US college course bans the words 'male' and 'female'

Rym Shanley

Did someone mention Social Justice Warriors?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iR2nh_XmfkA

Overheal

Thread about colleges turns into adolescent fight behind the swing set.

Overheal

Wibbs wrote: »

All too often it's a term wheeled out when an argument is failing. A quieter version of accusing another of some "ism" or other. It also angles for victim status. Basically it's designed to shut down debate. Common in arguments, but extremely common from the left, The Offended and neohippies*



*Open licence on that word if anyone wants to use it. TBH I'm surprised I used the word neocon.

Depends on the context. I'm fond of being read up on logical fallacies because frankly, they crop up a lot, and knowing them when you see them can save you so much time and energy. Why argue from a basis point? Knowing what fallacy you have on hand greatly enhances your ability to refute it and avoid side-tangents about 7 years of someone's post history. Don't just evade a fallible statement either, replace it with a logically valid counter that keeps the thread moving:

Post news from XYZ news site. Oh you WOULD post from XYZ site they have ZYX agenda! Ad hominem. The information is factual or it isn't. Why not just post a contradicting news article to make your case? Great example: try to find me the most accurate death toll figures from the Iraq War. I will not hold my breath.

Poster claims they have no hangups towards muslims. Their post history shows a string of racist remarks about muslims. Not an ad hominem, a rebuttal, if personal, that is still refuting the central point: the user's personal view on muslims.

Poster states most users on a forum are neocons. User gets asked where they went to school. Ad hominem. You could rightly argue the poster has no authority to claim that most users are neocons with rebuttals; there is no need to get personal for that. I would have just asked for the user to clarify what their own definition of Neoconservative was and avoided an entire page of useless prattle.

And for the record I don't have a personal definition for neocon, it is not in my lexicon and indeed I do not care. Political labeling is a big turn-off for me, especially as it is done in the US media circuit. Socialists are evil; Conservatives are good; Neoconservatives are bad; RINOs are bad, but sometimes good; Fascists are bad; but not as much as Liberals; Anti-Semites; Sean Hannity thinks you might be in league with the Sodomites; Supporting social program expansion makes you a Socialist, which makes you a Communist, a Marxist, and/or a Fascist; oh, and Neonazis. The same individual I have had to endure listening to, on some holidays of the year, has breathlessly called Obama a Fascist, a Marxist, a Communist, Socialist, Liberal, and a Nazi. During the same rant. And yes, he's a well educated engineer.

I'm a college student and I do not need to take a Political Theory course, thank fcuk. A study on who's who? Oh this type of politican wants to take your money, this type of politician wants to expand police surveillance, this one wants to expand social services. Who the fcuk cares if none of them are sitting together and asking why our bridges are falling apart? Clearly people have no idea how to use these fcuking labels properly anyway so I've stopped bothering to include it in my vernacular.

NI24

The Corinthian wrote: »

I did. Stop trying to waste my time looking for something that isn't there. You were telling porkies - it's pretty clear to everyone by now.

The Corinthian wrote: »

You didn't. She's the only person who uses the term outside of PNAC or the former Bush administration, which I expect is a US college fashion that hasn't crossed the Atlantic yet. She tried to claim she's copying you, but a quick search for the term in your past posts will show you don't use it.

Wibbs wrote: »

In fairness I have used neoliberal. Neoconservative no. Takes too many keystrokes.

Do you ever tire of having your ass handed to you on a platter? It seems every argument you engage in becomes The Truth vs. The Corinthian. You'd think you would have learned your lesson the first time when FactCheck cut you down to size, yet time and time again you've proven yourself incapable of the following:

1) Reading. You know, there's a program in the US called Hooked on Phonics. It's mostly utilized by illiterate young children of Mexican migrant workers who can't read or write English or Spanish. You would find it extremely helpful.

