Categories
#gamergate antifeminism antifeminist women evil SJWs irony alert literal nazis misandry misogyny MRA post contains jokes YouTube

Sargon of Akkad launches petition to save free speech by censoring SJW professors

Remain alert! Even white dude professors can be secret SJWs
Remain alert! Even white dude professors can be secret SJWs

When a college feminist decided, one cold night in 2014, to burn her personal copy of pseudofeminist Christina Hoff Sommers’ book The War Against Boys, the internet’s antifeminists responded as if Hitler himself had risen from the grave.

“Universities bring book-burning back, one page at a time,” declared a blogger at TheRebelMedia. After an extended comparison with the infamous book burning campaigns of the literal Nazis, he declared that “[t]he burning of Hoff Sommers’ book is a striking visual synecdoche for the malaise afflicting free expression across not only North American college campuses.” In a featured article, A Voice for Men described the burning as a “disturbing” example of “misandry in academia.”

On the Men’s Rights subreddit, meanwhile, one angry dude declared that

If you’re burning a book, you’re basically admitting to being not just a bigot, but one who doesn’t even have enough confidence in the strength of their own views to believe that they can stand up for themselves without needing to silence and censor those that oppose them.

If we set aside the fact that, unlike the Nazis, who confiscated the books they burned, a person burning their own copy of a book that is readily available to others is not actually censoring anything, he’s got a point.

So it’s interesting to see how many of the Internet’s antifeminsts and Anti-Social-Justice-Warrior-Warriors are embracing a proposal from one of their own to literally censor all academics who teach stuff they don’t like.

On Change.org, professional feminism-hater Carl Benjamin, known on YouTube as Sargon of Akkad, has started a petition demanding that “UNIVERSITIES” — presumably, every single one of them — immediately “Suspend Social Justice Courses” because he thinks that “social justice” professors are up to no good.

In vague but melodramatic language Benjamin proclaims that

Social justice has become scientifically illiterate, logically unsound, deeply bigoted and openly supremacist.

He doesn’t specify exactly what kind of supremacism he’s complaining about here; presumably not white.

Nor does he ever define exactly what courses count as “social justice courses.” There aren’t any departments of Social Justice that I’m aware of. [EDIT: Oops! Turns out there are.] Does Benjamin mean a tiny handful of, say, women’s studies courses taught by radical feminists? Or does he hope (at least in his wildest dreams) to take down the humanities and social sciences as a whole?

Social justice professors are indoctrinating young people into a pseudoscientific cult behind closed doors that is doing damage to their health, education and future.

Well, technically, I guess, virtually all college courses are taught “behind closed doors,” since the doors of lecture halls generally do get closed before class begins. Technically, I’m writing this post behind closed doors, because I don’t leave the doors of my apartment wide open. (People might wander in; the cats might wander out.) I suspect that Benjamin himself wrote up his petition behind closed doors!

Benjamin goes on to declare that

[s]ocial justice … has become another ideology fit only to pave the road to Hell, so it is time to turn around and choose another path that is concerned with reason, science and improving the lives of every human.

If only some evil Social Justice English professor has indoctrinated Benjamin in the devilish art of writing without resorting to hackneyed cliches.

But that’s pretty much all there is to Benjamin’s petition. Somehow, thought, the vagueness of Benjamin’s plan hasn’t stopped 9,878 people — so far — from signing the petition.

It is, however, possible that some of the signers are a little bit confused as to what exactly they’re signing.

Indeed, the top two most-liked comments on the petition, for example, were written by people who seem to think that Benjamin’s proposal to peremptorily censor all college courses that he thinks are excessively social-justicey is, somehow, a defense of free speech?

TOP COMMENTS What I see in universities in the US and many other countries is a totalitarian government in the making. Samuel Braun, Germany19 hours ago 144 Report Free speech has no limits. Santiago Uscocovich, Clarksville, ARBenjamin has posted a video in which he explains his crusade in a little more detail. It’s possible that somewhere in it he answers the question of how exactly his plan to drive all professors he doesn’t like from all the college campuses in the world is actually a crusade for free speech.

Here’s the video in question:

Oops! Wrong video. Let me try again:

Huh. I don’t think that was it either.

No, that’s clearly not it.

Ok, ok. I found the real one here.

But it’s 40 minutes long. I sampled the first 2 seconds, and that was about all I could bring myself to watch. So I guess I’ll just have to resign myself to a life of servitude under the jackboots of the Social Justice warlords. Still, that’s a far better option than actually watching a Sargon of Akkad video all the way through.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

415 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Brony, Social Justice Cenobite

@ Scildfreja
I hope you feel better soon!

@ weirwoodtreehugger

Why do trolls as of late want us to watch YouTube videos so badly?

I suspect because videos have more of an impact on some people than text. It’s just my opinion but I would say that more conflict-oriented and authoritarian types would fall in there. They evoke emotions differently, some people can mentally “time point” and store information in that format. Some might choose it because it’s harder to do a refutation of a video because it often requires typing out what the person said and dealing with it so you have to do more work, but it’s hard to say how deliberate that is.
I prefer text myself since copying and pasting is an option in arguments, but if it’s short enough I’ve typed up a transcript and narrated visual portions in refutations.

Brony, Social Justice Cenobite

@TheLaughingMan
You want to actually persuade people, right?

Your citations are useless unless you are responding to a point that David or someone else made here, cite the relevant portion and explain why they are wrong.

You mean like that stupid “wage gap” that has been debunked time and time and time again.

Citation needed.

Or the idea that culture is pro-rape… after the ridiculous support of the “victim” of UVA and Duke? You know, the absolute lies…

Citation needed.

Or the BLM complaints about cops in their neighborhoods, when blacks commit nearly 50% of all violent crime.
Citation needed.

Oh and the funny thing? after driving the cops out, now they want them back because, surprise surprise, crime has skyrocketed in cities like Chicago…

Citation needed.

If you have to try to change the subject with more uncited and demonstrated assertions that does not look very good for persuasion either.

@Poly Liker

Take a look at the examples of inside social justice courses here.

I noticed that you simply link dropped and did not mention any specific problems. If you can’t name problems why should anyone take them seriously?

Due to these courses being given inside academic institutions and being taught by people who call themselves professors, it is quite reasonable to assume that students just suck it up and don’t think critically. Because logically, the professor knows more about it than you do. The same way as if you were in a course about neurology for example.

Citation needed.

