University Challenge questions made more difficult so as not to offend anyone

suicide_circus

CrabRevolution wrote: »

I noticed something similar during the 1916 Rising commemorations. In the name of "balance" they had to play up the female participants of the rising, which is fine and well, I doubt anyone has much of a problem with that.

What did seem ridiculous though was how many of these pieces contained lines about "the forgotten women of the rising" and how "Ireland shamefully didn't remember them as they did Pearse and Connolly". This ignored the obvious reason that these women were just grunts in the Rising, and history doesn't remember the names of grunts whether they be male or female. Random female footsoldiers were being made out to be just as notable as the leaders.

I wouldn't call it rewriting history, but it's certainly a twisting of the truth.

oh god that was that was embarrassingly transparent. trying to apply a kind of retrospective affirmative action to pacify modern sensibilities.

PlaneSpeeking

suicide_circus wrote: »

oh god that was that was embarrassingly transparent. trying to apply a kind of retrospective affirmative action to pacify modern sensibilities.

I'm sure my sistahs will kick me out of the hood but recent Irish rebellions etc ?

Countess Markiewicz

That's it. It's pandering to pretend otherwise.

But sure didn't Hillary say that women left at home suffered more than the men at war ?

Mental.

Questions about women that "nobody" has heard of - probably the point

JMNolan

Grayson wrote: »

This whole thread could be summed up by stupid men think that hard quiz is too hard and questions about women are too hard.

Your agenda is far too vague /s

razorblunt

Q1: Does my bum look big in this?
Q2: Is my friend, Martha, look better than me?
Q3: "I'm fine" is the truthful answer to the question "What's wrong". True or False.


We'll definitely still know.

Akrasia

Sardonicat wrote: »

I studied 3 female philosophers (highly influential in their own right) and from canvassing graduates from other universities that's three more than most.

Hannah Arendt, Emma Goldman and Ayn Rand are the only 3 I can think of from the courses I studied in College

sbsquarepants

Murray TheDemonic TalkingSkull wrote: »

Da fcuk is gender neutral questioning? A question is a question isnt it?

No some questions are obviously written by men, such as this one which featured on University Challenge only last week...

Question: What is the correct order in which a gentleman should ride little mix?

Answer: Start with the black one, then one who goes out with the Ox, then the other kinda blondie one and finally the one that looks like a cabbage patch doll.

(No, I do not know their names!)

topper75

Badly Drunk Boy wrote: »

Actually, Henry VIII granted her the title Marquess of Pembroke, a male title.

Same old patriarchy - always cheating

PandaPoo

Never really got into UC. I love Only Connect though, we watch them all and I'm actually quite good at it now. I don't really get the English political questions but other than that.

sbsquarepants

PandaPoo wrote: »

Never really got into UC. I love Only Connect though, we watch them all and I'm actually quite good at it now. I don't really get the English political questions but other than that.

I've never seen it, but I do like Victoria Coren, she's quite funny.
It's worth checking out you reckon?

PlaneSpeeking

sbsquarepants wrote: »

No some questions are obviously written by men, such as this one which featured on University Challenge only last week...

Question: What is the correct order in which a gentleman should ride little mix?

Answer: Start with the black one, then one who goes out with the Ox, then the other kinda blondie one and finally the one that looks like a cabbage patch doll.

(No, I do not know their names!)

I was advised by several chaps in my acquaintance that it's:

Black one
Fat One
Blonde One
Other One

But that's probably offensive somewhere!!

sbsquarepants

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

I was advised by several chaps in my acquaintance that it's:

Black one
Fat One
Blonde One
Other One

But that's probably offensive somewhere!!

No no no!

Blonde and other are interchangeable I suppose, but you must start on black and end on fat - that much is set in stone!

PlaneSpeeking

sbsquarepants wrote: »

No no no!

Blonde and other are interchangeable I suppose, but you must start on black and end on fat - that much is set in stone!

One of them's done a One Directioner and a Liverpool player - even if she was my bag I'd swerve!!!!

sbsquarepants

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

One of them's done a One Directioner and a Liverpool player - even if she was my bag I'd swerve!!!!

I'm a pool fan, and it's hard to meet anyone that one of the One Directioners (usually Harry;)) hasn't beat you to, so none of that would bother me too much!