2) Basic computer skills. How you can come back to me three times and claim that Wibbs didn't use the term neoliberal is a sight to behold. Of course, you'll probably clutch at some random straw like the fact that you misread me the first time and searched the term neoconservative instead of neoliberal, but I can't help it if you refuse to improve your reading skills.

3) Mature discussion. Your repeated attempts with myself and others to antagonize has, at this point, turned your name into a joke.

Now, I'm sure your next attempt will be another logical fallacy, so before you do, no, the fact that Wibbs used the term neoliberal before I ever used the term neoconservative does not prove definitively that's where I got it from, however, that is, in fact, where I got it from. And if you don't believe it, fine. You never let truthfulness get in the way of an argument, so why should this time be any different?

The Corinthian wrote: »

I've no idea if you are or not from the US. All I can tell is that you've clearly drank the coolaid that is now prevalent in undergraduate courses in many US colleges and that we're discussing.

Well, seeing as how I've mentioned many times that I am from the US is all the proof you're going to get. And seeing as how almost all Americans receive a college education in the US, you haven't "proven" anything. And the many US colleges you mention? You won't be able to guess in a million years which one I attended, despite your best efforts. If you think it's not completely obvious to everyone on this site that you frequently ask personal questions in an attempt to set up a sham argument/ad hominem, you are seriously mistaken. Of course, only an emotionally stunted jackass would think he's pulling the wool over anyone's eyes with those pathetic tactics.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Of course, it must be be just because they're 'groupies'.

Agreed.

The Corinthian wrote: »

And still with the 'neoconservative' - you're the only one here who uses that term in that way.

Yes, I realize that SJWs hate labels more than anything.

The Corinthian wrote: »

It must be very disappointing to realize that you can be so easily identified as a stereotype. Still, thank you for presenting us with a live subject on the this thread's topic to study.

And it must be very disappointing to realize you can be so easily identified as an archetype of an SJW. The willful ignorance, the smug, condescending attitude, the frequent logical fallacies employed, the popping of a vein when your ignorance and subsequently, your whole world is exposed, must be very embarrassing. In fact, I feel embarrassed for you. I mean, why don't you lecture us on adoption laws in Ireland while you're at it? Still, don't stop or anything. Nothing amuses me more than seeing a right wing neoconservative attempt a rational, logical argument. It's the stuff that makes AH so entertaining.

Now, having said that, you want to criticize the removal of male and female from the humanities curriculum of a third rate institution in a state like Washington? Be my guest. I knew as soon as I read it that it wouldn't get passed, and, sure enough, it didn't, because, unlike yourself, I don't just read headlines but actually follow up on stories. I also know that it will crop up again in some form or another because the transgender agenda is being pushed harder than anything right now. Then transgenders will get the rights they are fighting for (not the preferences) and it too will pass and another trend will come and the same cycle will repeat.

The Corinthian

NI24 wrote: »

Do you ever tire of having your ass handed to you on a platter?

Wow. Talk about living in a parallel universe.

NI24

The Corinthian wrote: »

Wow. Talk about living in a parallel universe.

Once again, not even an attempt at a rational debate, just another soundbite of an answer. Care to refute what I said?

Been announced that this won't happen. Washington University has announced it won't allow lecturers to ban words they don't like.

http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/24035/

After a national uproar over a Washington State professor who threatened to mark down or even fail students who used words such as “illegal aliens,” “tranny,” or referring to men and women as “male or female,” campus officials on Monday came out in strong support of free speech, pledging to “modify” syllabuses that ban words.

strelok

i ****ing love how sjw's are defending themselves now by blanket accusing everyone else of being sjw's. you see it all over the internet, there must have been a meeting on the rationalwiki irc channel recently

i guess their brief attempt to reclaim sjw as a badge of pride didn't pan out

zeffabelli

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Been announced that this won't happen. Washington University has announced it won't allow lecturers to ban words they don't like.

http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/24035/

In that article there is a link to another article which points out other colleges are doing similar.

Petty world of third wave feminism..... Not allowed to use appropriate pronouns, not allowed to use "mankind."

