Fully Baked Left Wing Vegan Cookies

silverharp

Peregrinus wrote: »

I agree with silverharp that English is probably not the author's first language. I'd also point out that even academic papers written by English speakers are frequently written in just appallingly obscure and defective English; this is true across all disciplines. Finally, I'd point out that all we have here is the abstract, and abstracts are frequently written in fairly dense terms that can only be unpacked by reading the paper, for which I have neither the budget, the leisure nor the patience.

But, having said all that, I think what the author may be talking about is a challenge to the "evolutionary biology" view of sexual selection; the view that we choose our partners for reasons which make sense in evolutionary biological terms. Men choose women who appear fertile and have good childbearing hips, women choose men who look like good providers and have good walletbearing hips, etc. I suspect what the paper argues is that this isn't as true as some think; that our partner selection is driven by cultural factors influenced by our cultural beliefs, assumptions and prejudices about gender ("unnatural selection") and that this is part of the reason why men tend to be taller than women.

sex selection is one mechanism but also competition among males for hundreds of thousands of years, size would be a factor in survival. they go into plausibility of their case below


https://realpeerreviewblog.wordpress.com/2016/10/24/on-sex-differences-in-height-and-food-discrimination-why-the-hypothesis-is-ridiculous/

The basis of her argument is simply that men for several millennia engaged in behavior that ultimately would reduce their own fitness on a global scale just for the sake of oppressing women. With no evidence to back it up. Since girls and boys are of equal height until sexual maturity this systemic male orchestrated food deprivation of women must have taken place during women’s childbearing years. By starving women men would not only have reduced a woman’s fertility and their own chance of making her pregnant but also damaged the health and future prospects of their own children by keeping their mothers malnourished during pregnancy. All this only for the sake of men longing to dominate women.

But evolution isn’t about a sex war, evolution doesn’t favor domination of the other sex for it’s own sake, evolution favors enhanced fitness. To propose that men have been oppressing women just for the sake of it, even when it reduces their own fitness, on a global scale for such a long time it has left a decisive mark on sexually dimorphic gene expression reeks of radfem paranoia. It’s the idea, so common in academic feminist theory, that everything is about domination, power structures and gendered oppression that now has been applied to explain evolutionary sex differences. It’s a theory that isn’t just lacking in any evidence but a theory that makes no sense at all. Cultural norms are mainly just extensions of behavioral traits and they are under selective pressure too. Fitness reducing behaviors are selected against, this type of behavior from males would have been strongly selected against.

Power structures can’t explain everything

Not all sex differences can be explained with power structures even though this idea is appealing to many academics on the left end of the political spectrum. Men have their faults and men have surely oppressed women during history, but oppression such as controlling women by restricting their freedom and ability to make their own mate choice (mate-guarding) and forced copulation (rape) could all be argued to have increased the individual man’s own fitness at expense of the woman (and rival males). Males conspiring to deprive their own wives and daughters of food so that they have problems becoming pregnant wouldn’t give any man any reproductive benefits at all. On the contrary. That’s why the hypothesis is crazy. That’s why we mocked the paper.

Please show us a society where men prefer to distribute food to unrelated males rather than their own starving wives and daughters. It doesn’t exist for the reason we mentioned, such men would be selected against. This is simply how evolution works.

Pherekydes

Amusing:

Studies have suggested that the earliest hominins were dimorphic and that this lessened over the course of the evolution of the genus Homo, correlating with humans becoming more monogamous, whereas gorillas, who live in harems, show a large degree of sexual dimorphism

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homininae#Evolution_of_family_structure_and_sexuality

The Black Oil

The BBC's Seriously podcast - an episode about safe spaces and no platform. Seemingly, the anti-fascist stuff goes back as the 30s, whilst the concept of no platform is from the early 70s.

They talk a little about Julie Bindel, Germaine Greer and what some students are like these days. Oh, and there's a clip from an Irish college too. :mad: Well worth listening to.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04gsbgy

silverharp

#TrudeauEulogies

recedite

Nevertheless, PM Trudeau's eulogy to Fidel Castro will be fondly remembered here in Ireland for taking the international spotlight far away from President Michael D. O'Leprechaun, just as he started his own eulogy.

Jan_de_Bakker

Deleted User wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzlYyhh3X0w

Should people also refrain from telling smokers that they shouldn't smoke? Or telling people that it would be better for their health for them not to?

Not certain that this is the right place for this, but there were a few buzzwords that pranged the senses.

