Has political correctness actually gone mad?

Buchan said:
That is an absurd reductionist point to take from my post.
Click to expand...
You came to the right conclusion for all the wrong reasons, but then, copying the second highest rated comment from the reddit comments will do that for you. Reading has it's own inherent merits without needing to add particular caveats to what kids should have to read - and better syllabuses give teachers a choice of books to teach their students. It's not that kids should read a book that makes them or their parents feel uncomfortable, it's that if the teacher wants to teach a book, they should be allowed to (within reason).
 
Silva said:
You came to the right conclusion for all the wrong reasons, but then, copying the second highest rated comment from the reddit comments will do that for you. Reading has it's own inherent merits without needing to add particular caveats to what kids should have to read - and better syllabuses give teachers a choice of books to teach their students. It's not that kids should read a book that makes them or their parents feel uncomfortable, it's that if the teacher wants to teach a book, they should be allowed to (within reason).
Click to expand...

My position on matters such as this is one which is obviously quite common, if popular comments on other sites, as you say, appear to agree with what I've said.
 
I kinda hope the pulling of that book is just a case of 'PC gone mad'; otherwise, it's a far more insidious and worrying matter.
 
SteveJ said:
I kinda hope the pulling of that book is just a case of 'PC gone mad'; otherwise, it's a far more insidious and worrying matter.
Click to expand...
A lot of American school boards are notoriously wimpy. If they smell anything that could lead to a lawsuit they'll do as the parents wish. Chances are they'll start teaching the book again when a different set of parents protest its exclusion.
 
Last edited:
I'm wary of books that expose moral hypocrisy being banned. Classic U.S. novels like, say, The Scarlet Letter do this well.
 
Buchan said:
https://articles.al.com/news/index.ssf/2017/10/mississippi_school_district_pu.amp

If something makes you feel 'uncomfortable', it should be compulsory reading, particularly when it has historical accuracy and relevance. Education should always be challenging.
Click to expand...

I think this has to do with how upbringing and education has changed over the years. It's not all bad, kids are a lot more compassionate these days and bullying is down a lot. The bad side of it is that you are creating sensitive little snowflakes that think their feelings trump all. Like in Norway they just passed a law that states no one should be offended in school, and if an employee thinks an offense has taken place, we need to investigate and in case an offense did take place you need to report directly to the principal which in turn is obligated to take action.

Now of course racism, sexism and the like is and should be taken seriously, but never getting offended in high school? That's a tall order to put it mildly. This kind of over-protective approach has some bad consequences down the road because these kids are missing out on some pretty damn important life lessons.

Like when i was in primary school, kids these days they can't do conflict resolution, they just can't. If a disagreement happens they either run straight to an adult or it escalates to the point where the smallest thing turn into a huge argument

Silva said:
A lot of American school boards are notoriously wimpy. If they smell anything that could lead to a lawsuit they'll do as the parents wish. Chances are they'll start teaching the book again when a different set of parents protest its exclusion.
Click to expand...

This is spot on, and it's not just the US. Principals are terrified of difficult parents because they might lose their job if they don't appease the difficult ones. The kind of parents that believes their kid over anyone else, you know, because kids always tell the truth. An acquaintance of mine actually got threatened with lawsuit because she "gave a student a lower grade in math than she deserved too, and she had always gotten a better grade in middle school"

So yes, most schools cave in when parents/students pressure them, because it's not worth getting sacked over curriculum even though it goes against your beliefs.
 
I know this thread was relevant when it was made but shouldn't isn't the discussion about the acceptance of incorrectness (political or otherwise) the bigger threat right now? Suprised to see most of the discussion here about the same old political incorrectness going too far line. (I'm lazy and haven't gone though much tbf)
 
hobbers said:
Wikipedia exists for a reason you know.

In fact it even has the Daniel Dennett quote I like: "Postmodernism, the school of 'thought' that proclaimed 'There are no truths, only interpretations' has largely played itself out in absurdity, but it has left behind a generation of academics in the humanities disabled by their distrust of the very idea of truth and their disrespect for evidence, settling for 'conversations' in which nobody is wrong and nothing can be confirmed, only asserted with whatever style you can muster."

In a nutshell postmodernism is the rejection of knowledge, truth, scientific method, reason, basically all of the enlightenment ideals, because those ideals were conceived to consolidate the power of white males to the detriment of all other groups. Whereas marxism was concerned with instigating class warfare leading to revolution and the forming of a socialist utopia, postmodernism is concerned with instigating identity warfare.
Click to expand...

Or to put it in a nutshell: The age of enlightenment & modernism are the key foundations on which the civilized western world was constructed. Postmodernism is purely there to deconstruct it.
 
It's pretty amazing that a relatively new art movement, which was a reaction to another relatively new art movement, which itself was a reaction to an art movement seems to have all this power to change to the world. Personally I think we peaked with casualism, if you're gonna be lazy in your art go all out.
 
Last edited:
Adebesi said:
All I see there is a couple of people who didnt have the experience or maturity to deal with the interviewer, hardly proof that the racism they perceive is a figment of their imaginations.
Click to expand...