College courses that are taught contain things like examples, events, people, cite literature and history…
I have no reason to believe that students simply absorb and don’t think about if the things being discussed are real, or the more likely situation some students are like that and you need to be able to talk about the proportion that are like that so you can measure the threat against students that are not like that (stereotyping students? That’s not helpful).

I actually said what the argument boils down to, but I would recommend hearing it from the source.

What part of the source, what example does it connect to and why is it a problem or why does it support your point?

Why not watch that video to hear what he is actually trying to do with the petition and why?

Because it’s not my job when you are trying to convince people of things. A 14 minute video can contain many subject and many points. A 1-2 minute video is likely to be limited and is more reasonable, but you still seem like someone unable to argue anything and who wants others to do your work for you.

I am not making you try to waste time,

What you are trying to do is irrelevant, you are wasting our time.

…but if you read this article, at least listen to what he is saying.

Which parts, what do they pertain to and why do they support you?

Because this article does raise valid points toward the description of the petition but not toward the actual goal…

Then cite what you are arguing for/against, cite the point and explain why it supports you.

(which isn’t censorship as the article makes it seems).

Then do some work to show why.

Imaginary Petal
Imaginary Petal
5 years ago

Racism doesn’t exist, declares self-proclaimed liberal.

WeirwoodTreeHugger
WeirwoodTreeHugger
5 years ago

Brony,

I’m sure that’s a big part of it. I also think they’ve convinced themselves that if people just watched the videos, they’d be convinced.

Binjabreel
Binjabreel
5 years ago

How fucking far up your own ass do you have to be to think that preferential treatment of one race doesn’t equal disparagement of another, but that affirmative action DOES?

By that logic, white supremacy means everyone is tacitly admitting that white people are mediocre and shitty, and therefore need the help.

Brony, Social Justice Cenobite

@Polyliker

As you can see in these two demographics you see ~12% of the entire US population is black but is charged with ~30% of all crimes(this is a giant disparity).

You get one freebie.

One of the problems with the criminal justice system is that the presence of people with prejudices and who discriminate based on race make the statistics suspect in terms of what they mean.

(The following links are from the previous link)
If someone is black they are more likely to be arrested than white people (because they are more heavily policed),

(pg 20)

These staggering racial disparities in marijuana possession arrests exist in many counties irrespective of the overall Black population. For example, in Lycoming and Lawrence, PA, and in Kenton County, KY, Blacks make up less than 5% of the population, but are between 10 and 11 times more likely than whites to be arrested.

(pg 21)

Marijuana use is roughly equal among Blacks and whites. In 2010, 14% of Blacks and 12% of whites reported using marijuana in the past year; in 2001, the figure was 10% of whites and 9% of Blacks. In every year from 2001 to 2010, more whites than Blacks between the ages of 18 and 25 reported using marijuana in the previous year.

more likely to be convicted than white people,
Although the data in this backgrounder indicate that blacks represent about one-third of drug arrests, they constitute 46 percent of persons convicted of drug felonies in state courts.

…and more likely to be sentenced to incarceration than white people convicted of the same crime.
One study found that in a particular region blacks were incarcerated for convicted felony offenses 51% of the time while whites convicted of felonies were incarcerated 38% of the time.
(table on page 46)

This is why systemic racism is a thing, and a cycle that goes back in time.

Polyliker
Polyliker
5 years ago

@ littleknown

Yes, let’s imagine a race. Before the race, the rich white people put leg irons around the ankles of the other competitors. The poor white people are attached to 10-lb rocks that they have to carry; the minorities, to 20- or 30- or 50-lb rocks. After lapping the poor white people, the rich white people detach the rocks from their leg irons. Later, they detach their irons, too. Then, they slowly reduce the sizes of the rocks the minorities have to carry, until eventually no one is carrying any rocks, and at that point, they take everyone’s leg irons off.

That is the thing where we will disagree. I do not think that the minorities have a substantial difference in weight just based on them being minorities but rather on their financial status as I have seen no evidence to suggest that minorities in poverty have had it harder than whites in poverty nor that minorities have a substantial disadvantage in this society based on them being minorities. I want to find the source of the problem and eradicate it instead of shouting ‘racism! sexism!’ every time as I do not see evidence to support that that is what is holding people back. (and maybe I am projecting here but I think more of society than to simply accuse people of things)
Racism and sexism are illegal in institutions and frowned upon by the vast majority of society so my question is ‘what is the actual problem?’.

If you don’t care about race — that is: if you think that hundreds of years of slavery, followed by a hundred years of disenfranchisement, segregation, and terrorism, followed by housing and hiring discrimination that persisted in our society far past the Civil Rights Movement; don’t greatly inform the social and economic realities of the present; then your “not caring about race” is really just what you are using as a shield to protect the relative privilege that comes from being born white.

You see I would call myself colorblind and I do not care about race and I disregard everything that happened in the past as being in the past, however I do deal with the effects of the past and see the results of what happened in the past. That I can try to change, I am not going to do that on basis of skin color nor on basis of gender. I work within the reality now. You see when I (and probably the majority of people) say ‘I do not care about race’ or ‘I am colorblind’ I am not saying that different people in certain ethnic groups cannot have a disadvantage and that that disadvantage cannot be prevalent in a certain ethnic group. But rather that my judgement of those people doesn’t rely on their skin color. I do not deal in ‘groups’ when dealing with people, I deal with an individual (statistical data is different story and only applies to the participants which on their turn draw a general trend for the rest of the population).

What I am saying is that rather than giving people things because they are from a certain ethnic group, find out the disadvantages of the group and try to solve those. Find the source of the problem instead of crying ‘racism! sexism!’ That is what I am advocating.
And actually I would call myself generally in the middle of the political spectrum but more on the left side.

In fact the the rape culture is a myth and has no good statistical data to back it up. But we do know a few things:
1. Rape is generally looked down upon and perceived to be almost as bad as murder.
2. Rape victims are generally believed before they have proven the case (it is often very hard to prove but the ‘innocent until proven guilty’ remains, we should just work on better methods to prove rape)
and
3. Lives are destroyed after someone cries rape, even after one has not been convicted it is much harder to find a job.

Based on this we can say that the US isn’t suffering from a rape culture. As a rape culture is described as:
‘rape culture is a setting in which rape is pervasive and normalized due to societal attitudes about gender and sexuality.’

You know what is an example of a rape culture? A culture with a rape-game. Which is what happened in cologne. The middle east is packed with rape-cultures.