Total and absolute madness - how is it un PC to be against unhealthy lifestyles .. ?

This guy nails it

Gbear

Jan_de_Bakker wrote: »

Total and absolute madness - how is it un PC to be against unhealthy lifestyles .. ?

This guy nails it

Oh, **** me... an unironically posted video from InfoWars...

They're "Lizard People Control the World" level of insane.

silverharp

Teacher fired for having the wrong wrong opinion


Christie Blatchford: B.C. teacher fired for having the wrong opinion | National Post

B.C. teacher fired for having the wrong opinion

A teacher at a posh private school in British Columbia was fired last month after making an innocuous comment about abortion to his Grade 12 law class.

Though there is no way of knowing, since discipline matters are shrouded in secrecy, it may be the first time a Canadian teacher has been fired not amid allegations of impropriety, but for having the wrong opinion.

Certainly, Lori Foote, a spokesperson for the 60,000-member-strong Ontario Secondary School Teachers Federation, said Wednesday that no one at the association is “aware of anyone being fired” in Ontario in comparable circumstances.

The 44-year-old teacher, who has asked that he not be identified to protect what’s left of his career, was teaching “the criminal law unit, a lesson on vice, ethics, morality and the law” to his small class in the Vancouver-area school in late November.

“I was working my way through examples of how some people’s sense of personal ethics was more liberal than the letter of the law,” he said in an email.


For example, he told them, many people might roll through a stop sign on a deserted country road, deeming it morally acceptable, even if unlawful.

Such is the cost of a small misstep in a crushingly politically correct world.
In other words, he said, in a pluralistic democracy, there’s often “a difference between people’s private morality and the law.

“I find abortion to be wrong,” he said, as another illustration of this gap, “but the law is often different from our personal opinions.”

That was it, the teacher said. “It was just a quick exemplar, nothing more. And we moved on.”

A little later, the class had a five-minute break, and when it resumed, several students didn’t return, among them a popular young woman who had gone to an administrator to complain that what the teacher said had “triggered” her such that she felt “unsafe” and that, in any case, he had no right to an opinion on the subject of abortion because he was a man.

The school, for the record, is a witheringly progressive one.

Before classes even started last fall, teachers underwent serious “gender training” given by QMUNITY, an organization for LGBTQQ2S (lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, queer, questioning and two-spirit) people. Teachers were told in no uncertain terms, for instance, that “no one is 100-per-cent male or female” and that everyone is somewhere on the “gender spectrum.”

Unsurprisingly, students at the school, where $30,000-a-year tuition buys small classes, regularly say “I’m so triggered” and are allowed to walk out of class.

What happened to the teacher over the ensuing few days sounds like something out of the Cultural Revolution in Mao’s China, where people were subjected to what were known as ideological struggle sessions, forced to “confess” to various imagined sins before large crowds, and roundly denounced.

Jan_de_Bakker

Gbear wrote: »

Oh, **** me... an unironically posted video from InfoWars...

They're "Lizard People Control the World" level of insane.

Alex Jones is a bit extreme, but Paul Joseph Watson actually has some good
stuff - and you have to admit this video makes a lot of sense.

Trent Houseboat

National Post Article wrote:

Unsurprisingly, students at the school, where $30,000-a-year tuition buys small classes, regularly say “I’m so triggered” and are allowed to walk out of class.

I hear they get free socks and leave prams at bus tops too.

I don't know if National Post is a supposed to be a real news site or an outrage factory, but to one quote in the piece that was attributed to anyone said that it didn't happen.

robindch

Trent Houseboat wrote: »

I don't know if National Post is a supposed to be a real news site or an outrage factory, but to one quote in the piece that was attributed to anyone said that it didn't happen.

A quick search indicates that the National Post was set up twenty-odd years ago by Conrad Black, the convicted (catholic) fraudster who, through Hollinger International, owned, amongst other publications, the UK's Telegraph - on the basis of that, the needle tilts towards an outrage manufactory.

But aside from the paper's tilt, and reading the article above and the juvenile level of the prose, one can't help but have the tiniest suspicion that there's more to the story than the writer is letting on.

Peregrinus

The suspicion is more than tiny, since it's evident that the report is based entirely on the perspective of the dismissed teacher. There is no evidence that the school were spoken to at all - not even the usual "the school was approached for comment" arse-cover. And the writer's own personal views are freely mixed in with the reportage.

The article accurately communicates how the teacher wants me to regard his dismissal. Whether it gives a fair picture of what actually happened, I can't be so confident.