If social media & forums like this were about in the 1300's we'd get young people saying how scared they were of contracting the plague. During the 1st world war it would be how they feared for their fathers, brothers, uncles etc who were fighting in the trenches. The 2nd world war would be about having a minimal amount of food to eat & the possibly of dying from a bomb dropping on their house. Today it's: 'I'M OFFENDED'. Perception covers an awful lot of things, so before these so-called oppressed groups - Lesbians, gays, blacks, transgenders, feminists, etc - start with all this stuff about the rest of us not knowing what they're feeling because we've never experienced anything of their lives, they'd do well to grab a little bit of perspective of what other people have suffered, not just in the past, but in the here & now. If they did that, then there's a possibility that maybe, just maybe, they might just understand that we oppressive white males are not quite as bad as they 'perceive'. & if it's right what you say about the young couple from BLM not having the experience or maturity to appear on a televised debate, then you have to question the credibility of the organization that they represent. Surely they must have been approved by someone in authority to speak up for the group. I mean, it's not like they were being grilled by Andrew Neil or Jeremy Paxman. It was a very simple question that the interviewer asked & they fluffed their lines big time. It got me to thinking, what exactly is the primary objective of blacklivesmatter ? Do they not have a mission statement ? & why were this couple not made aware of it ? Too many people today hold strong orthodox opinions, but lack the knowledge, or strength, to back them up. That interview is a snapshot of a generation that bases it's argument on perception.
 
redman5 said:
If social media & forums like this were about in the 1300's we'd get young people saying how scared they were of contracting the plague. During the 1st world war it would be how they feared for their fathers, brothers, uncles etc who were fighting in the trenches. The 2nd world war would be about having a minimal amount of food to eat & the possibly of dying from a bomb dropping on their house. Today it's: 'I'M OFFENDED'. Perception covers an awful lot of things, so before these so-called oppressed groups - Lesbians, gays, blacks, transgenders, feminists, etc - start with all this stuff about the rest of us not knowing what they're feeling because we've never experienced anything of their lives, they'd do well to grab a little bit of perspective of what other people have suffered, not just in the past, but in the here & now. If they did that, then there's a possibility that maybe, just maybe, they might just understand that we oppressive white males are not quite as bad as they 'perceive'. & if it's right what you say about the young couple from BLM not having the experience or maturity to appear on a televised debate, then you have to question the credibility of the organization that they represent. Surely they must have been approved by someone in authority to speak up for the group. I mean, it's not like they were being grilled by Andrew Neil or Jeremy Paxman. It was a very simple question that the interviewer asked & they fluffed their lines big time. It got me to thinking, what exactly is the primary objective of blacklivesmatter ? Do they not have a mission statement ? & why were this couple not made aware of it ? Too many people today hold strong orthodox opinions, but lack the knowledge, or strength, to back them up. That interview is a snapshot of a generation that bases it's argument on perception.
Click to expand...
Uh, what? You know racial minorities, gays, women, etc. existed in those times too and on top of the plague or a bomb dropping on them were often killed for being what they were? Right? You talk of history like you stopped reading it at the age of 6.

Also, try paragraphs please. You can't criticise peoples inability to communicate while writing like that.
 
africanspur said:
This is head banging on wall frustrating right there. Genuinely it is.

It, in my opinion, shows a complete lack of desire to explore those issues further and understand why those people may feel the way they do.

People who say you have to be part of that group to feel or understand are wrong. You don't have to. But you certainly have to make an effort to do so.

For example, I'll give two examples of women that I can never personally experience but which I can appreciate from the recollections of others.

My wife (and indeed some of my exes) have said the same thing regarding 'comments' from males when they're alone, looks when they're alone. Looks and comments which disappear entirely when I (or any other male) is walking with them.

Now, some may say that its just words and looks right? Whatever, it may just be. But that is an experience that my wife has that I personally can never feel.

Another thing is I can see the effect I have on women when it is two of us walking down a dark street with very few or nobody else around. They speed up. You can tell they feel anxious, worried. I can never truly feel the worry they feel at that moment. Of course sexual assault can happen to males too but the chances are far less likely. I can't feel their worry. But I can try to understand it and change my behaviour in those situations accordingly (I will cross to the other side of the street if I can to make them feel more at ease).

Rather than mouthing off about PC culture or about my own negative experiences, I can try to appreciate the thoughts and lives of other people. What exactly is so horrific about that?
Click to expand...

Males are far more likely to be victims of a violent crime than women. So if you were walking down that same street & a shady bunch of youths were loitering about in the shadows, would you be anxious ? I know I would because I've been in that situation many times before. However, I'm glad to say that I've never been a victim of a violent assault, despite my fears. This sort of thing isn't a by-product of modern society, it's always gone on, & it'll probably still be happening when we're well gone. This isn't a perfect world. Everyone has their own hurdles to overcome - some more than others it's true - however we shouldn't feel guilty because we can't feel another person's pain & suffering.
 
Silva said:
Uh, what? You know racial minorities, gays, women, etc. existed in those times too and on top of the plague or a bomb dropping on them were often killed for being what they were? Right? You talk of history like you stopped reading it at the age of 6.

Also, try paragraphs please. You can't criticise peoples inability to communicate while writing like that.
Click to expand...