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

Akrasia wrote: »

Hannah Arendt, Emma Goldman and Ayn Rand are the only 3 I can think of from the courses I studied in College

And you'd really have to stretch the definition of "philosopher" to include them.

Probably the greatest female philosopher (as in actual philosopher) was G. E. M. Anscombe, a student of Wittgenstein who produced significant work in ethics, the philosophy of mind, and other fields. Her 1957 book Intention is probably the single most important philosophical work written by a woman.

She is neglected by feminist academics, though, because she was a lifelong devout Catholic who supported the Church's stances on contraception and abortion.

keano_afc

Ah here. Now we're going to have people offended because other people are assuming the gender of questions.

PandaPoo

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I've never seen it, but I do like Victoria Coren, she's quite funny.
It's worth checking out you reckon?

Definitely. Takes some getting used to. Sometimes I'd think I know the answer but convince myself that's too out there, and it's right. The connecting walls are the best part. And I'm amazing at the missing vowels round, which is the easiest

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

professore wrote: »

Exactly. Most of the advanves throughout history have been driven by men. Trying to pretend otherwise for ideological reasons is just false.

Agreed. Trying to pretend that minor women writers are equivalent to Shakespeare and Milton is equally nonsensical. Harold Bloom has some brilliant diatribes on this.

Ironically a coupe of really influential women are rarely talked about: Elizabeth I, who laid the foundations for the British Empire, Margaret Thatcher and more recently Theresa May. For some reason they are taboo

Feminists don't "celebrate" Elizabeth I or Margaret Thatcher for the same reasons they don't celebrate the likes of G. E. M. Anscombe (above). In order to be worth "celebrating" or "reclaiming," the woman also needs to embody some progressive lefty agenda or cause. She certainly can't be known for laying the foundations of the British Empire (evil colonialist!) or for taking Britain out of the era of power cuts, strikes, and economic collapse and transforming it into a thriving modern market-driven state (evil right-winger!).

seamus

ITT: People who read the thread title and not the article.

All seems pretty reasonable tbh, I don't know why people are getting so offended about a programme tweaking their questions to provide a level playing field.

Badly Drunk Boy

seamus wrote: »

All seems pretty reasonable tbh, I don't know why people are getting so offended about a programme tweaking their questions to provide a level playing field.

That's the thing though...it implies that males only know/want to know about males in history/science/whatever and females only want to know about females. Women didn't have the same opportunities as men in centuries gone by, therefore it's expected that there should be more questions about men.

I like University Challenge and usually get a good few answers, even if some of them are only educated guesses. The thing that annoys me most about it though, are the long-winded, rambling questions where at the end you're asking yourself "At the start, did he want to name of a person, a place or a variety of apple?".

I like Only Connect and Mastermind too. I always like to get at least one of the Mastermind specialist questions right, even if I've never heard of the subject of the questions. I'm not mad about John Humphreys but I think Victoria Coren is great.

Grayson

Lorenzo Bumpy Rake wrote: »

And you'd really have to stretch the definition of "philosopher" to include them.

Probably the greatest female philosopher (as in actual philosopher) was G. E. M. Anscombe, a student of Wittgenstein who produced significant work in ethics, the philosophy of mind, and other fields. Her 1957 book Intention is probably the single most important philosophical work written by a woman.

She is neglected by feminist academics, though, because she was a lifelong devout Catholic who supported the Church's stances on contraception and abortion.

But on the other hand you have philosophers like Stein who are widely studied. Stein was a jewish woman who converted to catholicism, became a nun and was killed by the Nazi's in a gas chamber. She's now a saint and is one of the 6 co-saints of europe.

I even studied St. Hildegard in college.

BTW, Arendt was definitely a philosopher although she hated being called that because she felt that philosophers were pontificating men who did not engage with the world. That might come from her teacher Heidegger. He had an affair with her, a jew, but later became of of the nazi's most emphatic flag wavers.
Arendt wrote extensively on phenomenology and later on ethics, especially totalitarianism and the nature of evil.

As for Ayn Rand, jesus what a pile of crap. Her work is essentially a celebration of egoism and selfishness. I would describe her work as a work in philosophy but I would say that the admiration it gets from the right is greatly undeserved.