So, not quality journalism, then.

silverharp

possible

robindch

Peregrinus wrote: »

The suspicion is more than tiny [...]

I was being a ironic, but only a little bit.

Speaking for myself, it's hard to believe that what seems to be a national media outlet would publish an article containing, in the context they're used in, words like "posh", "shrouded", "protect what's left", "crushingly politically correct", "popular young woman", "witheringly progressive", "no uncertain terms", "various imagined sins", "roundly condemned" and so on.

There's a splendidly jarring inconsistency of register between this prose which is intended to inflame, and the much more pedestrian surrounding prose which describes what actually happened - suggesting that the article may well have been plagiarized from another less incendiary publication, and written by a better writer.

This text is at John Water's level, and that's neither a compliment or ironic

silverharp

students getting off to an early start this year


http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/751986/Students-ban-white-philosophers-Plato-university-London

University students want Plato and Descartes BANNED because they're WHITE

STUDENTS are trying to have philosophers such as Plato and Descartes removed from their syllabus - because they’re WHITE.

Their ideas are said to have underpinned civilised society across the Western world.

But students at a prestigious London university have demanded figures such as Plato be dropped from courses because of the colour of their skin.

Instead, they insisted the majority of philosophers should be from Africa and Asia, and white thinkers only to be studied “if required”.

The move would rule out renowned intellectuals like Socrates, who is widely regarded to be the founding father of the discipline.

robindch

silverharp wrote: »

students getting off to an early start this year

I prefer [url=https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2566032/barmy-soas-students-try-to-ban-classical-philosophers-like-plato-aristotle-and-voltaire-from-their-courses-because-they-are-white/
]The Sun's headline[/url] for the same story:

"Barmy SOAS students try to ban classical philosophers like Plato, Aristotle and Voltaire from their courses… because they are white - Snowflake scholars at London's School of Oriental and African Studies say some of history's greatest thinkers should only be taught 'if required'" - professional use of the Sun's peculiar term "barmy", one step down from "boffin"!

This story probably belongs better in the 'Hazards of belief' thread, as it's doing its bit as a right-wing scare story like the one posted earlier on - name-calling against something called "snowflake students" and our wonderfully durable friend "political correctness" which is deemed to be "out of control". All that's missing is a reference to "entitled millenials"!

All the same, it's surprising to see the Telegraph, Sun, the Express and Kremlin propaganda outlet RT talk in such glowing terms about men whom most of the target readership are probably unfamiliar with, and almost all of whom would have been immigrants in the UK, had they worked there.

None of the media outlets above include the radical possibility that this might just be a case of a students' union acting the maggot because that's what students' unions do :rolleyes:

silverharp

robindch wrote: »

I prefer [url=https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2566032/barmy-soas-students-try-to-ban-classical-philosophers-like-plato-aristotle-and-voltaire-from-their-courses-because-they-are-white/
]The Sun's headline[/url] for the same story:

"Barmy SOAS students try to ban classical philosophers like Plato, Aristotle and Voltaire from their courses… because they are white - Snowflake scholars at London's School of Oriental and African Studies say some of history's greatest thinkers should only be taught 'if required'" - professional use of the Sun's peculiar term "barmy", one step down from "boffin"!

This story probably belongs better in the 'Hazards of belief' thread, as it's doing its bit as a right-wing scare story like the one posted earlier on - name-calling against something called "snowflake students" and our wonderfully durable friend "political correctness" which is deemed to be "out of control". All that's missing is a reference to "entitled millenials"!

All the same, it's surprising to see the Telegraph, Sun, the Express and Kremlin propaganda outlet RT talk in such glowing terms about men whom most of the target readership are probably unfamiliar with, and almost all of whom would have been immigrants in the UK, had they worked there.

None of the media outlets above include the radical possibility that this might just be a case of a students' union acting the maggot because that's what students' unions do :rolleyes:

nah, today's lefty sjw types are tomorrow's bussfeed and guardian and bbc drones, the sooner their feet are put to the fire the better :pac:

robindch

silverharp wrote: »

nah, today's lefty sjw types are tomorrow's bussfeed and guardian and bbc drones, the sooner their feet are put to the fire the better :pac:

Out of interest, have you ever met - face-to-face - one of these trendy, lefty sjw types?

I'm asking as I don't think I ever have and I wonder what they're like as human beings behind the one-dimensional cardboard hate figures erected by right-wing media outlets.

silverharp

robindch wrote: »

Out of interest, have you ever met - face-to-face - one of these trendy, lefty sjw types?