I challenged the point relating to perception. The young couple being interviewed couldn't answer a simple question which questioned that perception. So perhaps you, rather than going on about lack of paragraphs, & chucking out petty insults, can tell me why, in an age where discrimination of many forms is illegal, do so many people feel marginalized ? & more importantly, what statistics are there to back it up ?
 
redman5 said:
Males are far more likely to be victims of a violent crime than women. So if you were walking down that same street & a shady bunch of youths were loitering about in the shadows, would you be anxious ? I know I would because I've been in that situation many times before. However, I'm glad to say that I've never been a victim of a violent assault, despite my fears. This sort of thing isn't a by-product of modern society, it's always gone on, & it'll probably still be happening when we're well gone. This isn't a perfect world. Everyone has their own hurdles to overcome - some more than others it's true - however we shouldn't feel guilty because we can't feel another person's pain & suffering.
Click to expand...

Everyone has their own problems but it doesn't mean you can't try to sympathise with the struggles of others.
 
redman5 said:
I challenged the point relating to perception. The young couple being interviewed couldn't answer a simple question which questioned that perception. So perhaps you, rather than going on about lack of paragraphs, & chucking out petty insults, can tell me why, in an age where discrimination of many forms is illegal, do so many people feel marginalized ? & more importantly, what statistics are there to back it up ?
Click to expand...
Why wouldn't they feel marginalised? The current economic model punishes young people, particularly those from minority backgrounds and women. In the US local politicians actively try to prevent minorities from voting. Minorities are still more likely to be killed or sexually and violently abused for no particular reason. Trans people particularly more likely to be sexuality or violently assaulted than others, and have among the highest suicide rates of any group.

And that's just off the top of my head, if you really want to know more, just google inequality and marginalisation. You'll quickly find a million reasons why people who aren't heterosexual white males don't have quite the same experience in life as you and don't feel quite as happy with their social status.

redman5 said:
So do you feel guilty about all the pain & suffering going on in the world. Sympathy & guilt are 2 entirely different emotions you know.
Click to expand...
Uh, yeah. I'm currently writing this very sentence on one of the billions of electronic devices built by defacto slaves. How could I not feel guilty?
 
hobbers said:
Wikipedia exists for a reason you know.

In fact it even has the Daniel Dennett quote I like: "Postmodernism, the school of 'thought' that proclaimed 'There are no truths, only interpretations' has largely played itself out in absurdity, but it has left behind a generation of academics in the humanities disabled by their distrust of the very idea of truth and their disrespect for evidence, settling for 'conversations' in which nobody is wrong and nothing can be confirmed, only asserted with whatever style you can muster."

In a nutshell postmodernism is the rejection of knowledge, truth, scientific method, reason, basically all of the enlightenment ideals, because those ideals were conceived to consolidate the power of white males to the detriment of all other groups. Whereas marxism was concerned with instigating class warfare leading to revolution and the forming of a socialist utopia, postmodernism is concerned with instigating identity warfare.
Click to expand...

I asked you because I have read the wiki page, and pomo seemed boring and difficult, and I didn't quite get the "spectre haunting the world" feeling that you get from it. Indeed, I particularly don't get the sense that "postmodernism is concerned with instigating identity warfare" which is absurd for many reasons, firstly that postmodernism seems far too incoherent to do anything let alone instigate war.

From all that I've read, the core of postmodernism is a challenge of grand narratives. (This includes Marx's narrative of history being produced as a result of class struggle.)

Postmodernism has indeed challenged the notion that scientific truth is necessarily objective. History has shown that this could well be the case:

1. The measured skull size of Mongloids surpassed that of Caucasoids in the mid-late 20th c, while in the 19th c Caucasoids had consistently higher skull size than other races. This occured at the same time as Asian companies gained a global profile. No genetic changes can occur in 1-2 generations and sweep across the population rapidly enough to create such a gross phenotypic change. The change is either in sampling or measurement.
Full article - http://bactra.org/sloth/lieberman-on-rushton.pdf

2. Psychiatry as led by the American Psychiatric Association determined that homosexuality was a mental disorder, but the profession completely reversed itself recently. This occurred at the same time as the gay rights' movement gained strength.

3. Max Planck, pretty much the founder of quantum mechanics, said: "Science advances one funeral at a time". He was referring to his observation that scientists who have a powerful position within the academy tend to be older, have fixed views, and by virtue of their position their views persist as the 'consensus' of seemingly objective science.

4. Early psychiatry said that many medical symptoms in women were caused by female hysteria.

I will use the last example. This is an example from the post-enlightenment west. The concept of hysteria (at least according to wiki) is millenia old in the west, and started with male Greek philosophers. In the 19th c, the existing diagnosis of hysteria, a pre-enlightenment concept, was continued and dramatically expanded by doctors, who were all post-enlightenment men of science.
Thus we see that science is capable of reproducing existing societal prejudices packaged in a more objective fashion. I think it is safe to assume that this diagnosis was a product of the prevailing norms regarding the state of women, which itself were the product of male dominance of society over millennia. This diagnosis could be used to keep women in line, or more directly it could be used as sexual stimulation for the male doctors when they treated their patients. Hence this is indeed an example of enlightenment, objective science, created by men, in the service of their own (gender) interest. The 1st and 2nd case can be analysed similarly. In fact there is much about race science to which the same applies.