The one in five figure, which blew new life to the idea of rape culture, is come to be by a very skewed method in which the interviewer decided if it was rape or not and not the interviewed.
(Rape included sexual contact while drunk, which is not rape per se)
But if you just think about the numbers you’d get an absurd number 323,694,185 total pop, 50.4% female=163,141,869 female, 20% raped in their lifetime(average 80 years) –>(163,141,869*0.2)/80= 407,854/year this number is almost twice the number of the estimate by SARSSM. This estimate is also not factual(hard data), they say that about 60% of rapes go unreported, while the exact number is unknown. I would argue that presenting the 250,000 figure(as done there) as factual is spreading misinformation as the actual number is unknown and we can only guess.

Scildfreja
Scildfreja
5 years ago

Thank you @Brony!

The whole “Videos as Sources” thing is sort of… well, sort of a giveaway, I suppose? Videos (especially Youtube videos) are a terrible way to present concrete, reliable data. Tables and statistics are poorly presented and difficult to reference throughout a video, and it’s almost impossible to go through the media in any way but front-to-back, forcing the audience to stick to the presentation timetable of the presenter.

The written word is the opposite – you can have a table, a graph, and an explanation on the same page, allowing for readers to jump back and forth as needed. Clearly marked sections and topics allow readers to jump around as well, investigating the presented material from different angles. (It’s been shown that effective, knowledgeable learners tend to read in piecemeal chunks, and not just front-to-back)

On the other hand, videos are excellent for providing metaphors and emotional arguments. The linear narration, combined with the audio and body-language cues, make it easy to create leading questions, unfounded implications, and other emotional appeals.

I think it breaks down to what someones’ background in science is. Most people who are pro-science get their enthusiasm from videos and pop-culture articles, and are used to learning and examining science in this way. NDT’s Cosmos was a wonderful series for presenting the majesty of the universe, as an example.

These videos are great – but also leave the impression that good science should have a good story, and be told by a good storyteller. This is not the case.

Anyways, I think that may be part of what’s going on. They seem like people who are used to “truth” feeling comfortable, and majestic, and narrated by a good storyteller, whereas actual truth is often awkward, pedestrian, and best transmitted by a table of figures.

Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
5 years ago

What affirmative action basically says (especially to women as they don’t have a lesser financial capacity on average) is ‘you aren’t good enough to do this on your own, and white men are’.

For the curious, he’s ripped this “Argument” wholesale from South Park. Specifically, that one really shitty half-hour-long excuse to use the n-word episode that highlighted their decline from satirising right-wingers to being right-wingers.

Scildfreja
Scildfreja
5 years ago

Ah, yes, Brony, thank you – that’s what I was missing. The FBI table that @Polyliker linked only gave broad arrest rates; it didn’t give incarceration rates or background crime rates.

EDIT: I am trying to parse Polyliker’s reply, but i’m going a bit bleary reading it, so may leave it to you excellent people. I can already see some glaring issues, though. More of the same “I don’t think it’s valid, therefore it’s not valid” argument, really.

Polyliker
Polyliker
5 years ago

@scildfeja

However, you quickly go off of the rails, I’m afraid, sir. Your results aren’t that 4% of blacks live in poverty; it’s that 4% of the total population of the US is both black and poor. Meanwhile, 8% of the total population is both white and poor. Do you see the difference between this and the conclusion you came to?

Yes, that is indeed true. Again, my phrasing was bad. I had already given the percentages of poor african americans and poor caucasian americans. You got the idea though.

Splitting the demographics, we have 1/4 of the population of African Americans being poor, whereas somewhere around 1/12 of the population of Caucasian Americans are poor. Poverty rates amongst African Americans are immensely higher than those amongst other demographics – which you admit – and this is evidence of systemic racism, on its own.

No, it really isn’t. The question is, why are they poor? My view on this is that due to the history and bad treatment of african americans in the past we’re still seeing the effects. This does not mean that there is systemic racism going on now. For example, someone could have broken your leg, and now you have to walk around on one leg while that leg is healing, this doesn’t mean that person is breaking your leg over and over again at the moment. This on it’s own doesn’t give us evidence of systemic racism, it just tells us that one ethnic group is generally less fortunate financially wise than another.

I’m gonna have to stop you there. The gulf between correlation and causation is vast, and you can’t claim causation because it feels right. It is a mathematical relationship between members, and I’ve … got a hard time believing that you have proof of causality here.

Yes, I forgot to add the word ‘possibly’. The numbers seem to match and logically it seems that due to higher poverty rates things like burglary, theft and robbery would be higher. This seems to match the numbers when looking at the percentage of african americans in poverty and whites in poverty but is no proof on it’s own.

“Experience” and “Looking around” are no ways to truth, they’re ways to confirm your bias.

Yes, I know that. I didn’t try to present it as evidence but more as a reason why I think this.

Scildfreja
Scildfreja
5 years ago

er, @Polyliker,

In your own linked report from SARSSM, it says at the bottom that

Factoring in unreported rapes, about 6% – 1 out of 16 – of rapists will ever spend a day in jail. 15 out of 16 will walk free.

while you say

2. Rape victims are generally believed before they have proven the case.

Based on this we can say that the US isn’t suffering from a rape culture.

Note that the SARSSM doesn’t say “alleged rapists”, it says “rapists”.

How can you conclude the latter while acknowledging the former?

EDIT: Just saw your reply to me, please give me a little bit and I will give you your response! You seem very reasonable, and I’m glad that you’re actually engaging with the points being made.

Polyliker
Polyliker
5 years ago

More of the same “I don’t think it’s valid, therefore it’s not valid” argument, really.

I am not arguing that at all. I am saying: ‘It isn’t valid until proven, untill such time I will not see it as valid.’

Note that the SARSSM doesn’t say “alleged rapists”, it says “rapists”.

How can you conclude the latter while acknowledging the former?

Because these ‘rapists’ have either not been proven to have done it, therefore they are innocent untill proven guilty, or they have not been reported, which comes from an estimate.
Also actions like ‘matress girl’ who was exposed as a liar are still believed for months. Society believes, the justice court not, that is the difference.

Moocow
5 years ago

@Poly Liker

If you’re denying the existence of biases towards or against certain races, then you’re not ‘for equality’, you’re ‘for the status quo’. I get it, it’s nice to live in a bubble of sunshine and rainbows where racism and sexism totally don’t exist and everyone starts life off on a level playing field. I use to believe it, until I interacted with people who’s race or gender was different from mine. They told me stories of injustices that – what a shock – I never experienced!