There are essentially two types of philosophers and even I guess two type of readers. Those who start with an idea and build and argument to prove it, and those that start with evidence and build a hypothesis from it. Rand is definitely the former.

jmayo

Sardonicat wrote: »

Where does it say that the questions have been made more difficult so as not to offend anyone?

I see an effort to introduce a bit of balance by not ignoring the academic and cultural contributions of women prominent in their fields. The contestants' inability to answer them is more a reflection of the content of courses they are studying.

What the feck is this shyte?

If you use that mullarkey then you can probably rule out asking questions about great artists or a huge chunk of classical music, all because there weren't many if any women prominent in either up to a certain point in more recent history.

And you can probably rule out most of military history as well.
Of course that would suit some of the modern hug-em brigade.

seamus wrote: »

ITT: People who read the thread title and not the article.

All seems pretty reasonable tbh, I don't know why people are getting so offended about a programme tweaking their questions to provide a level playing field.

Level playing field ?
Are you surmising that women can only answer questions about women ?

Because that is really patronising I would say.

professore wrote: »

Exactly. Most of the advanves throughout history have been driven by men. Trying to pretend otherwise for ideological reasons is just false.

Shhh you can't say that.
Besides all those men were probably misogynists.

professore wrote: »

Ironically a coupe of really influential women are rarely talked about: Elizabeth I, who laid the foundations for the British Empire, Margaret Thatcher and more recently Theresa May. For some reason they are taboo

That is probably the only time May is going to be included in a list with the other two.
May is more likely to appear on a list with Chamberlain.

ohnonotgmail

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I've never seen it, but I do like Victoria Coren, she's quite funny.
It's worth checking out you reckon?

Absolutely it is. Some of the questions are headache inducingly difficult. Which makes it all the sweeter when you are shouting the answer at the tv while the contestants are still working it out.

ohnonotgmail

Grayson wrote: »

But on the other hand you have philosophers like Stein who are widely studied. Stein was a jewish woman who converted to catholicism, became a nun and was killed by the Nazi's in a gas chamber. She's now a saint and is one of the 6 co-saints of europe.

I even studied St. Hildegard in college.

BTW, Arendt was definitely a philosopher although she hated being called that because she felt that philosophers were pontificating men who did not engage with the world. That might come from her teacher Heidegger. He had an affair with her, a jew, but later became of of the nazi's most emphatic flag wavers.
Arendt wrote extensively on phenomenology and later on ethics, especially totalitarianism and the nature of evil.

As for Ayn Rand, jesus what a pile of crap. Her work is essentially a celebration of egoism and selfishness. I would describe her work as a work in philosophy but I would say that the admiration it gets from the right is greatly undeserved.

There are essentially two types of philosophers and even I guess two type of readers. Those who start with an idea and build and argument to prove it, and those that start with evidence and build a hypothesis from it. Rand is definitely the former.

was he the boozy beggar?

seamus

Badly Drunk Boy wrote: »

That's the thing though...it implies that males only know/want to know about males in history/science/whatever and females only want to know about females. Women didn't have the same opportunities as men in centuries gone by, therefore it's expected that there should be more questions about men.

I'm not sure it implies that men only know about male history and women only know about female history.

It implies that as a society we tend to rely on history that was written from a male perspective. We're not constantly revisiting and refining what we know about history. A lot of what we know comes from contemporaneous works.

As you quite rightly point out, women actually feature less because there were less opportunities, but women were also whitewashed/ignored in contemporaneous writings because the people documenting at the time did so with a focus on the men present. Teachers and professors who talked about history, tended to focus on the men, and pay less attention to the women. As a result, the "popular" and "well-known" historical figures, are men.

While the bible may not exactly be an historically accurate document, when we look at the parables contained within, women are often excluded from them unless they are a major focus. The creation myth, for example, talks about Eve, but then mentions few or no women for many generations, even though clearly there must have been.

This writing then informs later readers and drives later adaptations and discussions about the stories.

The key here is that nobody is intentionally viewing it with a male-focussed slant; but they are unaware that they are parroting slanted views which have been previously presented.

A large and popular body of work in historical research now is going back to discover the women (and other players) who received little recognition for their contributions at the time and who may have been excluded from contemporaneous accounts of historical events; for better or worse.