I'm asking as I don't think I ever have and I wonder what they're like as human beings behind the one-dimensional cardboard hate figures erected by right-wing media outlets.

just a guess but I bet is that the serious ones have a tendency to be be "trust fund kids" . just like there are no feminists in foxholes there are no sjw's in council estates up and down England's green and pleasant land. .Anyone worried about the content of a philosophy course at an elite London college has some amount of privilege to begin with

recedite

I think it would depend on whether the course was on, say, philosophy, or African philosophy. We are talking about the University of London’s School of Oriental and African Studies after all.

silverharp

recedite wrote: »

I think it would depend on whether the course was on, say, philosophy, or African philosophy. We are talking about the University of London’s School of Oriental and African Studies after all.

may well be but I think I'd have more faith in the University to put these courses together than some tumblr fuelled students

Peregrinus

silverharp wrote: »

may well be but I think I'd have more faith in the University to put these courses together than some tumblr fuelled students

Yes, but the fact that the newspaper report doesn't bother to tell us what teh course was is telling (and not in the least surprising). A suggestion that a course offered in the School of African and Oriental Studies should pay close attention to African and Oriental figures and influences would not necessarily be unereasonable, but that would do nothing to fuel the outrage of Express readers, so naturally the Express would exclude even the suggestion.

Critical thinkers among the readers of this board will not that the Express quotes several people on the subject, but they don't quote anyone from the Student's Union,there's no evidence that they approached the SU for a quote, and they don't quote or link to the students union statement. Now, why do we think that might be?

silverharp

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes, but the fact that the newspaper report doesn't bother to tell us what teh course was is telling (and not in the least surprising). A suggestion that a course offered in the School of African and Oriental Studies should pay close attention to African and Oriental figures and influences would not necessarily be unereasonable, but that would do nothing to fuel the outrage of Express readers, so naturally the Express would exclude even the suggestion.

Critical thinkers among the readers of this board will not that the Express quotes several people on the subject, but they don't quote anyone from the Student's Union,there's no evidence that they approached the SU for a quote, and they don't quote or link to the students union statement. Now, why do we think that might be?

like I said my faith would be with the college authorities , as far as I understand it a college puts out its stall and students try to win a place. There seems to be some kind of "deconolisation" movement which I admit I don't know much about but would surmise that they want the collages to teach subjects like History Science even or in this case Philosophy with a particular political spin. That seems to be a retrograde step, Im sure the students are free to inject a political spin into their essays etc if they so wish
As for the article being from the Express, as far as I can see its also in all the major papers so you are free to read them and come back with some nuance that was missed

Peregrinus

silverharp wrote: »

. . . As for the article being from the Express, as far as I can see its also in all the major papers so you are free to read them and come back with some nuance that was missed

Why would I need to read other papers to identify "some nuance that was misssed" in the Express? You can identify information that's missing from the Express article just by reading the Express article, and I've already pointed to it.

smacl

silverharp wrote: »

like I said my faith would be with the college authorities

Perhaps as an atheist you shouldn't rely too much on faith... :P

FA Hayek

Feckless Oxford professor gets very nutty.

Also, red dungarees, in 2017?

recedite

No idea what he was rambling on about, but a pair of red moleskins, a trilby hat,a cravate and bottle of fine wine or whiskey tucked under the arm are de rigeur for the mature gentlemen attending a social occasion. I aspire to owning a pair of red moleskins myself some day.
But not yet.

Qs

silverharp wrote: »

just a guess but I bet is that the serious ones have a tendency to be be "trust fund kids" . just like there are no feminists in foxholes there are no sjw's in council estates up and down England's green and pleasant land. .Anyone worried about the content of a philosophy course at an elite London college has some amount of privilege to begin with

I'd imagine you've not spent much time around council estates.

silverharp

Qs wrote: »

I'd imagine you've not spent much time around council estates.

I'd imagine you havnt spent time around SJW's , I think we are talking about different groups. The sjw's im talking about show no interest in working class people that I can see.

looksee

silverharp wrote: »

I'd imagine you havnt spent time around SJW's , I think we are talking about different groups. The sjw's im talking about show no interest in working class people that I can see.

I think you are still missing the point. You seem to be suggesting that you cannot live in a council estate and be able to discuss philosophy. It may surprise you to realise that council estates contain all kinds of people, from socially aware to the absolute opposite.