What I find peculiar is how these "difficult issues" always seem to involve the majority - with no skin in the game - "debating" issues that affect minorities in a manner that keeps on inducing...
Exemplary
What I find peculiar is how these "difficult issues" always seem to involve the majority - with no skin in the game - "debating" issues that affect minorities in a manner that keeps on inducing deja-vu. Always the same minorities, somehow, who certainly don't share anything in common - like, say, being the scapegoats for the latest iteration of the right's petty crusades - and the same names, intriguingly, keep on popping up: sometimes as salient exemplars, sometimes as examples of people whose pursuit of truth is impeded by such petty matters as others not standing for them being utter and complete assholes.
No. I'm sorry. I must confess that I lied. I don't find it peculiar or intriguing at all. I find it interesting how arrogantly they demand to be included in discussions they are clearly not mature enough to participate in, though.
I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss criticism of universities pushing right wing talking points just because it contradicts their cultural stereotype. Let's look at an example from the article. If...
I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss criticism of universities pushing right wing talking points just because it contradicts their cultural stereotype. Let's look at an example from the article.
More recently a queer political action group at the University of Melbourne called for a review of a philosophy subject on feminism over concerns the course materials contain “transphobic rhetoric”.
If you read the linked article, it's about a student union calling not for a cancellation of the course or anything like that, but a review of if it's best to have it taught by a professor that runs a TERF forum about women-only spaces being "invaded" by trans women, and including transphobic pieces by notoriously transphobic authors such as Janice Raymond, herself an emeritus professor in the university system. Notably, those concerned didn't even oppose the inclusion of the pieces, they were just concerned with the context they'd be presented in by the professor.
While TERF ideology is definitely the first thing that comes to mind for me, many right wing and right-allied movements, talking points, and even entire ideologies such as neoliberalism, originate within academia and put down deep roots, even if they end up pariahs in their homeland.
I'm all in favor of academic freedom, but nothing I've read has convinced me of much threat to it from the left. Nine times in ten, when you dig a little deeper into what people calling for reviews of courses and such want, it's perfectly reasonable, and the tenth time is still nothing compared to right wing attempts at stifling speech they don't like, on campuses they'd rather have devoted to the training in exclusively technical skills of another generation of obedient workers than to free academic inquiry.
I wonder if there's a name for that strange affectation people who think themselves rational have - that weird habit to take disagreement as ignorance, or lack of "proper" understanding. But I...
Did you read the article? It seems as if your argument has very little to do with it. I'm going to drop a few quotes from the article for you
I wonder if there's a name for that strange affectation people who think themselves rational have - that weird habit to take disagreement as ignorance, or lack of "proper" understanding. But I digress.
The funny thing is, I did. I read the headline, I read the article, and I even clicked on the pretty blue underlined text contained within - as hinted by the fact that my last line included a link to one of those articles. The shape is a familar one, and even dressing it up as "academic freedom" did not much improve its looks - it's still just peaches, cold and wearing a different hat.
Academic freedom is a necessity of a liberal society. It has nothing to do with the issues you personally find difficult, but with all issues. Academic freedom does not preclude minorities, it includes all academics irregardless of race, gender, or creed. Censoring topics in academia is completely at odds with the concept of Universities.
Isn't it peculiar, then, how it's always the same issues - the same ones that have been brought to their attention by right-wing thinkers across the globe - that academics - salt of the Earth, I'm sure, who are definitely above such petty concerns as years of anti-LGBT+ propaganda and the stigma that came with them - find it difficult to discuss in a sane manner?
Isn't it striking how easily people seem to cry "censorship" instead of taking a moment to reflect on why the minorities whose right they so cavalierly "debate" might be upset with them so?
And yet. And yet. There are ways to discuss issues that affect minorities without making said minorities feel attacked, and plenty of people in academia seem to manage. If one's first and last...
It's not always the same issues.
And yet.
There is a difference between being attacked (the TERFs, professors singling out or attacking students) and discussion
And yet.
Isn't it striking how easily people seem to cry "censorship" instead of taking a moment to reflect on why the minorities whose right they so cavalierly "debate" might be upset with them so?
There are ways to discuss issues that affect minorities without making said minorities feel attacked, and plenty of people in academia seem to manage.
If one's first and last resort to criticism is to cry censorship - as is for a lot of the individuals whose names keep on cropping up in this kind of articles - then I put forth that by being unwilling to do so - by being unwilling to reflect on and modify their behaviour - they show they are not ready to participate in any kind of productive discussion on the matter: if you know - if you have been told, repeatedly - that behaving in a certain manner will make it likely for the conversation to degenerate, and persevere, you only show willingness in participating to shit-shows of your own making.
Sorry for the double reply, but did you read the linked articles? I read the transphobia one initially, since it set off some alarm bells, but I just read another few to make sure I was being...