For example: My American friend who was born and raised in Cali constantly has people asking “no but where are you reaaaaaaaaaaaaally from?” because she is Asian. Her english is flawless, she’s a US citizen, yet she’s treated like a foreigner (and, by some people, a terrible ‘invader’ who’s here to steal jobs). Oh, and as an example of intersection: Sexist douchebags often criticize her for not acting sufficiently feminine and submissive like a ‘proper Asian woman’.

Strangely, I never get that question asked, even though I’ve spent more of my life outside of the united states. In fact, people typically assume that I’m American and lived here my whole life. Geez, I wonder why the fuck that is. Could it be because I’m white?

But to you say it is to level the playing field, how does it do that exactly?

Simple. Women and people of color are discriminated against in certain fields. As proof of this assertion, I’ll quote the specific passage from the article Katz linked:

The results were surprising—they show that the decision makers did not evaluate the resume purely on its merits. Despite having the exact same qualifications and experience as John, Jennifer was perceived as significantly less competent. As a result, Jenifer experienced a number of disadvantages that would have hindered her career advancement if she were a real applicant. Because they perceived the female candidate as less competent, the scientists in the study were less willing to mentor Jennifer or to hire her as a lab manager. They also recommended paying her a lower salary. Jennifer was offered, on average, $4,000 per year (13%) less than John. – See more at: http://gender.stanford.edu/news/2014/why-does-john-get-stem-job-rather-jennifer#sthash.s7KV2r8G.dpuf

So what we have here is scientific evidence that proves the existence of sexism.

Now that we’ve established that sexism is a thing that exists, affirmative action provides incentives to cancel out the effect of discrimination. Without affirmative actions, ‘jennifer’ doesn’t get nearly the same opportunities as ‘john’ even though she’s just as competent.

You may disagree with affirmative action as a method, but if you do then may I ask, how do you propose to solve the problem of systemic sexism? That’s exactly the kind of question that a college class on Social Justice would discuss (after they finish explaining to the obnoxious concern trolls that racism and sexism do, in fact, exist)

That’s why we have initiatives that try to specifically encourage girls to learn tech. Why don’t we include the boys in these initiatives? Because they don’t need it: Employers are more likely to consider them ‘competent’, teachers are already giving them more encouragement, our rigid gender roles even tell them that they are ‘natrually good’ at STEM jobs. Creating an incentive program to get boys into tech would be giving an advantage to a group that already has an unfair advantage.

Based on race and gender instead of basing it on
income.

Privilege and discrimination are not about ‘the poor people’, they affect every person at all socioeconomic levels. Is it fair that women who want to be CEOs and PoC who want to be CEOs have to work harder than people who just happened to be white and male?

What happens now is that poor people of color get to benefit from affirmative action but poor white people don’t, shouldn’t we equally level the playing field for them?

The existence of poor white people doesn’t disprove the notions of privilege and systemic racism. Poor white people still have an advantage over poor black people. Affirmative action is what levels the playing field. Without affirmative action, poor white people would have a distinct advantage over poor black people.

Unfortunately I have no numbers on the courses issue but from my experience and by looking around me, I find a troubling pattern.

Cool, well lemme tell you a story that my friend told to me. He lived in a richer part of L.A. (you may be shocked to find out that non-poor black family also have to deal with racism). When he was growing up, he would regularly come home to find a note on his door telling his family that ‘you need to get out of our community, you are not welcome here’.

Note that his family’s income is no different from any other family’s income. The only difference was that he’s black. And for some strange reason, none of his white classmates would come home to find notes on their doors.

Poly Liker
Poly Liker
5 years ago

If you’re denying the existence of biases towards or against certain races, then you’re not ‘for equality’, you’re ‘for the status quo’.

I am not saying that racism or sexism don’t exist, I am saying that I have doubts about the size of the problem.
Sure, I know there is discrimination based on gender in stem fields, that is no news, the question is, why is this discrimination there? The study you refer to says ‘because sexism’, which may be true, could also be something else.
But more criticism towards the study itself, the sample size is just 127 nationwide instances averaged out, not 500-1000 which would give a better representation. Now the margin of error is too high as we could have 10-20 professors which gave ridiculously low/high ratings who could mess with the numbers. I don’t say that the study is inherently inaccurate but the accuracy is doubt-able.

Is it fair that women who want to be CEOs and PoC who want to be CEOs have to work harder than people who just happened to be white and male?

Proof for that please? Sure sexism in stem fields I will admit, but on a bigger, society wide scale, I don’t know.

Affirmative action is what levels the playing field. Without affirmative action, poor white people would have a distinct advantage over poor black people.

Proof for that please?

Viscaria
Viscaria
5 years ago

What a great troll. First he says this:

The mass incarceration of black men keeps not just them, but their whole families in poverty. Etc.

And why is this happening? Is it because they statistically commit more crime than any other demographic? Yes.

And then like 2 comments later he says:

Please provide the evidence.

Amazing.

Scildfreja
Scildfreja
5 years ago

@Moocow, eeesh, that’s chilling :C I can’t imagine that sort of thing happening where I live. Thank you for sharing.

@Polyliker, I’ll try to be brief and split things up evenly! I’ll do this last one first, then get to your larger post.

http://www.radiomuseo.it/joomla/images/collector/collection/dischi/lilla%20vacabonda%20%2001.gif

Because these ‘rapists’ have either not been proven to have done it, therefore they are innocent untill proven guilty, or they have not been reported, which comes from an estimate.

The SARSSM report doesn’t say how it calculates its unreported data; I went looking at the NCPA site to follow up and find out, and it looks like the link is dead. The NCPS is a solid, reliable source, though – is there a reason you consider its results wrong in this case? Because there’s plenty of evidence to show that rape reporting is very low.

(and besides, estimates are good things! Most of our “facts” are really just estimates; the age of the earth and the universe are estimates. This doesn’t make them invalid, it just gives them confidence levels!)

Now, on to the larger of your responses;

Yes, that is indeed true. Again, my phrasing was bad. I had already given the percentages of poor african americans and poor caucasian americans. You got the idea though.

It wasn’t your phrasing that was bad, sir, it was your math. You had already arrived at the proper percentages. But don’t feel bad about that – probability calculations are hard, even for us who work with them every day. There’s some sort of strange magic going on in probability calculations that resists human comprehension.

Your next paragraph is extremely important, so I’m going to leave it till last, if that’s okay! Moving on…

Yes, I forgot to add the word ‘possibly’. The numbers seem to match and logically it seems that due to higher poverty rates things like burglary, theft and robbery would be higher. This seems to match the numbers when looking at the percentage of african americans in poverty and whites in poverty but is no proof on it’s own.