Since you brought up the enlightenment and its rationalism, I will talk about the race science of Enlightenment thinkers. Some will be quotes without comment, others I'll add a note.
When comparing Europeans to Negroes, Voltaire compared them to different breeds of dog:

The Negro race is a species of men different from ours as the breed of spaniels is from that of greyhounds. The mucous membrane, or network, which Nature has spread between the muscles and the skin, is white in us and black or copper-colored in them.
Click to expand...

Carl Linnaeus (1707–1778), the Swedish physician, botanist, and zoologist, modified the established taxonomic bases of binomial nomenclature for fauna and flora, and was a pioneer researcher in biologically defining human race. In Systema Naturae (1767), he labeled five[20] "varieties"[21][22] of human species. Each one was described as possessing the following physiognomic characteristics "varying by culture and place":[23]

  • The Americanus: red, choleraic, righteous; black, straight, thick hair; stubborn, zealous, free; painting himself with red lines, and regulated by customs.[24]
  • The Europeanus: white, sanguine, browny; with abundant, long hair; blue eyes; gentle, acute, inventive; covered with close vestments; and governed by laws.[25]
  • The Asiaticus: yellow, melancholic, stiff; black hair, dark eyes; severe, haughty, greedy; covered with loose clothing; and ruled by opinions.[26]
  • The Afer or Africanus: black, phlegmatic, relaxed; black, frizzled hair; silky skin, flat nose, tumid lips; females without shame; mammary glands give milk abundantly; crafty, sly, lazy, cunning, lustful, careless; anoints himself with grease; and governed by caprice.[27]
Click to expand...
My comment: Linnaeus is the most important figure in pre-Darwinian biology, and his influence and ideas continue today in the way we analyse and cluster species.

Kant argued that human beings were equipped with the same seeds (Keime) and the natural predispositions or characteristics (Anlagen) that when expressed were dependent upon climate and served a purpose due to the circumstance. After this process had occurred, it was also irreversible. Therefore, race could not be undone by changes in climate. "Whichever germ was actualized by the conditions, the other germs would retire into inactivity." Kant stated:

The yellow Indians do have a meagre talent. The Negroes are far below them, and at the lowest point are a part of the American people.
Click to expand...

Now, I admit these were easy targets to me since they were pre-Darwinian. But it is important to note that these are all products of the Englightenment. Now, onto post-Darwin - does his theory cut out the batshit in the enlightenment view of race or does it reinforce it?

Franz Ignaz Pruner (1808–1882) was a medical doctor who studied the racial structure of Negroes in Egypt. In a book which he wrote in 1846 he claimed that Negro blood had a negative influence on the Egyptian moral character. He published a monograph on Negroes in 1861. He claimed that the main feature of the Negro's skeleton is prognathism, which he claimed was the Negro's relation to the ape.
...
Another polygenist evolutionist was Karl Vogt (1817–1895) who believed that the Negro race was related to the ape. He wrote the white race was a separate species to Negroes.
...
Haeckel also wrote that Negroes have stronger and more freely movable toes than any other race which is evidence that Negroes are related to apes because when apes stop climbing in trees they hold on to the trees with their toes, Haeckel compared Negroes to "four-handed" apes. Haeckel also believed Negroes were savages and that whites were the most civilised
(my note: Haeckel is a major influence on current biology)
...
In this book, he classified humanity into various, hierarchized races, spanning from the "Aryan white race, dolichocephalic", to the "brachycephalic", "mediocre and inert" race, best represented by the "Jew". Between these, Vacher de Lapouge identified the "Homo europaeus (Teutonic, Protestant, etc.), the "Homo alpinus" (Auvergnat, Turkish, etc.), and finally the "Homo mediterraneus" (Neapolitan, Andalus, etc.)
Click to expand...

I have stayed away from the biggest, most influential and brilliant post-Darwinian statistician, Sir Francis Galton, Fellow of the Royal Society. As you said, there is always wiki to explore his oeuvre.

All of these were Enlightenment figures, indeed most of them were proud products of the rationalist tradition, who produced utter junk to justify their position in the world and reinforce the world view they had grown up with. Unlike the Pionner fund crowd of today, there was no material reward for any of them to produce the bile they did - they were simply following the scientific method of making an observation, proposing a hypothesis, and in some cases, testing it experimentally.



Finally, you need to read some Marx, and maybe the Standford philosophy page on PoMo; to just be blunt with what I thought the moment I saw your post - your understanding is outrageously shallow and mostly wrong on both subjects.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/marx/
was remarkably easy to read
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/postmodernism/
was, like its subject, insanely complex and I gave up midway.

I am a biologist, and these are not my topics. I took a single literature course by a professor who hates social justice and dislikes postmodern literature, the main description she had of PoMo was the challenge to established forms especially to any meta-narrative (narrative to explain other narratives), and google seems to confirm that. I have never read anything by Marx fully on my own, and never touched him academically. But I know enough to tell you that your definitions aren't correct.


@redman5
Please read up on what modernism is. It was exactly the modernist degeneracy that the 30s right opposed, and I have a feeling you won't be a fan.
Further, deconstruction in the context of postmodernism refers to the way postmodernists read and interpret texts, not the way they propose to restructure society.
 
berbatrick said:
firstly that postmodernism seems far too incoherent to do anything let alone instigate war.
Click to expand...
Legit. I had to write essays on it at university, and even after reading some of the books 2 or 3 times often handed in an essay that was essentially bullshit because postmodernism is a fecking nightmare. I almost admire some peoples ability to twist it into a conspiracy theory, you know, if they weren't so laughably simple.
 