Sorry for the double reply, but did you read the linked articles? I read the transphobia one initially, since it set off some alarm bells, but I just read another few to make sure I was being fair, and it turns out almost half of them are about the same incident I mentioned in my first reply. I think including them in your reading of the article changes that reading significantly, due to the authors' apparently intense concern about virulently transphobic academics facing even the least pushback for promoting their hateful ideology. While @mftrhu 's comment may not have seemed much to do with the text of the article, it cut straight to the heart of the subtext, and comes from a more complete reading I think.
The authors seem to be three academics from Australia (I'm not sure what the "senior lecturer" title implies) and this article seems to be about things that happened to researchers in Australia,...
The authors seem to be three academics from Australia (I'm not sure what the "senior lecturer" title implies) and this article seems to be about things that happened to researchers in Australia, so I think they do have a fairly direct "skin in the game?" But it's the first I've heard of it. How about you?
Cis people cannot and do not have skin in the game when it comes to the rights of trans people. It's very easy to intellectually - civilly, politely, taking hard decisions if necessary - debate...
Cis people cannot and do not have skin in the game when it comes to the rights of trans people. It's very easy to intellectually - civilly, politely, taking hard decisions if necessary - debate what won't ever affect you, isn't it?
Your comment got a lot of votes and also replies, so you clearly said something that resonate with a lot of people. I must confess that I'm not sure precisely what point you are trying to make,...
Your comment got a lot of votes and also replies, so you clearly said something that resonate with a lot of people. I must confess that I'm not sure precisely what point you are trying to make, who your criticism addresses, and how it relates to the article I shared. I seem to be out of the loop here. Would you mind filling me in?
It resonates because I'm clearly not the only person who is annoyed by the direction this site is taking, moving in the direction of pseudo-rationalist cesspits - where ideas are more important...
It resonates because I'm clearly not the only person who is annoyed by the direction this site is taking, moving in the direction of pseudo-rationalist cesspits - where ideas are more important than people, and where critical thinking is such a strong suite of its userbase that they somehow keep on missing the foghorns that blare when Yet Another Article About Free Speech just so happens to - for a mere coincidence! - mention the current target of the culture war, multiple times in its text.
Yours was one such article, and as we are responsible for shaping the environment we are in, I felt like making my displeasure known.
Well, for an example, the framing of the article on the transphobic feminist course was pretty dodgy. The scare quotes around transphobic rhetoric when the course was taught by someone literally...
Well, for an example, the framing of the article on the transphobic feminist course was pretty dodgy. The scare quotes around transphobic rhetoric when the course was taught by someone literally running a TERF forum, who included pieces by people like Janice Raymond, shows that the authors either don't know anything about the shape of academic transphobia or don't care, and making it out as an issue of academic freedom when the student union only wanted a review of who teaches the course and not even the content? I dunno, that kind of left a bad taste in my mouth. If they included that piece, it's either because they didn't understand the legitimacy of student complaints, or they still considered it one of the most egregious offenses against academic freedom they could find, neither of which is doing much to support their argument.
EDIT: I decided to check a couple more of the links in the article, worried I was just picking on the weak link in the chain, and holy shit, almost half of the links are about that same event. I could see the inclusion of the first article as an oversight, but when the authors find it that concerning that virulent transphobia is subject to reasonable student complaints and action, that sets off some serious alarm bells.
I think the context is that we’ve had articles like this one posted before and regardless of merit, the conversation associated with them on Tildes has become tedious. Maybe better not to post...
I think the context is that we’ve had articles like this one posted before and regardless of merit, the conversation associated with them on Tildes has become tedious. Maybe better not to post them? There are some things we’re not good at talking about here.
What I find peculiar is how these "difficult issues" always seem to involve the majority - with no skin in the game - "debating" issues that affect minorities in a manner that keeps on inducing deja-vu. Always the same minorities, somehow, who certainly don't share anything in common - like, say, being the scapegoats for the latest iteration of the right's petty crusades - and the same names, intriguingly, keep on popping up: sometimes as salient exemplars, sometimes as examples of people whose pursuit of truth is impeded by such petty matters as others not standing for them being utter and complete assholes.
No. I'm sorry. I must confess that I lied. I don't find it peculiar or intriguing at all. I find it interesting how arrogantly they demand to be included in discussions they are clearly not mature enough to participate in, though.
"Transgender debate", hah. Why not "transgender question"?
I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss criticism of universities pushing right wing talking points just because it contradicts their cultural stereotype. Let's look at an example from the article.
If you read the linked article, it's about a student union calling not for a cancellation of the course or anything like that, but a review of if it's best to have it taught by a professor that runs a TERF forum about women-only spaces being "invaded" by trans women, and including transphobic pieces by notoriously transphobic authors such as Janice Raymond, herself an emeritus professor in the university system. Notably, those concerned didn't even oppose the inclusion of the pieces, they were just concerned with the context they'd be presented in by the professor.
While TERF ideology is definitely the first thing that comes to mind for me, many right wing and right-allied movements, talking points, and even entire ideologies such as neoliberalism, originate within academia and put down deep roots, even if they end up pariahs in their homeland.