“Seem to” and “logically” are hints that you are using intuition. These are things that need to be demonstrated before you get to use the word “causation”. Sorry if I am being pedantic on that point, but I have been burned by it far too often! I think we can drop this thread of conversation, we’re probably in agreement – correlation != causation, etc, etc.

(Also, intuition and gut feelings are vital parts of any investigation, so please don’t think I mean otherwise! This is our creativity and problem-solving at work. The hard part is moving past our intuitions when reality contradicts us)

Yes, I know that. I didn’t try to present it as evidence but more as a reason why I think this.

Fair enough! Do understand, though, that personal experience and observation are as often confounding to investigation than tehy are helpful.

Now, the meat of the argument. I think this is our sticking point, so I’d suggest we focus on this from now on:

No, it really isn’t. The question is, why are they poor? My view on this is that due to the history and bad treatment of african americans in the past we’re still seeing the effects. This does not mean that there is systemic racism going on now. … This on it’s own doesn’t give us evidence of systemic racism, it just tells us that one ethnic group is generally less fortunate financially wise than another.

Or, more specifically,

The question is, why are they poor?

Mm, bayesian probability. Forgive me while I ramble a bit.

This question – why are they poor – is dependent on a huge number of variables. Technically an infinite set, but in reality we can clip it down to something calculable and still get a useful answer. The cofactors involved in this will include things like “local economy”, “education”, “job history”, “hiring / turnover rate”, and, yes, “racism”. The more precise question is whether the weight of racism as a factor in poverty is appreciable!

The frequentist view is to consider racism as a factor along with the others and then do an ANOVA analysis, or some similar technique (booo, ANOVA sux) capable of discerning the influence of cofactors.

The issue with this approach is that it doesn’t really acknowledge the fact that the cofactors can also influence one another!

Let’s say (for example) that education is a larger factor in poverty than racism according to the results of a simple frequentist calculation. You might be happy to conclude that this is the issue, and urge for more money in schools. A noble goal, for sure, but this calculation cannot tell whether racism is a factor in education as well. These sorts of entanglements crop up everywhere in complex systems.

Enter bayesian probability (or you can do other things if you want to stay frequentist, that’s okay too I guess!). A bayesian belief network can help discern how much weight racism has in all co-factors, instead of masking its influence to anything but the output variable.

Looking back, I realize that probably read as a lot of jargon’y gobbledygook. Let me explain. No, there is too much. Let me sum up.

There are a lot of factors that go directly into whether a person is poor – education, local economy, and yes, race and gender. You claim that this is relatively small. Have you also considered the fact that racism and sexism also play a part in education, and in personal choices one makes? Racism and sexism have influence on every aspect of society. That you can’t see it doesn’t mean it’s not there – it just means you can’t see it. The best way to find out is to start digging. Others have provided excellent links to help you with just that.

I feel like this is the core of why you don’t agree with the “sexism” and “racism” arguments; you think it is being blown out of proportion. Does that sum it up correctly? Boiling the problem down to a single statement makes it easier to confront, sometimes.

Moocow
5 years ago

@Poly Liker

Ok, as Visceria has pointed out, you’re being very hypocritical. If you want me to provide evidence for every point I make, you better do the same for every point you make. So far that has not been the case.

Also, you should probably avoid flip-flopping on issues, it makes you look like you have no idea what you’re talking about.

I am not saying that racism or sexism don’t exist, I am saying that I have doubts about the size of the problem.

This next quote is from you, on page 4:

I also do not for one second believe that there is a stigma against most ethnical minorities or women in education in this day and age.

Your honor, there’s a contradiction in the witness’s testimony

http://rs248.pbsrc.com/albums/gg188/vipervamp/Phoenix/PhoenixProof.gif

Sure, I know there is discrimination based on gender in stem fields, that is no news

Really? that’s not news? because last I checked you were convinced that:

I also do not for one second believe that there is a stigma against most ethnical minorities or women in education in this day and age.

When did you reach the shocking conclusion that such a stigma does, in fact, exist?

The study you refer to says ‘because sexism’, which may be true, could also be something else.

Ah “something else”. With no proof or evidence or even a theory to suggest what mysterious other force could possibly cause this to happen. What an incredible rebuttal.

But more criticism towards the study itself, the sample size is just 127 nationwide instances averaged out, not 500-1000 which would give a better representation. Now the margin of error is too high as we could have 10-20 professors which gave ridiculously low/high ratings who could mess with the numbers. I don’t say that the study is inherently inaccurate but the accuracy is doubt-able.

I’ll leave it to someone who can actually do science to refute you on this one. But what if you don’t like that study, good news, there are plenty of others:

http://www.pnas.org/content/109/41/16474.full

Proof for that please? Sure sexism in stem fields I will admit, but on a bigger, society wide scale, I don’t know.

I’ll show you mine if you show me yours. here’s an article that shows that investors will favor Male CEOs over Female CEOs:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1556449

And try to leave the goalposts where they are this time, mkay?

Poly Liker
Poly Liker
5 years ago

Yes I am aware that there is plenty of evidence that rape reports are low, the meat of the matter is: how low? Until we can give a concrete answer, none should be given.
Sure, estimates are great, however a social statistical estimate does not hold as much ground as a geological estimate simply due to the fact that those statistical estimates mostly rely on surveys, which could be inaccurate simply because rape victims are more likely to respond to a survey about rape than non-rape victims which is quite often not accounted for, while geological estimates are more due to inaccuracy of dating methods.

Racism and sexism have influence on every aspect of society.

I do have trouble with this statement, as I see racism and sexism as different treatment based on race or sex. I am certain that those do happen, but not so certain it happens on the level you’re talking about.
So, yes

I feel like this is the core of why you don’t agree with the “sexism” and “racism” arguments; you think it is being blown out of proportion.

this does exactly describe my position. I feel that most of the arguments saying ‘it is racism’ and/or ‘racism is everywhere’ are arguments from ignorance. I’d rather stay a simple frequentist as I have not seen compelling evidence that people are treated differently based on race at such a scale (but rather on economic status, or cultural differences or things the like).

Scildfreja
Scildfreja
5 years ago

comment image

@Polyliker,

Great! Thank you for replying, and I’m glad that we’ve got your issue refined down. You’ve got an issue with whether racism or sexism is as large a factor as is suggested by the literature. This is a fine issue to have; you’re arguing that there is no effect. You’re holding for the null hypothesis. Well and good.