UC is simply recognising that there is a huge body of data out there from which to draw questions, which has been traditionally been ignored - not intentionally, but through unconscious bias and the tendency of the question-writer to draw on the things that s/he knows about. Which, on the whole, tends to be more weighted towards men; especially when it's a man writing the question.

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

seamus wrote: »

I don't know why people are getting so offended about a programme tweaking their questions to provide a level playing field.

The vast majority of world leaders, scientists, mathematicians, composers, intellectuals, and artists have been men -- so it's difficult to see how one can create the illusion of a "level playing field" when the playing field throughout human history has been about as level as a railway embankment.

Suppose they want to ask a question on the topic of US presidents. How do they "tweak" the questions to create a "level playing field" when every US president in history has been male?

sliabh 1956

Love watching UC some amazing brains on display though I feel much more at home watching Eggheads It would be gas to see if the BBC could arrange a challenge between the Eggs and the winners of UC

seamus

Lorenzo Bumpy Rake wrote: »

The vast majority of world leaders, scientists, mathematicians, composers, intellectuals, and artists have been men -- so it's difficult to see how one can create the illusion of a "level playing field" when the playing field throughout human history has been about as level as a railway embankment.

Suppose they want to ask a question on the topic of US presidents. How do they "tweak" the questions to create a "level playing field" when every US president in history has been male?

Yeah, that's not even close to what they're doing.

I can see why you'd get offended about something that's not even happening.

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

seamus wrote: »

Teachers and professors who talked about history, tended to focus on the men, and pay less attention to the women. As a result, the "popular" and "well-known" historical figures, are men.

Seriously?

Historians have focused on male figures from Julius Caesar to Abraham Lincoln to Winston Churchill because they are the ones who most influenced the course of history. It's not like we had female Caesars, Lincolns, and Churchills who have been overlooked simply due to the bias of historians. The number of historically notable women is very small by comparison to the number of men. That's just the reality. Trying to turn history into a revisionist fantasy so that we can pretend that women have always been as influential as men is nothing more than a sham and a distortion.

seamus

Lorenzo Bumpy Rake wrote: »

Trying to turn history into a revisionist fantasy so that we can pretend that women have always been as influential as men is nothing more than a sham and a distortion.

Nice strawman. Nobody is doing that.

"Fragile masculinity" is something that makes a lot of people think of raving psycho feminists.

But when I see the reaction to the suggestion that some people might dare do some historical research to find any women who've been overlooked, it's clear that fragile masculinity is a real thing.

Why does it seem to upset you so much that someone might go back and look for people who made serious contributions, but who may have been overlooked or removed from contemporaneous accounts?

Is "revisionism" a bad thing if it's uncovering lost facts? History is always written with a bias. Whether that be an ideological one or a gender one, or a race one. The aim of the historian is to peel back that bias and try to establish the facts, without bias or prejudice.

Giraffe Box

Badly Drunk Boy wrote: »

That's the thing though...it implies that males only know/want to know about males in history/science/whatever and females only want to know about females. Women didn't have the same opportunities as men in centuries gone by, therefore it's expected that there should be more questions about men.

I like University Challenge and usually get a good few answers, even if some of them are only educated guesses. The thing that annoys me most about it though, are the long-winded, rambling questions where at the end you're asking yourself "At the start, did he want to name of a person, a place or a variety of apple?".

I like Only Connect and Mastermind too. I always like to get at least one of the Mastermind specialist questions right, even if I've never heard of the subject of the questions. I'm not mad about John Humphreys but I think Victoria Coren is great.

Most likely 'variety of apple', and the answer is usually 'Cox's Orange Pippin'.

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

seamus wrote: »

Is "revisionism" a bad thing if it's uncovering lost facts? History is always written with a bias. Whether that be an ideological one or a gender one, or a race one. The aim of the historian is to peel back that bias and try to establish the facts, without bias or prejudice.

Recovering lost facts is all very well. But one would be a fool to believe that feminist histories attempt to "establish the facts, without bias or prejudice." In reality, they just introduce their own biases and prejudices. Histories written from a revisionist feminist perspective usually grossly exaggerate the contributions and significance of women, frequently to a farcical extent, while casting men as playing no role other than that of oppressors.

There simply is no female Aristotle, female Mozart, female Shakespeare, or female Einstein. That's not because female philosophers, composers, playwrights, and physicists of equivalent stature existed and were somehow overlooked by the biased males who wrote the history books. It's because they just didn't exist in the first place.