Last edited:
africanspur said:
This is head banging on wall frustrating right there. Genuinely it is.

It, in my opinion, shows a complete lack of desire to explore those issues further and understand why those people may feel the way they do.

People who say you have to be part of that group to feel or understand are wrong. You don't have to. But you certainly have to make an effort to do so.

For example, I'll give two examples of women that I can never personally experience but which I can appreciate from the recollections of others.

My wife (and indeed some of my exes) have said the same thing regarding 'comments' from males when they're alone, looks when they're alone. Looks and comments which disappear entirely when I (or any other male) is walking with them.

Now, some may say that its just words and looks right? Whatever, it may just be. But that is an experience that my wife has that I personally can never feel.

Another thing is I can see the effect I have on women when it is two of us walking down a dark street with very few or nobody else around. They speed up. You can tell they feel anxious, worried. I can never truly feel the worry they feel at that moment. Of course sexual assault can happen to males too but the chances are far less likely. I can't feel their worry. But I can try to understand it and change my behaviour in those situations accordingly (I will cross to the other side of the street if I can to make them feel more at ease).

Rather than mouthing off about PC culture or about my own negative experiences, I can try to appreciate the thoughts and lives of other people. What exactly is so horrific about that?
Click to expand...
Just a quick question, why is it ok to demonise/be fearful of all men for the actions of a few, yet frowned upon to be wary of middle eastern people on planes and trains?

Personally as a man I'd condemn any creep who even just makes a woman feel uneasy. But I've still been the subject of unjustified assumptions about me when out at night. Are both of these not just instinctive fears?
 
2 Man Midfield said:
Just a quick question, why is it ok to demonise/be fearful of all men for the actions of a few, yet frowned upon to be wary of middle eastern people on planes and trains?

Personally as a man I'd condemn any creep who even just makes a woman feel uneasy. But I've still been the subject of unjustified assumptions about me when out at night. Are both of these not just instinctive fears?
Click to expand...
Scale. The majority of women have been sexually harassed at some point in their lives and all of them have heard horror stories from their friends. Also, it's not like sexual abusers have a uniform, they look much like you and other normal men.
 
Silva said:
Scale. The majority of women have been sexually harassed at some point in their lives and all of them have heard horror stories from their friends. Also, it's not like sexual abusers have a uniform, they look much like you and other normal men.
Click to expand...

Fair point.
 
Silva said:
Legit. I had to write essays on it at university, and even after reading some of the books 2 or 3 times often handed in an essay that was essentially bullshit because postmodernism is a fecking nightmare. I almost admire some peoples ability to twist it into a conspiracy theory, you know, if they weren't so laughably simple.
Click to expand...

I'd agree with that. If there are no absolute truths then there can be no absolute conclusions.
 
Cheesy said:
Everyone has their own problems but it doesn't mean you can't try to sympathise with the struggles of others.
Click to expand...

I do sympathise but I don't feel guilt. I've been donating to Oxfam ever since Live Aid back in 1985. They send me literature every now & then to show some of the good work they do in deprived parts of the world like Africa. I do this because I feel sympathy for them not being able to wake up every morning & have all the advantages & privileges I quite often take for granted. Why should I feel guilty for that ?
 
I think you're both getting bogged down in semantics here, they're two similar emotions. The point is you both at least feel something, isn't it?
 
berbatrick said:
I asked you because I have read the wiki page, and pomo seemed boring and difficult, and I didn't quite get the "spectre haunting the world" feeling that you get from it. Indeed, I particularly don't get the sense that "postmodernism is concerned with instigating identity warfare" which is absurd for many reasons, firstly that postmodernism seems far too incoherent to do anything let alone instigate war.

From all that I've read, the core of postmodernism is a challenge of grand narratives. (This includes Marx's narrative of history being produced as a result of class struggle.)

Postmodernism has indeed challenged the notion that scientific truth is necessarily objective. History has shown that this could well be the case:

1. The measured skull size of Mongloids surpassed that of Caucasoids in the mid-late 20th c, while in the 19th c Caucasoids had consistently higher skull size than other races. This occured at the same time as Asian companies gained a global profile. No genetic changes can occur in 1-2 generations and sweep across the population rapidly enough to create such a gross phenotypic change. The change is either in sampling or measurement.
Full article - http://bactra.org/sloth/lieberman-on-rushton.pdf

2. Psychiatry as led by the American Psychiatric Association determined that homosexuality was a mental disorder, but the profession completely reversed itself recently. This occurred at the same time as the gay rights' movement gained strength.

3. Max Planck, pretty much the founder of quantum mechanics, said: "Science advances one funeral at a time". He was referring to his observation that scientists who have a powerful position within the academy tend to be older, have fixed views, and by virtue of their position their views persist as the 'consensus' of seemingly objective science.