I’m going to focus on this exclusively, if that’s alright – all of the other content of this thread stems from this position. With this in mind, I have to next ask:

What evidence would satisfy you that racism and sexism are significant elements within poverty, or other social justice issues?

I’d rather stay a simple frequentist as I have not seen compelling evidence that people are treated differently based on race at such a scale (but rather on economic status, or cultural differences or things the like).

comment image

Must … restrain … comment …

(Frequentist statistics are wrong when dealing with complex systems! Wrong wrong wrong! No linear regression! Bad X-Square! No biscuit!)

Ahem, sorry 🙂 You wound my bayesian heart.

WeirwoodTreeHugger
WeirwoodTreeHugger
5 years ago

So, Polyliker’s main evidence that the 1/5 women have been sexually assaulted is that it just seems too high? That’s feeling, not facts. He keeps saying he likes facts and evidence, yet he just keeps basing his opinions on feelings.

Oh, and the notion that black people are only discriminated against if they are also pool? Absurd.

President Obama has said that before he became famous, he had trouble getting a cab. He’s handsome, ivy league educated, never really had the appearance of someone who is really poor. Yet, he still got treated like a suspected criminal.

WeirwoodTreeHugger
WeirwoodTreeHugger
5 years ago

Polyliker recruited a not my shielder or made a sock puppet who showed up on the previous page, if anyone cares.

Scildfreja
Scildfreja
5 years ago

@WWTH, good eye on Z.E.N on the previous page! I always miss those sneaky people that come in to argue but get lost in moderation for awhile. Their arguments all seem to be “I don’t like this”, so can probably be ignored. Z.E.N, that you don’t like it doesn’t mean it’s invalid. I hope you can see that the goal is to help people, and that groups with negative bias affecting them deserve to have that bias countered directly!

Poly Liker
Poly Liker
5 years ago

Also, you should probably avoid flip-flopping on issues, it makes you look like you have no idea what you’re talking about.

I am not saying that racism or sexism don’t exist, I am saying that I have doubts about the size of the problem.

This next quote is from you, on page 4:

I also do not for one second believe that there is a stigma against most ethnical minorities or women in education in this day and age.

Your honor, there’s a contradiction in the witness’s testimony

Sure, I know there is discrimination based on gender in stem fields, that is no news

Really? that’s not news? because last I checked you were convinced that:

I also do not for one second believe that there is a stigma against most ethnical minorities or women in education in this day and age.

When did you reach the shocking conclusion that such a stigma does, in fact, exist?

Whoa there matey, having a stigma overlapping all education is very different than having a stigma in one branch. Like saying the tree is rotten is different than saying the branch is rotten.

I’ll leave it to someone who can actually do science to refute you on this one. But what if you don’t like that study, good news, there are plenty of others:

http://www.pnas.org/content/109/41/16474.full

Good news, I can actually do science. Having a study with a small sample size isn’t a really good study. it is equivalent to saying that 1000 people think this/are like this while you’ve only asked five, you’re not accurately representing a general trend.
And, you’ve given me the exact same study which had issues in accuracy.

The other study is nice as well but has similar issues as the other one, a small sample size. This is not to discredit the study in its entirety. But I am not convinced.

Scildfreja
Scildfreja
5 years ago

Whoa there matey, having a stigma overlapping all education is very different than having a stigma in one branch. Like saying the tree is rotten is different than saying the branch is rotten.

Just a quick interjection, sorry to interrupt this thread.

In this case, the null hypothesis is that STEM fields are the same as other fields of employment – that there is no difference. If you’re going to say that there is a difference that somehow between the STEM class and its superset, you need to point out what and why.

As for whether the sample size of 125 is appropriate – on its own, no. However, if taken in conjunction with other studies that show the same trends? Yes.

Other studies have concluded the same as this one. Google Scholar is your friend.

katz
5 years ago

The whole “there can’t be a wage gap because everyone would just hire women to save money!” just-so story is part of a common tendency I notice because I read a lot of spec fic: Extrapolating how people would behave in a given situation based on what’s logical, reasonable, and/or beneficial to them or society.

The trouble is that people don’t always (or even usually) behave logically or reasonably and often act against their own interests for various reasons. Reality is messy. So stories that try to predict how people would behave often fall way off the mark from how people actually behave in similar circumstances. (Compare Galt Gulch to the mess left at Malheur, for instance.)

If it’s in fiction that’s just bad literature, but it becomes a problem when you extrapolate how they think people would logically behave if a premise were true and then conclude that the premise is false because people don’t behave that way. But that isn’t actually evidence that the premise is false. All it proves is that people don’t always behave the way you expect.

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
5 years ago

The whole “there can’t be a wage gap because everyone would just hire women to save money!” just-so story is part of a common tendency I notice because I read a lot of spec fic: Extrapolating how people would behave in a given situation based on what’s logical, reasonable, and/or beneficial to them or society.

It’s also the story that economists told one another to explain why civil rights legislation wasn’t needed and racism would just economic itself away. I mean, if you can hire a black person for 60% the going rate, why would you ever hire a white person at a premium? And black money spends the same as white money, so why wouldn’t businesses accept black patrons in order to maximize their customer base and revenue?

Economists kept telling this story for most of a century, and every time they told it, the end of racism was just around the corner. Every time, it turned out that racism wasn’t necessarily perpetrated by rational actors seeking to maximize their profits. Occasionally it turned out that maximizing profits meant racial discrimination; if you serve a black person and that makes 50% of your white racist customers stop patronizing your business, being racist yourself against that one black customer is actually a profit-maximizing action.

It’s really common for uneducated people who play at being economists on the Internet to spin stories like this. They aren’t any more true when applied to sexism than they were when applied to racism. “Rational actors maximizing profit/utility” is a simplifying conceit in economics, not a reflection of reality.

Scildfreja
Scildfreja
5 years ago

@Katz, yes! it’s the economist’s curse, I think – viewing everyone as rational actors.

People are irrational actors. If they weren’t, then we’d have no need for the scientific method – we would naturally just become more right as we age and collect information. Our decision making is a shoddy set of evolved heuristics that are meant to keep us alive, that’s it.

I get why economists do it – you can’t really simulate that sort of messy heuristic decision making over an economy. As far as I know (I’m no economist) they point this out in intro economics courses, too! But they run with that assumption far too easily from that point on.

Ah, humans, why you got to be so messy.

EDIT: Sniped by PoM, who said it better. Woops!

Poly Liker
Poly Liker
5 years ago

What evidence would satisfy you that racism and sexism are significant elements within poverty, or other social justice issues?