Well well, now it's rebellious to be a conservative, in the institutionalised narcissism of US undergrad.

It's intellectual abuse, let's call a spade a spade.... Oh wait don't think I can use that saying anymore. Can't keep up with all these prohibitions.

But seriously you enter the work force with these **** insane writing skills and made up pronouns, wouldn't an employer just think you're illiterate?

NI24

strelok wrote: »

i ****ing love how sjw's are defending themselves now by blanket accusing everyone else of being sjw's. you see it all over the internet, there must have been a meeting on the rationalwiki irc channel recently

i guess their brief attempt to reclaim sjw as a badge of pride didn't pan out

I love it when neoconservative buffoons try to label any opposition as anything in an attempt to stop discussion. Particularly when it is the neoconservative buffoons themselves who give lengthy defintions of SJWs. I guess the definitions are more autobiographical than anything.

NI24

zeffabelli wrote: »

In that article there is a link to another article which points out other colleges are doing similar.

Petty world of third wave feminism..... Not allowed to use appropriate pronouns, not allowed to use "mankind."

Well well, now it's rebellious to be a conservative, in the institutionalised narcissism of US undergrad.

It's intellectual abuse, let's call a spade a spade.... Oh wait don't think I can use that saying anymore. Can't keep up with all these prohibitions.

But seriously you enter the work force with these **** insane writing skills and made up pronouns, wouldn't an employer just think you're illiterate?

I'd be careful of accusing anyone of narcissism when one describes their sexuality as a "not a Moroccan buffet". Or criticizing anyone while using terms such as "consensual reality" while lambasting the use of therapy terms in government.

zeffabelli

NI24 wrote: »

I'd be careful of accusing anyone of narcissism when one describes their sexuality as a "not a Moroccan buffet". Or criticizing anyone while using terms such as "consensual reality" while lambasting the use of therapy terms in government.

Ah yeah projection ain't just a box in the back of a theatre.

Instead of bothering with you, I think I'll sit back and celebrate neuro diversity.

strelok

zeffabelli wrote: »

Instead of bothering with you, I think I'll sit back and celebrate neuro diversity.

that's such a neoconservative thing to say

NI24

zeffabelli wrote: »

Ah yeah projection ain't just a box in the back of a theatre.

Instead of bothering with you, I think I'll sit back and celebrate neuro diversity.

Translation: my hypocrisy and idiotic nonsense is really coming back to bite me. I have no defense of it so I'll try another lame attempt at taking the high road.

NI24

strelok wrote: »

that's such a neoconservative thing to say

Shhhh. Stop labeling her. SJWs hate that.

strelok

NI24 wrote: »

Shhhh. Stop labeling her. SJWs hate that.

I genuinely, and i'm really not trying to be a dick here, think you're brilliant


shine on you crazy diamond

zeffabelli

NI24 wrote: »

Translation: my hypocrisy and idiotic nonsense is really coming back to bite me. I have no defense of it so I'll try another lame attempt at taking the high road.

You're boring me is all.

I have nothing to learn from you.

In many ways I can only feel sorry for you as you clearly haven't managed your way out of the brainwashing and you seem young.

It's also pretty obvious you're taking out some personal frustrations out on a screen at whatever time zone you arrive.

Needless to say, you are not a worthy opponent, unlike some other posters here who I will argue with, because I learn from them while I argue.

You just bore me.

NI24

strelok wrote: »

I genuinely, and i'm really not trying to be a dick here, think you're brilliant


shine on you crazy diamond

I learned it all from The Corinthian. He's my mentor.

Knock knock.

NI24

zeffabelli wrote: »

You're boring me is all.

I have nothing to learn from you.

In many ways I can only feel sorry for you as you clearly haven't managed your way out of the brainwashing and you seem young.

It's also pretty obvious you're taking out some personal frustrations out on a screen at whatever time zone you arrive.

Needless to say, you are not a worthy opponent, unlike some other posters here who I will argue with, because I learn from them while I argue.