I'm all in favor of academic freedom, but nothing I've read has convinced me of much threat to it from the left. Nine times in ten, when you dig a little deeper into what people calling for reviews of courses and such want, it's perfectly reasonable, and the tenth time is still nothing compared to right wing attempts at stifling speech they don't like, on campuses they'd rather have devoted to the training in exclusively technical skills of another generation of obedient workers than to free academic inquiry.
I wonder if there's a name for that strange affectation people who think themselves rational have - that weird habit to take disagreement as ignorance, or lack of "proper" understanding. But I digress.
The funny thing is, I did. I read the headline, I read the article, and I even clicked on the pretty blue underlined text contained within - as hinted by the fact that my last line included a link to one of those articles. The shape is a familar one, and even dressing it up as "academic freedom" did not much improve its looks - it's still just peaches, cold and wearing a different hat.
Isn't it peculiar, then, how it's always the same issues - the same ones that have been brought to their attention by right-wing thinkers across the globe - that academics - salt of the Earth, I'm sure, who are definitely above such petty concerns as years of anti-LGBT+ propaganda and the stigma that came with them - find it difficult to discuss in a sane manner?
Isn't it striking how easily people seem to cry "censorship" instead of taking a moment to reflect on why the minorities whose right they so cavalierly "debate" might be upset with them so?
Isn't it interesting, too, how those people tend to be always the same, and always the same shape?
And yet.
And yet.
There are ways to discuss issues that affect minorities without making said minorities feel attacked, and plenty of people in academia seem to manage.
If one's first and last resort to criticism is to cry censorship - as is for a lot of the individuals whose names keep on cropping up in this kind of articles - then I put forth that by being unwilling to do so - by being unwilling to reflect on and modify their behaviour - they show they are not ready to participate in any kind of productive discussion on the matter: if you know - if you have been told, repeatedly - that behaving in a certain manner will make it likely for the conversation to degenerate, and persevere, you only show willingness in participating to shit-shows of your own making.
Sorry for the double reply, but did you read the linked articles? I read the transphobia one initially, since it set off some alarm bells, but I just read another few to make sure I was being fair, and it turns out almost half of them are about the same incident I mentioned in my first reply. I think including them in your reading of the article changes that reading significantly, due to the authors' apparently intense concern about virulently transphobic academics facing even the least pushback for promoting their hateful ideology. While @mftrhu 's comment may not have seemed much to do with the text of the article, it cut straight to the heart of the subtext, and comes from a more complete reading I think.
The authors seem to be three academics from Australia (I'm not sure what the "senior lecturer" title implies) and this article seems to be about things that happened to researchers in Australia, so I think they do have a fairly direct "skin in the game?" But it's the first I've heard of it. How about you?
Cis people cannot and do not have skin in the game when it comes to the rights of trans people. It's very easy to intellectually - civilly, politely, taking hard decisions if necessary - debate what won't ever affect you, isn't it?
You seem to think I plan on debating it with you.
Your comment got a lot of votes and also replies, so you clearly said something that resonate with a lot of people. I must confess that I'm not sure precisely what point you are trying to make, who your criticism addresses, and how it relates to the article I shared. I seem to be out of the loop here. Would you mind filling me in?
It resonates because I'm clearly not the only person who is annoyed by the direction this site is taking, moving in the direction of pseudo-rationalist cesspits - where ideas are more important than people, and where critical thinking is such a strong suite of its userbase that they somehow keep on missing the foghorns that blare when Yet Another Article About Free Speech just so happens to - for a mere coincidence! - mention the current target of the culture war, multiple times in its text.
Yours was one such article, and as we are responsible for shaping the environment we are in, I felt like making my displeasure known.
I see. While I can empathize with that sentiment, I fail to see anything actually written in the article that supports this categorization.
Well, for an example, the framing of the article on the transphobic feminist course was pretty dodgy. The scare quotes around transphobic rhetoric when the course was taught by someone literally running a TERF forum, who included pieces by people like Janice Raymond, shows that the authors either don't know anything about the shape of academic transphobia or don't care, and making it out as an issue of academic freedom when the student union only wanted a review of who teaches the course and not even the content? I dunno, that kind of left a bad taste in my mouth. If they included that piece, it's either because they didn't understand the legitimacy of student complaints, or they still considered it one of the most egregious offenses against academic freedom they could find, neither of which is doing much to support their argument.
EDIT: I decided to check a couple more of the links in the article, worried I was just picking on the weak link in the chain, and holy shit, almost half of the links are about that same event. I could see the inclusion of the first article as an oversight, but when the authors find it that concerning that virulent transphobia is subject to reasonable student complaints and action, that sets off some serious alarm bells.
I think the context is that we’ve had articles like this one posted before and regardless of merit, the conversation associated with them on Tildes has become tedious. Maybe better not to post them? There are some things we’re not good at talking about here.
OT: "Exemplary" can only be used once every 8 hours or so. Maybe that's it?