What you’re asking me is the equivalent of asking what would prove the bible is true. The answer to that is, I don’t know what would convince me. As far as I am concerned racism and sexism are for the most part non-answers until you can prove that it is racism or sexism(as is the case with stem fields) (especially when talking about the subtle racism/sexism) which can be filled in wherever there may be (unexplained) difference. You arguably would have address each individual issue in order to convince me. (same as with the bible, just because one passage is grounded in truth, doesn’t mean the rest of it is)
For each issue it would be a study with a hypothesis (ergo it is falsifiable), with a reproducibility rate of at least 80%, which passed peer review.

I am not going to have time to respond for a while after today (a few days, got a lot of work coming up).

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
5 years ago

What you’re asking me is the equivalent of asking what would prove the bible is true. The answer to that is, I don’t know what would convince me.

SCIENCE folks! A true STEM mind at work. I stand in awe.

katz
5 years ago

Dude, you could have just said “I’ve already decided that there’s no such thing as racism and sexism and I’ll never change my mind no matter what.” Would have saved us a lot of time.

isidore13
isidore13
5 years ago

@polyliker, so let me see if I understand you properly. You feel that we live a post-racism, post-sexism society, except for when it comes to STEM fields (where most of the money is made these days) and in education (which everyone is subjected to by law). Yet even though these two areas represent the basis of most of the current and future power in our culture (education and money), you’re saying that racism and sexism in these fields has no impact whatsoever on the rest of society?

Axecalibur
Axecalibur
5 years ago

I’m on it
http://49.media.tumblr.com/384dc39de99a6078a057a6f96ca831ef/tumblr_nw6p2kOj1j1uetswio1_1280.gif

@Zen
Hiya, I’m Axe. I’m not a particularly good or nice person. If I were, perhaps I’d give a shit about what you feel. I don’t. At all. That’s your own issue, and it’s neither my job nor my hobby to acquiesce to how you think shit should work. Now, I could care, if you had a good reason why you feel some kinda way. Say, if your objection wasn’t simply ‘I don’t like it’. Unfortunately, no such luck

To your points:

If you want to help poor minorities, help them because they are poor, not because they are minorities

Why? Other than ‘I don’t like it’, I mean. Some kinda efficacy argument? The entirely unnecessary analogy muddled the whole thing, so I’m more than a bit confused. Also, you confuse me with somebody else. I don’t want to help poor minorities. I want my government to do its fucking job and help people, period. Affirmative action is one way, in which this is done. If you got beef with the program, tell them (or us in the interim) why, other than that it inconveniences you to think about the assistance you assume you received. And learn to quote correctly, for fuck’s sake

There is no conceivable way you can justify it to me

Good! I wasn’t planning to do any such thing

It is wrong. It IS racist

You should note I never said it wasn’t racist. I will, if you like, but I didn’t, so why be so adamant in yelling all caps at me that it is. It doesn’t matter if it’s racist. Little secret, the government is allowed to be racist, if there’s a good reason, and it meets certain criteria (I layed them out in an earlier comment aka strict scrutiny). Any arguments vis a vis said criteria? I’ll wait

And by the way, everybody else…

I knew poorer white kids than I was who worked just as hard and did the same things and the idea they may have been denied a chance to get into a university on a basis of INCLUSIVENESS is deeply upsetting to me

comment image
I’d been lurking awhile before I actually started commenting. Quick question. Is it just me or are there way more… characters now than there were 6 months ago. Maybe it’s cos they’re popping up in my email now? Whatever…

Scildfreja
Scildfreja
5 years ago

comment image

@Polyliker,

(I’ll try to be quick, since you’re pressed for time._

You… do acknowledge that your standards of proof are unreasonably high, yes?

You’re comparing social justice concerns to faith in the bible – implying that you can’t be convinced by rational argument (generally people don’t believe in the bible because of rational argument, they believe because they have faith). You also require specific evidence for each facet of these social justice concerns, of which there are a great number.

This is not how to pursue truth; it’s how to be wrong.

Having very high standards of evidence isn’t a sign of strong character or good skepticism; it’s a sign of being unwilling to confront ones’ own opinions.

Your standards of evidence are akin to the young earth creationist crying about missing links. Every piece of evidence shown to you isn’t evidence, it’s an opportunity to find a flaw. Every statistic is something to critique and not ingest – critically, of course, but ingest all the same.

This is what wrong feels like – it feels like strong conviction. Please, take a good look at why you need such high standards of evidence in this area.

And I note that this reply may seem harsh – I’m sorry about that. Usually I try to be nicer, and will just give up in this case. But you’re so close, and you’re clearly concerned about the poor and needy – this argument is about who is needy, for which reasons, and how it ought to be handled. You’re worth it, so I’m going to try.

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
5 years ago

@Scildfreja

You… do acknowledge that your standards of proof are unreasonably high, yes?

I would use the term “unfalsifiable.”

Scildfreja
Scildfreja
5 years ago

@PoM, that too!

@Axecalibur,

Is it just me or are there way more… characters now than there were 6 months ago.

Channers have recently decided to visit the board from time to time. They are providing a lot of colour, at least!

Skiriki
Skiriki
5 years ago

katz:
OMG, that mess left at Malheur is so nasty. :O

Scildfreja
Scildfreja
5 years ago

Welp, I guess that “I will be busy for the next few days” likely meant “I don’t know how to reply so I’m pulling the ripcord on this conversation.” Sigh. Just like always. @Polyliker, please do at least think about these things.

Also, thank you! I rarely get the opportunity to stretch my brain out like this with these conversations – too often the people who wander in here don’t engage with the points being discussed. They just repeat their points, and avoid talking about any rebuttals. You didn’t do that, you were actually engaging. So, thank you, and don’t stop doing that!

weirwoodtreehugger
5 years ago

I’d been lurking awhile before I actually started commenting. Quick question. Is it just me or are there way more… characters now than there were 6 months ago. Maybe it’s cos they’re popping up in my email now? Whatever…

It’s pretty par for the course. We had an unusually quiet period during the last half of 2015.

At least our current trolls tend to meltdown and flounce or get banned quickly rather than come here every single day.

*puts on old lady shawl and onion belt*

Trolls these day just don’t have the attention span or dedication to troll a blog long term anymore. They don’t make ’em like they used to.