You just bore me.

You must not have much of a life if you continue to reply to the posts of someone who bores you constantly. And I'm glad you're learning something from other posters, so maybe you'll stop it with the hyperbole and philosophical crap. Btw, still waiting on that list.

BetterThanThou

I personally think equality is very important, but there's absolutely no reason to pretend we're all the same, we're not, some of us are male, some female, some black, some Asian, some white, some transgendered, some gay, some straight, equality isn't about pretending these differences don't exist, it's about accepting these differences and realising we're all humans, but we have our differences. What's next? Will it be inappropriate to refer to myself as an Irish person? Or a brown haired person? All this human rights stuff lately is bull****.

humanji

MOD: Children, stop the bickering or I'm turning to car around and there'll be no Cape Canaveral for anyone!

zeffabelli

BetterThanThou wrote: »

I personally think equality is very important, but there's absolutely no reason to pretend we're all the same, we're not, some of us are male, some female, some black, some Asian, some white, some transgendered, some gay, some straight, equality isn't about pretending these differences don't exist, it's about accepting these differences and realising we're all humans, but we have our differences. What's next? Will it be inappropriate to refer to myself as an Irish person? Or a brown haired person? All this human rights stuff lately is bull****.

On the one hand they want to celebrate diversity and on the other they want to eliminate it.

Maguined

NI24 wrote: »

Do you ever tire of having your ass handed to you on a platter? It seems every argument you engage in becomes The Truth vs. The Corinthian. You'd think you would have learned your lesson the first time when FactCheck cut you down to size, yet time and time again you've proven yourself incapable of the following:

It's still early enough in the morning that I am half asleep so apologies if this is realy obvious stuff but I just to confirm you claimed you got the term neoconservative from Wibbs. The post history said Wibbs only used the term once 7 years ago and now you are claiming victory because wibbs confirmed he used the different term neoliberal?

One eyed Jack

Maguined wrote: »

It's still early enough in the morning that I am half asleep so apologies if this is realy obvious stuff but I just to confirm you claimed you got the term neoconservative from Wibbs. The post history said Wibbs only used the term once 7 years ago and now you are claiming victory because wibbs confirmed he used the different term neoliberal?

I think NI24 (love you! ) made the point that Wibbs first used the term "neoliberal", whereas previously we'd only have used the terms liberal and conservative around here, and then of course the opposite of neoliberal is neoconservative...

That's the way I understood her post anyway.

zeffabelli

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I think NI24 (love you! ) made the point that Wibbs first used the term "neoliberal", whereas previously we'd only have used the terms liberal and conservative around here, and then of course the opposite of neoliberal is neoconservative...

That's the way I understood her post anyway.

Neo liberal refers to economic policies of laissez fair attitudes. It is not a direct opposite of neo con.

It makes no odds who she got it from, she's still chucking the label around ignorantly. It cannot apply in a European context.

Maguined

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I think NI24 (love you! ) made the point that Wibbs first used the term "neoliberal", whereas previously we'd only have used the terms liberal and conservative around here, and then of course the opposite of neoliberal is neoconservative...

That's the way I understood her post anyway.

Neoconservative is a term that predates neoliberal so I don't understand the idea of trying to make up a new word even though it is has already been used since the 60s? Even if you want to look at the most modern interpreations Neoliberalism would be a response and a reaction to the Neoconservatism of the Bush era so it really does not make much sense to invent a new word (that already exists) as a response to a term which is already a reactionary to the original word in the first place.

I have this great new invention. It's called the wheel, yes I know there are already wheels out there but I have decided my wheel is new. Victory.

One eyed Jack

zeffabelli wrote: »

Neo liberal refers to economic policies of laissez fair attitudes. It is not a direct opposite of neo con.

It makes no odds who she got it from, she's still chucking the label around ignorantly. It cannot apply in a European context.