It's this silly pretense that women of equivalent stature must have existed, but were overlooked due to <oppression, bias, sexism, patriarchy, blah blah blah> that's offensive to anyone who believes that history is one thing and revisionist fantasy quite another.

seamus

seamus wrote: »

I'm not sure it implies that men only know about male history and women only know about female history.

It implies that as a society we tend to rely on history that was written from a male perspective. We're not constantly revisiting and refining what we know about history. A lot of what we know comes from contemporaneous works.

As you quite rightly point out, women actually feature less because there were less opportunities, but women were also whitewashed/ignored in contemporaneous writings because the people documenting at the time did so with a focus on the men present. Teachers and professors who talked about history, tended to focus on the men, and pay less attention to the women. As a result, the "popular" and "well-known" historical figures, are men.

While the bible may not exactly be an historically accurate document, when we look at the parables contained within, women are often excluded from them unless they are a major focus. The creation myth, for example, talks about Eve, but then mentions few or no women for many generations, even though clearly there must have been.

This writing then informs later readers and drives later adaptations and discussions about the stories.

The key here is that nobody is intentionally viewing it with a male-focussed slant; but they are unaware that they are parroting slanted views which have been previously presented.

A large and popular body of work in historical research now is going back to discover the women (and other players) who received little recognition for their contributions at the time and who may have been excluded from contemporaneous accounts of historical events; for better or worse.

UC is simply recognising that there is a huge body of data out there from which to draw questions, which has been traditionally been ignored - not intentionally, but through unconscious bias and the tendency of the question-writer to draw on the things that s/he knows about. Which, on the whole, tends to be more weighted towards men; especially when it's a man writing the question.

Well said seamus.
How famous mozart's sister would have been if she hadn't been sent home from her world tours when she got a bit older as it wasn't apt for a woman. Clara schumann was one of the tops as well. Random examples popping to mind after reading this

bluewolf

bluewolf wrote: »

Well said seamus.
How famous mozart's sister would have been if she hadn't been sent home from her world tours when she got a bit older as it wasn't apt for a woman. Clara schumann was one of the tops as well

How famous I could have been if I hadn't quit football, sure let's have questions about me.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

How famous I could have been if I hadn't quit football, sure let's have questions about me.

Did you do world tours with top billing til you were 18 yeah

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

Deleted User wrote: »

How famous I could have been if I hadn't quit football, sure let's have questions about me.

I coulda been a contender. I coulda been somebody...

Grayson

bluewolf wrote: »

Well said seamus.
How famous mozart's sister would have been if she hadn't been sent home from her world tours when she got a bit older as it wasn't apt for a woman. Clara schumann was one of the tops as well. Random examples popping to mind after reading this

I mentioned Edith Stein earlier. She was refused permission to submit her thesis to two separate universities because she was a woman.

There's so few famous women from the past because of these reasons. Women tried and did some amazing work, but they never got recognised.

The women we do know about should be lauded because they had so much more to overcome. And we should recognise the women who contributed but who's contribution was ignored.

Shenshen

Grayson wrote: »

I mentioned Edith Stein earlier. She was refused permission to submit her thesis to two separate universities because she was a woman.

There's so few famous women from the past because of these reasons. Women tried and did some amazing work, but they never got recognised.

The women we do know about should be lauded because they had so much more to overcome. And we should recognise the women who contributed but who's contribution was ignored.

Rosalind Franklin springs to mind, as does Joan Clarke.

twinytwo

NOVA MCMXCIV wrote: »

The world is f***ed.

I agree.... all these new age snowflakes, grow up in their little bubbles and need something to always be offended about.

But then have no clue about any of the real issue facing society as a whole

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

Grayson wrote: »

There's so few famous women from the past because of these reasons. Women tried and did some amazing work, but they never got recognised.

So what about the present? In the 2010s, women have won just 11 percent of the Nobel Prizes awarded. If women are out there doing all this amazing work, and there are now no barriers, at least in the Western world, to recognizing women's achievements -- in fact, quite the opposite, given how eager universities and the media are to celebrate any attainment by a woman -- how do you explain the fact that women's accomplishments still demonstrably lag behind men's?

I anticipate yet another politically correct disquisition on bias and oppression -- but I also believe that this does not account for the entirety of what we're seeing.

