Free State decided it didn't need a Lord Chancellor.

    Probably worth pointing out that no college of any Irish university has or has ever had a "master". There's no god-give or man-made rule which makes it the obvious or default title for the chief executive of a college in a university.


  • #475
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 54,495 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    silverharp wrote: »
    A feminist in the UK ran the marathon while she was having her period while wearing no tampon or towel in order to let the blood run down her leg so as to be visibly noticeable on purpose. She said she did this to prove people are (strangely enough) still not comfortable with seeing women bleeding in public due to their period.


    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/11793848/Free-bleeding-This-woman-ran-the-London-Marathon-on-her-period-without-a-tampon.html
    a slightly more nuanced explanation than one favoured by the telegraph:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.in/kiran-gandhi/why-i-ran-the-london-mara_b_7996522.html


  • #476
    silverharp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,853 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Yes, she does. She think it will offend the (apparently sizable) constituency for whom there can only be one Princess of Wales - viz, Princess Lady St. Diana of Spencer.


    hmm I'd call that pandering , it is possible to be offended for reasons that are silly?
    Peregrinus wrote: »
    He wants to be called "doctor" or "professor", which are academic distinctions that he has earned. He doesn't feel that his office as head of the college requires any particular title.

    It's probably worth pointing out that "master" as the title for the head of a college at an Ivy League university is a relatively recent invention, and was archaic even when it was adopted. It was adopted in deliberate imitation of the colleges at Oxford and Cambridge, most (but not all) of which call their head "Master", even thought the nature and role of the colleges at Ivy League universities is nothing like the nature and role of Oxbridge colleges.

    He probably feels that the cultural cringe towards Oxbridge is no longer necessary, and may even be a bit of an embarrassment. And the term itself he finds inappropriate because of its sexist and, in the US, racist connotations. He may well feel that Pierson College doesn't need a Master for much the same reason that, in 1922, the Irish Free State decided it didn't need a Lord Chancellor.

    Probably worth pointing out that no college of any Irish university has or has ever had a "master". There's no god-give or man-made rule which makes it the obvious or default title for the chief executive of a college in a university.


    No, he still wants a title for the role, which doesnt exactly role off the tongue.
    Instead of ‘master,’ Davis proposes that students refer to him as “head of the college.”

    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



  • #477
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 28,267 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    silverharp wrote: »
    hmm I'd call that pandering , it is possible to be offended for reasons that are silly?
    Certainly it is. It's not only possible, but extremely common.

    And if you're in showbiz, like the Royals, you need to be aware of this. If you offend the punters, you'll pay for it. It doesn't matter in the least that you think their reasons for being offended are silly.
    silverharp wrote: »
    No, he still wants a title for the role, which doesnt exactly role off the tongue.
    He doesn't want a title in the sense of being addressed as "Head of the College" (as in "good morning, Head of the College Davis", instead of "good morning, Master Davis", which is apparently the current convention). He just reckons that, if you need to refer to his role, you can do it that way (as in "that's a decision that would need to be approved by the head of the college" instead of "that's a decision that would need to be approved by the Master").

    (Some might say that insisting that the head of the college be called, and referred to as, "Master" is a teeny bit pompous even if it didn't make people uncomfortable. They'd be the same people who would regard the royals as being in showbiz. You might or might not agree with them, but I don't think it amounts to left wing vegan cookieness.)


  • #478
    silverharp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,853 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Certainly it is. It's not only possible, but extremely common.

    And if you're in showbiz, like the Royals, you need to be aware of this. If you offend the punters, you'll pay for it. It doesn't matter in the least that you think their reasons for being offended are silly.


    He doesn't want a title in the sense of being addressed as "Head of the College" (as in "good morning, Head of the College Davis", instead of "good morning, Master Davis", which is apparently the current convention). He just reckons that, if you need to refer to his role, you can do it that way (as in "that's a decision that would need to be approved by the head of the college" instead of "that's a decision that would need to be approved by the Master").

    (Some might say that insisting that the head of the college be called, and referred to as, "Master" is a teeny bit pompous even if it didn't make people uncomfortable. They'd be the same people who would regard the royals as being in showbiz. You might or might not agree with them, but I don't think it amounts to left wing vegan cookieness.)

    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?

    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



  • #479
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 28,267 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    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?
    Is this your paraphrase of Davis's statement that "there have been instances when the title has made students, faculty and guests uncomfortable"?

    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! ;)


  • #480
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,473 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    silverharp wrote: »
    for example , the kinda stuff in this video, approve? not approve?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfzUG70nN6k
    Fairly short and to the point - she raises some very good points indeed.


  • Advertisement
  • #481
    jackofalltrades
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,289 ✭✭✭jackofalltrades


    Links234 wrote: »
    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.
    I think we should reject the term Islamophobia.
    It's it's a vague nonsensical word, which covers to much and it used to shutdown debate.

    This is how the Oxford English Dictionaries defines it:
    Dislike of or prejudice against Islam or Muslims, especially as a political force.
    So by that definiton if you dislike Islam or Islamism, even for rational reasons, then you're an Islamophobe.
    But a phobia is an irrational fear or hate, so the word makes no sense.
    The term anti-Muslim discrimination/bigotry is fine.
    There's no need to use the term racism either because Muslims aren't a race.
    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.
    What have you against Christians using the term Christophobia?
    Surely it's just their version of Islamophobia.


Advertisement