Comments 1 - 28 of 28 Search these comments
You do realize that this sentence describes not just "Gender Studies," but "Creation Science" and "AGW."
It may be spreading and becoming more prevalent in certain liberal circles but most reasonable people are sick of this nonsense.
Just because the dumb people have megaphones doesn't mean reasonable people will accept their "ideas".
Yes, Jordan Peterson is a good model
2 - Anyone that disagree with them MUST be a racist, a white nationalist, a sexist, homophobic. No other options. (tribal thinking)
Marcus, people who want equality of outcomes are not moderate leftists. They are pushing an extremist agenda. And they do not represent the left, but they are a virulent, vociferous part of it.
But I think SJW should be opposed even by the left, for the reasons I mentioned.
MY point is there are much worse things to worry about.
MY point is there are much worse things to worry about. EVen if SJWs are ended completely, there will always be those without sufficient skills to make a good living, who want to be taken care of by the state
What is the residue of SJW politics
Now there is this insane ideology emerging on the fringe and then its polar opposite. This is not just one side: this is how the interaction of the 2 mean both can grow and derail the center, the country, and more globally western civilization, as other countries are facing the same identity crisis.
University Title 9 Kangaroo courts is kind of a big deal, just for starters
BTW, the record when minorities become the new majority does not bode well for the old majority
Bouncer turned me and my date away at the door. “You won’t fit in here.”
Quigley saysBouncer turned me and my date away at the door. “You won’t fit in here.”
Why is it OK to discriminate against white people, but not against black people?
Quigley saysBouncer turned me and my date away at the door. “You won’t fit in here.”
Why is it OK to discriminate against white people, but not against black people?
Why is it OK to discriminate against white people, but not against black people?
Why is it OK to discriminate against white people, but not against black people?
On Boudica's revolt:
"Ancient Rome prided itself on the power of its patriarchy, and was quick to condemn women who broke boundaries and encroached upon the rights, privileges and positions of power held by men." [...] "Her story creates a parallel between different views of gender equality held by the Romans and the Britons, and the dichotomies of empire and colony, power and subjugation."
Wow... Here is history rewritten to fit the SJW narrative. Like it wasn't men doing the fighting. Like there was nothing else at stake than women power.... Like her fate was any different than many other male leaders who revolted against Rome. And... let's throw "empires and colony" in the text to push these buttons while we're at it.
This movement started in academics and has been spreading in media. NYT, Vox, of course, but more and more magazines like "Scientific American" are pushing this crap.
And this what is clearly wrong with it:
1 - Every inequality MUST be the result of discrimination. There are no other possible factors.
2 - Anyone that disagree with them MUST be a racist, a white nationalist, a sexist, homophobic. No other options. (tribal thinking)
3 - individuals (skills, efforts, virtues) don't matter. It's all about groups.
These 3 points already cover most of what is wrong. But we can also add:
4 - Code word "equity" replaces "equality": where equity is obtained by a sufficient handicap of some groups - based on groups.
5 - And where "equity" is defined by same results, regardless of all other legitimate factors that would lead to different results.
6 - Claim being victims of the power hierarchy, but they are the power hierarchy: they get people fired, or thrown out of colleges, they shame people. And they apply this power with no respect for people or norms of justice. i.e. more and more THEY ARE THE BULLIES.
7 - Comparisons are always to a few people at the top, never to the millions of white males at the bottom of the "hierarchy".
8 - Faith passing as science: gender study etc... are mostly fact free "science", where authors approve each other "theories" with no empirical facts to back them, in papers that get published and can pass as science.
I think 80% of the population can agree this is crap. Yet it is spreading.