4. Early psychiatry said that many medical symptoms in women were caused by female hysteria.

I will use the last example. This is an example from the post-enlightenment west. The concept of hysteria (at least according to wiki) is millenia old in the west, and started with male Greek philosophers. In the 19th c, the existing diagnosis of hysteria, a pre-enlightenment concept, was continued and dramatically expanded by doctors, who were all post-enlightenment men of science.
Thus we see that science is capable of reproducing existing societal prejudices packaged in a more objective fashion. I think it is safe to assume that this diagnosis was a product of the prevailing norms regarding the state of women, which itself were the product of male dominance of society over millennia. This diagnosis could be used to keep women in line, or more directly it could be used as sexual stimulation for the male doctors when they treated their patients. Hence this is indeed an example of enlightenment, objective science, created by men, in the service of their own (gender) interest. The 1st and 2nd case can be analysed similarly. In fact there is much about race science to which the same applies.

Since you brought up the enlightenment and its rationalism, I will talk about the race science of Enlightenment thinkers. Some will be quotes without comment, others I'll add a note.


All of these were Enlightenment figures, indeed most of them were proud products of the rationalist tradition, who produced utter junk to justify their position in the world and reinforce the world view they had grown up with. Unlike the Pionner fund crowd of today, there was no material reward for any of them to produce the bile they did - they were simply following the scientific method of making an observation, proposing a hypothesis, and in some cases, testing it experimentally.



Finally, you need to read some Marx, and maybe the Standford philosophy page on PoMo; to just be blunt with what I thought the moment I saw your post - your understanding is outrageously shallow and mostly wrong on both subjects.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/marx/
was remarkably easy to read
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/postmodernism/
was, like its subject, insanely complex and I gave up midway.

I am a biologist, and these are not my topics. I took a single literature course by a professor who hates social justice and dislikes postmodern literature, the main description she had of PoMo was the challenge to established forms especially to any meta-narrative (narrative to explain other narratives), and google seems to confirm that. I have never read anything by Marx fully on my own, and never touched him academically. But I know enough to tell you that your definitions aren't correct.
Click to expand...

Scientific racism and female hysteria are both excellent examples of exactly why the scientific method and rationalism are forces for good in the world. Without enlightenment ideals, and a robust approach to scientific inquiry, how many of these crazy theories might still persist to this day?

Max Planck's point is valid, and speaks to a philosophy of science in line with someone like Thomas Kuhn. You could certainly say that in some fields progress might be slowed merely by the weight of a single reputation, but still this is only ever a temporary stymie and progress is never reversed.

Back to marxism and postmodernism. I'm not so interested in their definitions or histories as I am in how the ideologies are applied. How common interpretations have churned out generations of useless pseudo-academics in the humanities, who contribute absolutely nothing to human advancement and succeed only in deskilling their unfortunate students.

I'd sooner be a sociopathic scientist working to find a cure for malaria than some dopey liberal arts professor crushed by the weight of my own guilt.
 
Last edited:
The utter irony of Foucault's major positions: all of them rooted in his personal experiences and desires. So biased as to be virtually worthless.
 
Silva said:
Why wouldn't they feel marginalised? The current economic model punishes young people, particularly those from minority backgrounds and women. In the US local politicians actively try to prevent minorities from voting. Minorities are still more likely to be killed or sexually and violently abused for no particular reason. Trans people particularly more likely to be sexuality or violently assaulted than others, and have among the highest suicide rates of any group.

And that's just off the top of my head, if you really want to know more, just google inequality and marginalisation. You'll quickly find a million reasons why people who aren't heterosexual white males don't have quite the same experience in life as you and don't feel quite as happy with their social status.


Uh, yeah. I'm currently writing this very sentence on one of the billions of electronic devices built by defacto slaves. How could I not feel guilty?
Click to expand...

So where has this social uprising from the minority groups originated from then ? You see, one of my closest friends is a very successful sales manager who works for a major blue-chip company. He & I met some 20 odd years ago at a media sales conference in Harrogate. He's one of the most positive, inspirational people I've ever met. His peers & subordinates all have the highest respect for him & his strong 'can do' attitude. He has a terrific sense of humour & an ability to shrug of setbacks & negativity. We both have a lot in common insofar that we're both a similar age - he's actually a few years younger than me at 55 - We both came from similar deprived areas. South London for him & north Liverpool for me. Started work at aged just 15, because working class people like us simply didn't go to university. Even if we got the grades required our parents couldn't have afforded it. Both of us were fortunate enough to eventually work for companies that paid for us to study, & obtain, a degree that was relevant to our respective job titles. The only thing we don't have in common is that he's black & I'm white.

Can you see why some people from an older generation might be struggling to accept this 'victimhood status' from these so-called minorities ? Can you see why some of us can't accept this 'you've never been through what I've been through' mentality ? Because it cuts both ways. They've probably never had to sleep in a bed that's infested with bedbugs that feast on you every night, & have coats used as makeshift blankets on cold nights. It's that perception thing again you see. So when I've gone through my life having accumulated a large group of friends who all come from a diverse range of backgrounds, cultures, & ethnic groups. & when I don't hear any of this 'poor little me' narratives from these same people. I take it, that like me, & many others, they've taken on the challenges that life has thrown at them, overcome the hurdles, & made a good life for themselves based purely on the fact that they are responsible for most of what they achieve.

It's all about attitude & state-of-mind. If you've been brought up in an environment where you're led to believe that the odds are stacked against you, then it's fairly obvious that you're going to struggle to make much of your lives. Those 2 young kids in the video I posted are living proof of that. & I personally think it's very sad.
 
