ARTICLE for Boomzilla about SOCIAL JUSTICE!



  • Since I know he's SUCH A FAN.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    He may have already seen that via http://ace.mu.nu/archives/357104.php, like I did.



  • TL;DR: people are fucking pansies these days.



  • That was actually pretty interesting. I find myself in similar circumstances often, but it's not the "liberals" or whatever who get butt hurt. It's mostly everybody -- the "normal" people who absolutely insist on emotionally charged readings of even the driest technical subject matter, and yell "I DISAGREE!!!!!!!ONEONE" again and again. SJWs and libertardians both do this, all the time. Telling these people that I'm using the basic definitions of a field only makes them more emotionally invested, since it highlights their ignorance.

    It takes a certain kind of boredom/tenacity to keep repeating the same argument in different words until they find one that makes sense to them. I would hate to be a college professor, where that is apparently not even a possibility.



  • Linked from that article, is this one.

    I love this quote:

    JESUS FUCK, LIKE SERIOUSLY FUCK, I SEE MORE WHITE BINDERS POLICING WOC AND DEMANDING TO BE EDUCATED/UNEDUCATED AS IF IT’S A FUCKING NOBLE MISSION RATHER THAN I DUNNO SPEND TIME SHUTTING DOWN AND SHITTING ON RACIST DOUCHE CANOE BEHAVIOUR; WHAT ARE YOU GAINING BY THIS? WHAT ARE YOU DETRACTING? YOU NEED SCREENCAPS OF BURNING CROSSES TO BELIEVE RACIST SHIT IS HAPPENING? THIS THREAD IS PAINFUL. HUGS TO ALL THE WOC DURING THIS THREAD



  • Yah, we have this shit over here as well. There was a huge article in our newspapers where some students anonymously complained that a certain professor (a luminary in his specialist field) was using politically incorrect, sexist or militaristic terms or was talking derogatively about certain ethnic groups. The lecture amounted to Politics 101, so you can guess as to how much real-world experience those students actually had.

    They did this via an anonymous blog - because, and I quote: "If we did this publicly we wouldn't be able to find a job afterwards!"

    Curiously, they were unable to provide actual transcripts, audio logs or anything really which would have actually corroborated their story.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    I love this quote

    Of course you would, it's in all caps and full of swearing.

    And again - people of today, cis, trans, white, black, female, male, non-binary, transcending the social divisions of mere mortals, whatever - just need to grow some fucking balls already. Welcome to Real World, people. Not everyone gives a shit about your feelings here.



  • @Maciejasjmj said:

    And again - people of today, cis, trans, white, black, female, male, non-binary, transcending the social divisions of mere mortals, whatever - just need to grow some fucking balls already. Welcome to Real World, people. Not everyone gives a shit about your feelings here.

    I'm so glad that I'm teaching Physics and Chemistry and tenured. If someone were offended by Newton's Axioms I can simply point to the syllabus.

    Granted, some political issues are covered - I'm also teaching nuclear physics as well as methods of energy production - I'll tell them that almost anything and everything has drawbacks. And that no energy production method has only positives.



  • @Rhywden said:

    And that no energy production method has only positives.

    But... but... the ad said I can have free energy with this one easy step...



  • @Maciejasjmj said:

    But... but... the ad said I can have free energy with this one easy step...

    I actually had to convince one of my younger brothers that he fell for a scam on this one. "Crystal energy" and all that shit.

    "But it works!" he complained. "Yeah," I said, "because you built a Daniell Cell, you genius."



  • @Rhywden said:

    Daniell Cell

    Well, it is energy. And if you already own salt, water and aluminium foil, it's also free.



  • @Rhywden said:

    has only positives

    Well duh, how would the electricity flow?



  • @swayde said:

    Well duh, how would the electricity flow?

    It's like magic, you know. It just flows, and there's no positive or negative or anything; it just goes from one place to another like magic. 😇



  • @Rhywden said:

    And that no energy production method has only positives.

    That's what BIG ENERGY wants people to BELIEVE. Good work SHILL. Hope you get paid some big bucks to TEACH LIES TO OUR CHILDREN at least.

    Also, you have no right to impose your WHITE MEN SCIENCE to people of other cultures.



  • I was mostly in agreement with the author, up to this point:

    If we subscribe to the belief that ideas can be judged within a vacuum, uninfluenced by the social weight of their proponents, we perpetuate a system in which arbitrary markers like race and gender influence the perceived correctness of ideas. We can't overcome prejudice by pretending it doesn't exist. Focusing on identity allows us to interrogate the process through which white males have their opinions taken at face value, while women, people of color, and non-normatively gendered people struggle to have their voices heard.

    I disagree. Ideas should be judged on their own merits, regardless of "the social weight of their proponents." If, indeed, "white males have their opinions taken at face value" and others "struggle to have their voices heard," this is a problem that needs to be fixed. But it should be done by judging the idea, not the source of the idea. "Focusing on identity" perpetuates a "process" in which "identity" is falsely considered relevant to the importance of an idea.

    One aspect of the identity of an idea's source is potentially relevant. If an idea or opinion is put forth by someone with years of experience in the field on which they are offering an opinion, and another is put forth by a random dude(ette) on the Internet, the former's idea is more likely to have merit than the latter's, and IMHO this can be an appropriate filter to use in deciding where to use limited resources for further evaluation. However, the "identity" (in the buzzword sense) of either source is irrelevant to the merits of the ideas, and should be regarded as such; ideally, IMHO, it wouldn't even be known to those evaluating the ideas.



  • @Maciejasjmj said:

    people are fucking pansies

    If flowers float your boat, I guess ...



  • The real problem: a simplistic, unworkable, and ultimately stifling conception of social justice

    Which is pretty much what we've all been saying here since forever.



  • @Captain said:

    Telling these people that I'm using the basic definitions of a field only makes them more emotionally invested, since it highlights their ignorance.

    undefined

    For some reason, you still haven't noticed what I was talking about.



  • @HardwareGeek said:

    I disagree. Ideas should be judged on their own merits, regardless of "the social weight of their proponents."

    Most arguments in this vein presuppose a social hierarchy that's a mirror image of the one decried by SJWs; that one's credibility is proportional to the amount of oppression one endures. Aside from being a shameless ad hominem, there's some beautiful irony at work there.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    I SEE MORE WHITE BINDERS POLICING WOC

    lolwut


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.