Ahh I know, but I was just clearing up the where she got it from, but as you point out, she's using it without understanding it's original context as though she thinks it's the opposite of neoliberal, showing that she understands neither term.

orubiru

BetterThanThou wrote: »

I personally think equality is very important, but there's absolutely no reason to pretend we're all the same, we're not, some of us are male, some female, some black, some Asian, some white, some transgendered, some gay, some straight, equality isn't about pretending these differences don't exist, it's about accepting these differences and realising we're all humans, but we have our differences. What's next? Will it be inappropriate to refer to myself as an Irish person? Or a brown haired person? All this human rights stuff lately is bull****.

I agree that equality needs to be discussed more often and that we need to start looking at providing people with equal opportunities. We especially need to help provide poorer or less able people with chances to become productive members of society.

I think that society in general was well on the way to this and that most people understand that discriminating against someone or abusing someone because of their skin color or gender or whatever is unacceptable.

For example, in most western countries it would be illegal to pay a male employee more than a female employee if the reasoning for that pay gap is that he is male. In fact, almost any company you could work for these days will have specific criteria for determining your pay and none of that will be related to your gender or race.

I would have thought that everything was going really really well.

Where you have a problem is when you indoctrinate people into this "chip on the shoulder" culture and they then spend most of their time "fighting" things that they perceive as injustice. If you are telling young women that "men have always oppressed women, you need to break the patriarchy" then it's probably not healthy for them. If you are telling young people of colour that "White Men have all the privileges in this society and you should so everything you can to break white male supremacy" then they are likely to have some issues when they reach adulthood. You should really be teaching them to create opportunities for themselves and be successful.

Instead a lot of young folks seem to be raised to call "foul" at every single thing they see as incorrect or not progressive enough. I think that most of us in western society are progressive. A lot of people just seem to want to take it to extremes. I'm thinking of footballers hitting the ground at the slightest touch and rolling around while their teammates surround the referee looking for a yellow, or red, card. Eventually this gets to the point that some people are "testing the water" to see whether or not they might be able ban certain words.

How far are these people willing to go? How likely is it that their campaigns or crusades could be hijacked by people who just want to do damage?

If there are people out there honestly suggesting that words like "male" and "female" be banned then what happens if that gets pushed through? What is the punishment for using a banned word? How is guilt established?

If I am a old straight rich white male taking a class at a US college 10 years from now, how am I likely to be treated?

Hande hoche!

Deleted User wrote: »

Knock knock.

Who's there?

Huntergonzo

If we can't say 'male' and 'female' how about a compromise, we say 'my nigga' and 'ho' instead? Seems fair in the PC crazy world we live in.

One eyed Jack

orubiru wrote: »

Instead a lot of young folks seem to be raised to call "foul" at every single thing they see as incorrect or not progressive enough. I think that most of us in western society are progressive. A lot of people just seem to want to take it to extremes. Eventually this gets to the point that some people are "testing the water" to see whether or not they might be able ban certain words.

How far are these people willing to go? How likely is it that their campaigns or crusades could be hijacked by people who just want to do damage?

If there are people out there honestly suggesting that words like "male" and "female" be banned then what happens if that gets pushed through? What is the punishment for using a banned word? How is guilt established?

I was reading an article recently about drag queens, and I came across the word "herstory". I struggled to understand the context for a minute, until I figured out the author was bastardising the word history!!

When it gets to that level of ridiculous, there's not much point in reading any further :pac:

Eugene Norman

NI24 wrote: »

Ooooh touched a nerve I see. Gotta love how those who have nothing but speculation on their side become increasingly frustrated when called out on it. Fitting into that neoconservative mold more and more as the posts roll on. Btw, feel free to supply the list of colleges you spoke of earlier.

Neo-conservatism is an American ideology. It's generally involved with invading the Middle East on behalf of the Israeli "alliance". It's nothing to do with America's SJW ideologies which are in fact designed to hide American power. In fact neo-conservatives can be liberal in everything except killing middle easterners.


There are no neo-conservatives in Ireland. It's a different country.