That’s probably for the best.

katz
5 years ago

OMG, that mess left at Malheur is so nasty. :O

WHY WOULD YOU LITERALLY SHIT ALL OVER THE PLACE YOU WERE LIVING

ESPECIALLY IF YOU WERE TRYING TO CONVINCE THE PUBLIC THAT YOU HAD A RIGHT TO BE THERE

Scildfreja
Scildfreja
5 years ago

Those alpha males gotta mark their territory don’chakno.

Skiriki
Skiriki
5 years ago

katz: The entire mess looked like they expected someone else to pick up their trash and do cleaning on their behalf.

But even that… even that can’t explain shitting where you sleep and eat. FFS, don’t they know anything about camping?

katz
5 years ago

BTW, the “predicting how people will act” mistake doesn’t necessarily mean overestimating how rational people will be; it just means assuming that you can figure out how people in some hypothetical scenario would react to something without looking at (or without accepting) how people in real life react to similar things.

Orion
Orion
5 years ago

@Polyliker,

You arguably would have address each individual issue in order to convince me.

Walk with me, if you will, on a journey of imagination.

Suppose that I said to you, “employers discriminate against women in STEM,” and you said, “I’d say that’s unlikely. Sexism is not a big problem these days; you’d need pretty compelling evidence to convince me.” Suppose that I gave you this evidence, and you said, “You’ve convinced me; sexism is still a problem in STEM industries.”

Suppose that I said to you, “high school teachers discriminate against female students in all disciplines,” and you said, “that seems unlikely; outside the STEM industries, sexism is not a big problem these days; you’d need pretty compelling evidence to convince me.” Suppose that I gave you this evidence, and you said, “You’ve convinced me; sexism is still a problem in STEM industries and in high schools.”

Suppose that I said to you, “women in hospital are less likely to receive painkillers than men who report the same level of pain,” and you said, “that seems unlikely; outside STEM industries and high schools, sexism is not a big problem these days; you’d need pretty compelling evidence to convince me.” Suppose that I gave you this evidence, and you said “You’ve convinced me; sexism is still a problem in STEM industries, high schools, and hospitals.”

Suppose, at last, that I said to you, “Married women do more housework than their husbands even when they work the same hours for equal money,” and you said, “that seems unlikely, outside of STEM industries, high schools, and hospitals, sexism is not a big problem these days.” Suppose further that I said to you, “Well, now you’re just being ridiculous.”

——————————-

Currently you don’t think that feminists are very credible. When a feminist makes a claim about sexism, you estimate that the chance they’re correct is low. That’s fine, I guess. But you need to be willing to change more than just your opinion about one issue. You need to be willing to change you assumptions. Every time a feminist argument turns out to be correct, you should treat future feminist arguments as slightly more likely to be right. Every time you look into a problem and find that sexism is responsible, you should view sexism as a slightly bigger problem. This is the essence of Bayesian reasoning, but also the essence of being reasonable.

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
5 years ago

@ polyliker

I do like ice-cream.

As to your other points, people have already addressed them better than I could so I hope you don’t think I’m rude if I don’t add to what they’ve already so succinctly put.

Andrew Carter
Andrew Carter
5 years ago

The issue is really one of misrepresentation of these courses. Students or their parents subsidized in one way or another by government are paying for an education. In reality for many of these course they are getting indoctrination into a SJW cult without any education in critical thought or evaluation of the theories and assumptions they present as facts.
Personally I think it is simply false advertising and every graduate with a women’s, gender studies degree would have a right to be reimbursed for the false marketing.
The same applies to degrees in pseudoscience like Chirporactic and naturopathy

If people want to pay for indoctrination that is fine by me. If you choose to pay for a course in Buddism or evangelical cristianity then you should be able to but the government should not provide support in the form of student loans or grants.

Viscaria
Viscaria
5 years ago

Andrew Carter, great supporter of academic freedom, thinks that students who receive loans should only be allowed to take classes he personally approves of.

kupo
kupo
5 years ago

@Viscaria
Not just those who take out loans, but any government subsidy, so anyone who attends a public college/university must only be taught the things Andrew agrees with.

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
5 years ago

Clearly Andrew Carter has done extensive research into these classes, and also into the “SJW cults” into which they indoctrinate unsuspecting students. I have no doubt that Andrew has published peer-reviewed original research to this effect, and no doubt that Andrew will share the names and citations of these articles if anyone were to ask for that information.

Because otherwise everything Andrew said up there was pure assfax, and a superior STEM mind would never produce assfax, but only meticulously researched data.

Scildfreja
Scildfreja
5 years ago

Oh, gosh, this thread again? My goodness, someone stirred up the pot tonight. @Andrew Carter, I do hope that you have read up to the thread at this point, because there’s been a lot of ground covered, and you wouldn’t want to come in without reviewing the –

– oh, okay.

I see.

comment image

I’ll be brief, Andrew.

Students or their parents subsidized in one way or another by government are paying for an education.

All institutions of higher learning are subsidized. Often even the private ones. Universities are expensive!

In reality for many of these course they are getting indoctrination into a SJW cult without any education in critical thought or evaluation of the theories and assumptions they present as facts.

There are hundreds of scientific journals, with thousands of yearly papers, representing hundreds of thousands of work-hours of dedicated effort, on these topics. They are indexed, catalogued, studied, and heavily scrutinized, and feature the same sort of chain of reference as any academic papers. They feature the same quality of statistics as those which landed astronauts on the moon (depending on author of course!) and the same attention to detail as a microbiology lab.

If you have issue with the literature as a whole, you had best come with examples. Otherwise, you’re just being anti-science.

Personally I think it is simply false advertising and every graduate with a women’s, gender studies degree would have a right to be reimbursed for the false marketing.

Unfortunately, sir, your feelings are not equivalent to empirical evidence, nor are they justification for policy. The quality of a program, and its worth to a graduate, should be determined by an outcomes-based metric. Do you have some example outcomes from these programs you’d like to confront? I’d be thrilled to talk about that with you.

The same applies to degrees in pseudoscience like Chirporactic and naturopathy

Those two fields do not have the large, research, internally-and-externally-supported infrastructure of theory and knowledge which gender studies enjoys.

You know, the same infrastructure which lends credibility to the STEM fields. Statistics and mathematics.

If people want to pay for indoctrination that is fine by me. If you choose to pay for a course in Buddism or evangelical cristianity then you should be able to but the government should not provide support in the form of student loans or grants.

Religion is important in a social sense – understanding a religion helps one see its place in world affairs, even if one does not believe in it.

Again, your opinion is not justification enough. Evidence, please.

Sorry if that was a bit on-the-nose, I’m sort of blunt today!

1 3 4 5 6 7 9