Wibbs

There is most certainly a blindspot to the role of women in history and for various reasons. As Seamus pointed out history tends to be written from a cultural and societal viewpoint and still is. For most of history women were seen and not heard, if they were seen at all. Even so there were a number of prominent women in even the classical world that made waves and in their own time too. Hypatia an obvious one, but there were quite a few others. I' sure there's a list somewhere. And it would be an incomplete list at that, as even the world famous men of that era have large gaps in what has come down to us.

Gender was obviously a large factor, but so was wealth. Thinkers of all stripes almost always came from money, from the top percentage of society. Time to think is expensive. The number of wealthy were always small and the number of wealthy women was smaller again.

In an equal world would the top movers and shakers be split 50/50? I would reckon not. That it would still be skewed towards men at the very top end. This has long been reflected in the various tests into intelligence. They're narrow in focus as tests and don't account for a helluva lot of factors that can lead to truly world class geniuses, but imperfect as they are, what they do show is that the spread of "intelligence" has some gender differences. Namely that more men are represented at the very top and the very bottom of the curve, whereas women tend to have a flatter curve. Fewer complete morons, fewer complete geniuses. Other factors like there are nearly double the number of men with OCD and general obsessiveness can drive this too. Something that can be debilitating, but obsessions have often been behind great leaps forward in human thought. Men also have an advantage in that they can be complete workaholics for decades while still having time to have kids and a family, whereas women can't afford to do that if they want a family. They face an either/or choice that men don't to nearly the same degree.

Could a woman have come up with the general theory of relativity? Of course, no doubt in my mind. Was it more likely a man did? Yes.

Wibbs

Shenshen wrote: »

Rosalind Franklin springs to mind

In a big way. That she didn't get a Nobel prize for chemistry was a major mistake.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Wibbs wrote: »

In a big way. That she didn't get a Nobel prize for chemistry was a major mistake.

Nobel prizes aren’t awarded posthumously. At least that’s how it used to be.

Wibbs

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Nobel prizes aren’t awarded posthumously. At least that’s how it used to be.

She should have gotten that gong within her lifetime. Her contribution to the discovery of the DNA double helix just one example.

seamus

Lorenzo Bumpy Rake wrote: »

It's this silly pretense that women of equivalent stature must have existed

Nobody is claiming that. Except you.

Pull up your trousers my dear, your manhood is on display.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Wibbs wrote: »

She should have gotten that gong within her lifetime. Her contribution to the discovery of the DNA double helix just one example.

It doesn’t really work that way. Prizes are usually given out years after the work was done, presumably to ascertain its true importance.

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

What Wibbs says is true. Numerous studies confirm that the impact of sex differences in IQ is largest at the extremes of intelligence -- both extremes, so that while there are more extremely intelligent men, there are also more extremely stupid men.

The problem for those who want to blame women's historical lack of high-level achievement entirely on bias, oppression, patriarchy, etc., is that many of the highest achievers -- those who win Nobel Prizes and get their names in the history books -- are associated with genius-level IQ. Fewer women are found at the tail ends of the bell curve.

That makes it likely that extremely high achievers will continue to be male, even after adjusting for social and cultural factors. So when we look at winners of the Fields Medal (ofter regarded as the Nobel of mathematics) and find that only one winner out of 60 is female, something more than "bias" is at play.

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

Wibbs wrote: »

That she didn't get a Nobel prize for chemistry was a major mistake.

Possibly -- but then they do make mistakes. Neither James Joyce, Virginia Woolf, nor Robert Frost won the Nobel for literature, for instance, when many lesser writers have received it.

The problem is that when a woman didn't win something she arguably deserved, we jump to the conclusion that she didn't win because she was a woman -- overlooking the fact that many deserving men also didn't win.

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Nobel prizes aren’t awarded posthumously. At least that’s how it used to be.

That is still the case. The only exception is when the person's death occurs after the announcement but before the awards ceremony.

Danzy

The Middle Class people who 50 years ago would have joined the Clergy and lectured, preached and controlled from the Pulpit.

Today they have joined the modern Left and Liberal movements and they are lecturing, preaching and just as f'ing sanctimonious.

It can never be stressed how sanctimonious the modern Left and progressives are and I agree with the broad gist of their arguments but, grrr ... ...