Edit : I was wrong. There's at least one America F*ck yeh on boards. Jank by name. Never in real life have I met one.

Wibbs

I'm still trying to get my head around how a "Moroccan buffet" has anything to do with one's sexuality. Da fuq?

zeffabelli

Wibbs wrote: »

I'm still trying to get my head around how a "Moroccan buffet" has anything to do with one's sexuality. Da fuq?

She got the quote wrong....ignore.

zeffabelli

orubiru wrote: »

I agree that equality needs to be discussed more often and that we need to start looking at providing people with equal opportunities. We especially need to help provide poorer or less able people with chances to become productive members of society.

I think that society in general was well on the way to this and that most people understand that discriminating against someone or abusing someone because of their skin color or gender or whatever is unacceptable.

For example, in most western countries it would be illegal to pay a male employee more than a female employee if the reasoning for that pay gap is that he is male. In fact, almost any company you could work for these days will have specific criteria for determining your pay and none of that will be related to your gender or race.

I would have thought that everything was going really really well.

Where you have a problem is when you indoctrinate people into this "chip on the shoulder" culture and they then spend most of their time "fighting" things that they perceive as injustice. If you are telling young women that "men have always oppressed women, you need to break the patriarchy" then it's probably not healthy for them. If you are telling young people of colour that "White Men have all the privileges in this society and you should so everything you can to break white male supremacy" then they are likely to have some issues when they reach adulthood. You should really be teaching them to create opportunities for themselves and be successful.

Instead a lot of young folks seem to be raised to call "foul" at every single thing they see as incorrect or not progressive enough. I think that most of us in western society are progressive. A lot of people just seem to want to take it to extremes. I'm thinking of footballers hitting the ground at the slightest touch and rolling around while their teammates surround the referee looking for a yellow, or red, card. Eventually this gets to the point that some people are "testing the water" to see whether or not they might be able ban certain words.

How far are these people willing to go? How likely is it that their campaigns or crusades could be hijacked by people who just want to do damage?

If there are people out there honestly suggesting that words like "male" and "female" be banned then what happens if that gets pushed through? What is the punishment for using a banned word? How is guilt established?

If I am a old straight rich white male taking a class at a US college 10 years from now, how am I likely to be treated?

If I had an 18 year old son Id refuse to pay for a humanities education as it stands now.

Wibbs

Still, "Moroccan buffet" should be a sexual preference. Of what kind I'm not sure, but it sounds dirty.

The Corinthian

Wibbs wrote: »

Still, "Moroccan buffet" should be a sexual preference. Of what kind I'm not sure, but it sounds dirty.

You're clearly Islamophobic...

zeffabelli

Wibbs wrote: »

Still, "Moroccan buffet" should be a sexual preference. Of what kind I'm not sure, but it sounds dirty.

It was in a LL thread about the exchange and commodification of affections/interest in a dating/buy a drink context.

What I said was my sexuality is not a table at a Morrican market, where everything is about haggling and exchange. I never mentioned buffet tables.

Anyone who knows anything about Moroccan bartering would get this. My friend was offered six sheep for his girlfriend!

Buffet tables have nothing to do with this. Although you've given me some food for thought.... Will get back to you.

orubiru

NI24 wrote: »

I'd be careful of accusing anyone of narcissism when one describes their sexuality as a "not a Moroccan buffet". Or criticizing anyone while using terms such as "consensual reality" while lambasting the use of therapy terms in government.

So my understanding here is that you are taking something someone has said on another thread then completely misunderstanding it and then trying to use it to make a point against that person on this thread?

I wonder if someone might consider this behavior SJW-esque?

One eyed Jack

zeffabelli wrote: »

If I had an 18 year old son Id refuse to pay for a humanities education as it stands now.

Seriously though, is it actually gone that bad, or are these just examples of extremism, at the extreme end of the scale, amplified by the proliferation of the internet?