Why should the silence in that video be cast as emblematic of BLM and so, apparently, discredit the movement? Mainstream politicians worldwide are notorious for being unable or unwilling to answer serious questions...
 
redman5 said:
So where has this social uprising from the minority groups originated from then ? You see, one of my closest friends is a very successful sales manager who works for a major blue-chip company. He & I met some 20 odd years ago at a media sales conference in Harrogate. He's one of the most positive, inspirational people I've ever met. His peers & subordinates all have the highest respect for him & his strong 'can do' attitude. He has a terrific sense of humour & an ability to shrug of setbacks & negativity. We both have a lot in common insofar that we're both a similar age - he's actually a few years younger than me at 55 - We both came from similar deprived areas. South London for him & north Liverpool for me. Started work at aged just 15, because working class people like us simply didn't go to university. Even if we got the grades required our parents couldn't have afforded it. Both of us were fortunate enough to eventually work for companies that paid for us to study, & obtain, a degree that was relevant to our respective job titles. The only thing we don't have in common is that he's black & I'm white.

Can you see why some people from an older generation might be struggling to accept this 'victimhood status' from these so-called minorities ? Can you see why some of us can't accept this 'you've never been through what I've been through' mentality ? Because it cuts both ways. They've probably never had to sleep in a bed that's infested with bedbugs that feast on you every night, & have coats used as makeshift blankets on cold nights. It's that perception thing again you see. So when I've gone through my life having accumulated a large group of friends who all come from a diverse range of backgrounds, cultures, & ethnic groups. & when I don't hear any of this 'poor little me' narratives from these same people. I take it, that like me, & many others, they've taken on the challenges that life has thrown at them, overcome the hurdles, & made a good life for themselves based purely on the fact that they are responsible for most of what they achieve.

It's all about attitude & state-of-mind. If you've been brought up in an environment where you're led to believe that the odds are stacked against you, then it's fairly obvious that you're going to struggle to make much of your lives. Those 2 young kids in the video I posted are living proof of that. & I personally think it's very sad.
Click to expand...

Good post.
 
redman5 said:
So where has this social uprising from the minority groups originated from then ? You see, one of my closest friends is a very successful sales manager who works for a major blue-chip company. He & I met some 20 odd years ago at a media sales conference in Harrogate. He's one of the most positive, inspirational people I've ever met. His peers & subordinates all have the highest respect for him & his strong 'can do' attitude. He has a terrific sense of humour & an ability to shrug of setbacks & negativity. We both have a lot in common insofar that we're both a similar age - he's actually a few years younger than me at 55 - We both came from similar deprived areas. South London for him & north Liverpool for me. Started work at aged just 15, because working class people like us simply didn't go to university. Even if we got the grades required our parents couldn't have afforded it. Both of us were fortunate enough to eventually work for companies that paid for us to study, & obtain, a degree that was relevant to our respective job titles. The only thing we don't have in common is that he's black & I'm white.

Can you see why some people from an older generation might be struggling to accept this 'victimhood status' from these so-called minorities ? Can you see why some of us can't accept this 'you've never been through what I've been through' mentality ? Because it cuts both ways. They've probably never had to sleep in a bed that's infested with bedbugs that feast on you every night, & have coats used as makeshift blankets on cold nights. It's that perception thing again you see. So when I've gone through my life having accumulated a large group of friends who all come from a diverse range of backgrounds, cultures, & ethnic groups. & when I don't hear any of this 'poor little me' narratives from these same people. I take it, that like me, & many others, they've taken on the challenges that life has thrown at them, overcome the hurdles, & made a good life for themselves based purely on the fact that they are responsible for most of what they achieve.

It's all about attitude & state-of-mind. If you've been brought up in an environment where you're led to believe that the odds are stacked against you, then it's fairly obvious that you're going to struggle to make much of your lives. Those 2 young kids in the video I posted are living proof of that. & I personally think it's very sad.
Click to expand...

Excellent.
 
No, it's merely anecdotal.
 
redman5 said:
So where has this social uprising from the minority groups originated from then ? You see, one of my closest friends is a very successful sales manager who works for a major blue-chip company. He & I met some 20 odd years ago at a media sales conference in Harrogate. He's one of the most positive, inspirational people I've ever met. His peers & subordinates all have the highest respect for him & his strong 'can do' attitude. He has a terrific sense of humour & an ability to shrug of setbacks & negativity. We both have a lot in common insofar that we're both a similar age - he's actually a few years younger than me at 55 - We both came from similar deprived areas. South London for him & north Liverpool for me. Started work at aged just 15, because working class people like us simply didn't go to university. Even if we got the grades required our parents couldn't have afforded it. Both of us were fortunate enough to eventually work for companies that paid for us to study, & obtain, a degree that was relevant to our respective job titles. The only thing we don't have in common is that he's black & I'm white.

Can you see why some people from an older generation might be struggling to accept this 'victimhood status' from these so-called minorities ? Can you see why some of us can't accept this 'you've never been through what I've been through' mentality ? Because it cuts both ways. They've probably never had to sleep in a bed that's infested with bedbugs that feast on you every night, & have coats used as makeshift blankets on cold nights. It's that perception thing again you see. So when I've gone through my life having accumulated a large group of friends who all come from a diverse range of backgrounds, cultures, & ethnic groups. & when I don't hear any of this 'poor little me' narratives from these same people. I take it, that like me, & many others, they've taken on the challenges that life has thrown at them, overcome the hurdles, & made a good life for themselves based purely on the fact that they are responsible for most of what they achieve.

