Progressive Racism

What on earth is “Anti science science”? Anti science is something that rejects science but then is based on science? Something like fake science? A falsehood? What you want to say is the biology of a person is not fixed and by suggesting otherwise I am making a false statement?

That about right?

It was a typo i edited above. My bad.

Most of these clips I can just laugh at. They’re just stupid people saying stupid things, and it doesn’t matter much. That particular one I found very, very disturbing. You had there a guy standing up in front of his class advocating genocide, and not one person stood up and said “Shame on you. I sincerely hope you somehow wind up in jail so you don’t get the opportunity to spread your poison to impressionable minds”.

Could be. But how is that even ONE person can be promoted to a position where he’s spouting utter nonsense and getting paid for it? How is it that a class of students are sitting there listening and nodding along?

Pol Pot was just one man. Hitler was just one man. Mao Tse-Tung was just one man. They weren’t even particularly clever men. But they sought out the malcontents and whispered all the right things in their ears, and hey presto, millions of people dead. All because of one man. This stuff is really starting to scare the crap out of me.

4 Likes

This is what happens when you allow the existential reality of a persecuted class to dictate to everyone what the objective reality is for everyone. to even say otherwise is hurtful and constitutes hate speech.

Now extrapolate that theory onto every minority, and you get the idea where this is going.and Finley is right, this isn’t even about one man, it’s an entire field of studies that only seems to expand with more farcical claims by the day.

3 Likes

Nobody I’ve ever encountered in life goes on about it with fervor, so it’s super weird to me.

I’m no hardcore PC advocate myself and don’t like when it gets absurd and overtakes common sense, but the visceral reactions I feel I see to these kinds of issues online don’t seem proportional at all to my life experience.

Comes off like mountains out of relative molehills. But I also think when there are no mountains available, it makes a lot more sense. :volcano:

What’s incredible is the university haven’t condemned what was said.

1 Like

Because we are entering a phase which makes absolutely no sense. The example of trans athletes in womens sports, if a woman has an objection to a biological male competing against women, she can’t say so because that would be trans phobic in and of itself and might get her banned. She’s not allowed to say biological men can’t transform into woman because that is trans phobic also. Yet it is the objective reality.

Extend that type of reasoning and you have every minority group creating the existential reality, which doesn’t need to be grounded in actual reality, which can be whatever they want and then the rest of society has to accept and adopt it no matter how ludicrous else be called racist, sexist, islamaphobic whatever phobe follows from the minority group asserting their existential reality on everyone else.

It’s bonkers! And if we look at the question “when will all this end” the answer is obvious, never. So at some point the rest of society get to say “stop”. You are not creating a better fairer society, more inclusive more welcoming, one where people care more for each other. You are doing the very opposite, pitting one group against another and it is causing maissive frictions between various groups. Stop it.

4 Likes

If you read the article, the University seems to be taking a measured approach, which I think is the right thing to do. I wish more universities would do this for these types of claims.

Fair point. However, with hate speech I’d have expected at least a standard “WSU does not condone such language”.

1 Like

I dunno, I suppose they have to do that, because politics, but it would be far more helpful in the long run if they were to dismiss him publicly for bringing the university into disrepute (and for being a complete idiot - doubting the existence of stars, seriously?)

If you believe everything Moreno says, than yes. If you think that Wash was preparing the team for arguments they will hear, then no.

I’ve watched enough that I suspect Moreno is right, but if I were the University I would drill down deep before making a judgment, especially a public one.

I’ve seen enough cases of hate hoaxes and out of context misrepresentations leading to a University to make swift and erroneous decisions that I appreciate one taking the time to get it right.

1 Like

I feel this is bit exaggerated and extreme, which was my original point. Society also tends to self-correct to reasonable. To me these things may be worthy of discussion but don’t fall into a ‘bonkers’ category in terms of their general influence, nor are the conditions set in concrete or leading us into some inevitable decline or something.

A bit of a faux issue imo, not really worthy of the priority you’re assigning to it. Just my take.

1 Like

Debating teams respond with “Send all whities into space” arguments? Or, “I’ve never been to space therefore it doesn’t exist.”?

If you listen to him talk, his argument is more that they’re not teaching people to debate. He made the example that it’s as if you took a math class and every lesson they just taught how whites were oppressing society, etc.

1 Like

Yes. That happens. I’m not saying the university should not even bother with an investigation. However, as Chen observed in her commentary, he can’t possibly have been playing Devil’s Advocate. To do that, you present arguments which are at least plausible and may have a rational defence. Wash was just talking nonsense, and you can’t debate nonsense, not even in theory. You either walk away from it, or you tell the speaker they’re an idiot. The exercise would be pointless.

Come to think of it, I’d say the reason nonsensical positions are so dangerous is that (a) stupid people are easily taken in by them but (b) there is no way to counter them with reason.

1 Like

Certainly, nobody is going to learn how to debate if they think that stating something cannot exist because they’ve never experienced it is going to fly.

1 Like

Depends, sometimes is harmless sometimes more disconcerting. Depends on the group and what they expect from their “allies”. For those that support Hamas, Linda Sarsour, Ilhan Omar and so on, supporters of the BDS movement. This is what they want.

It’s science that disproves bullshit pseudo science. Or as we used to call it, Science.

Can you unpack this idea a bit?

We see a lot of that nowadays from the executive branch; good thing the spell has all but worn off

Are you suggesting you are persecuted and have restrictions on your freedom of speech from academic circles…I think you’d probably best clarify what you mean by ‘hate speech’ in this equation also…

are you suggesting plurality of narratives is not a good thing? You seem to be presenting the idea of culture in terms of being a choice of narratives, when all of them can in fact exist at once without conflict

What field is that exactly?

So funny.

1 Like