I always think of this clip when I read some of these nutbar stories like the example given in the OP -

Do extremists really have any real-world influence? I personally don't think they do tbh, they're far too much idealism and no action, always pointing out problems, but never coming up with any feasible solutions, because their thinking is far too insular.

zeffabelli

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Seriously though, is it actually gone that bad, or are these just examples of extremism, at the extreme end of the scale, amplified by the proliferation of the internet?

I always think of this clip when I read some of these nutbar stories like the example given in the OP -

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/06/10/living/seinfeld-comedy-colleges-feat/
Do extremists really have any real-world influence? I personally don't think they do tbh, they're far too much idealism and no action, always pointing out problems, but never coming up with any feasible solutions, because their thinking is far too insular.

Yes. Comedians won't go to campuses anymore.

andrew

zeffabelli wrote: »

If I had an 18 year old son Id refuse to pay for a humanities education as it stands now.

So, on the basis of a policy instituted by one lecturer, in a college in the USA, in a Gender Studies class, you wouldn't pay for a humanities degree?

Jesus fucking wept. The 'it's PC gone mad' circlejerk here, I knew it was bad, but I hadn't realised it was THAT bad. It's a gender studies class. Thinking about gender in different ways is the entire fucking point of the class. If people are going to bicker about the inapplicability of 'neoconservative' in an Irish context, why don't they bicker about the inapplicability of what's going on in this class in any context other than that class, especially in Ireland.

zeffabelli

andrew wrote: »

So, on the basis of a policy instituted by one lecturer, in a college in the USA, in a Gender Studies class, you wouldn't pay for a humanities degree?

Jesus fucking wept. The 'it's PC gone mad' circlejerk here, I knew it was bad, but I hadn't realised it was THAT bad. It's a gender studies class. Thinking about gender in different ways is the entire fucking point of the class. If people are going to bicker about the inapplicability of 'neoconservative' in an Irish context, why don't they bicker about the inapplicability of what's going on in this class in any context other than that class, especially in Ireland.

No. Not on the basis of one, on the basis of the vast majority of them.

andrew

zeffabelli wrote: »

No. Not on the basis of one, on the basis of the vast majority of them.

Vast majority? So far greater than 50% of humanities lecturers in the US have policies which do things like ban the words male and female?
Any evidence to back that one up? I highly doubt it. Bear in mind that humanities is quite a general field too.

Eugene Norman

andrew wrote: »

So, on the basis of a policy instituted by one lecturer, in a college in the USA, in a Gender Studies class, you wouldn't pay for a humanities degree?

Jesus fucking wept. The 'it's PC gone mad' circlejerk here, I knew it was bad, but I hadn't realised it was THAT bad. It's a gender studies class. Thinking about gender in different ways is the entire fucking point of the class. If people are going to bicker about the inapplicability of 'neoconservative' in an Irish context, why don't they bicker about the inapplicability of what's going on in this class in any context other than that class, especially in Ireland.

Because the nature of Empire is we follow Empire and ten years will be enough to follow this trend. Look at the morons with hipster beards direct from Portland or the rise of Cis-Genderism.

zeffabelli

andrew wrote: »

Vast majority? So far greater than 50% of humanities lecturers in the US have policies which do things like ban the words male and female?
Any evidence to back that one up? I highly doubt it. Bear in mind that humanities is quite a general field too.

I do not have to justify my decisions to you.

andrew

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Because the nature of Empire is we follow Empire and ten years will be enough to follow this trend. Look at the morons with hipster beards direct from Portland or the rise of Cis-Genderism.

I wish. Then we'd all be able to load up on guns and have abortions, or both at the same time even :cool:.

zeffabelli wrote: »

I do not have to justify my decisions to you.

I'll take that to mean 'I can't justify my decisions.' Alrighty then.

Links234

andrew wrote: »

The 'it's PC gone mad' circlejerk here

One might even say it's 'PC gone mad' gone mad.

andrew

Links234 wrote: »

One might even say it's 'PC gone mad' gone mad.

WE'RE THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS HERE PEOPLE.