It's all about attitude & state-of-mind. If you've been brought up in an environment where you're led to believe that the odds are stacked against you, then it's fairly obvious that you're going to struggle to make much of your lives. Those 2 young kids in the video I posted are living proof of that. & I personally think it's very sad.
Click to expand...

The problem is that you're writing off fairly valid concerns (a lot of the time) as people simply wanting to be victims, when they're instead highlighting important issues within society which affect them negatively. Why should minority LGBT groups, for example, not bring up issues which affect them? Surely there's a gap between 'playing' the victim and saying nothing at all whatsoever?

Obviously there are plenty of cases where people will act in a hysterical manner and exaggerate certain claims, but that doesn't mean there aren't plenty of people who have genuine concerns that they want to highlight. And the fact that someone else may have a different problem that they don't have doesn't undermine or diminish what it is they're concerned about, either. Someone from the LGBT community who hypothetically comes from a well-off background and has a good job can still complain about any discrimination they receive without it being hypocritical or an attempt to seek 'victimhood'.
 
redman5 said:
So where has this social uprising from the minority groups originated from then ?
Click to expand...
It's always been there. Long before your dad was a glimmer in his dads eye.

You see, one of my closest friends is a very successful sales manager who works for a major blue-chip company. He & I met some 20 odd years ago at a media sales conference in Harrogate. He's one of the most positive, inspirational people I've ever met. His peers & subordinates all have the highest respect for him & his strong 'can do' attitude. He has a terrific sense of humour & an ability to shrug of setbacks & negativity. We both have a lot in common insofar that we're both a similar age - he's actually a few years younger than me at 55 - We both came from similar deprived areas. South London for him & north Liverpool for me. Started work at aged just 15, because working class people like us simply didn't go to university. Even if we got the grades required our parents couldn't have afforded it. Both of us were fortunate enough to eventually work for companies that paid for us to study, & obtain, a degree that was relevant to our respective job titles. The only thing we don't have in common is that he's black & I'm white.
Click to expand...
One of my closest friends wears a hat. I'm not sure why that matters.

Can you see why some people from an older generation might be struggling to accept this 'victimhood status' from these so-called minorities ? Can you see why some of us can't accept this 'you've never been through what I've been through' mentality ? Because it cuts both ways. They've probably never had to sleep in a bed that's infested with bedbugs that feast on you every night, & have coats used as makeshift blankets on cold nights. It's that perception thing again you see. So when I've gone through my life having accumulated a large group of friends who all come from a diverse range of backgrounds, cultures, & ethnic groups. & when I don't hear any of this 'poor little me' narratives from these same people. I take it, that like me, & many others, they've taken on the challenges that life has thrown at them, overcome the hurdles, & made a good life for themselves based purely on the fact that they are responsible for most of what they achieve.
Click to expand...
All I can see is "Woe is me, why do kids who have it better complain"

It's all about attitude & state-of-mind. If you've been brought up in an environment where you're led to believe that the odds are stacked against you, then it's fairly obvious that you're going to struggle to make much of your lives. Those 2 young kids in the video I posted are living proof of that. & I personally think it's very sad.
Click to expand...
You'll be dead long before we know what they've made of their lives, so take that shit out of here.
 
Last edited:
hobbers said:
Scientific racism and female hysteria are both excellent examples of exactly why the scientific method and rationalism are forces for good in the world. Without enlightenment ideals, and a robust approach to scientific inquiry, how many of these crazy theories might still persist to this day?

Max Planck's point is valid, and speaks to a philosophy of science in line with someone like Thomas Kuhn. You could certainly say that in some fields progress might be slowed merely by the weight of a single reputation, but still this is only ever a temporary stymie and progress is never reversed.

Back to marxism and postmodernism. I'm not so interested in their definitions or histories as I am in how the ideologies are applied. How common interpretations have churned out generations of useless pseudo-academics in the humanities, who contribute absolutely nothing to human advancement and succeed only in deskilling their unfortunate students.

I'd sooner be a sociopathic scientist working to find a cure for malaria than some dopey liberal arts professor crushed by the weight of my own guilt.
Click to expand...
Postmodernism has zero real life application. Maybe if you spent a little more time listening to useless pseudo-academics and less time listening to your neo-nazi friends you'd realise that.
 
Silva said:
It's always been there. Long before your dad was a glimmer in his dads eye.


One of my closest friends wears a hat. I'm not sure why that matters.


All I can see is "Woe is me, why do kids who have it better complain"


You'll be dead long before we know what they've made of their lives, so take that shit out of here.
Click to expand...
I think that's a bit harsh, but can understand where you're coming from.
My racist mother actually made a valid point to me about youth's perception of the baby boomer generation, with their affordable housing and good pensions etc...
She grew up when rationing was still going, her family house had an outside loo and she also couldn't go to uni cos she needed to work.
It wasn't the utopian dream people paint when they talk about final salary pension schemes. That generation knew struggle too- but they find modern day ones, like whether Starbucks has a gender neutral toilet, petty, compared to what they faced.
You can see both sides tbh.

EDIT: I do see that young people face horrid challenges around the affordability of housing, education too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.