Prof: Algebra, geometry perpetuate white privilege

[Svartalf]

Indeed, Awele, and African game, requires some pretty high mathematical ability to come up with successful strategies.

[Forty Two]

If you care to discuss how mathematics is white privilege and such, then make your argument.

I have already explained to you that mathematics was invented in Africa.

What does that have to do with whether it is white privilege? What's your position in the issue?

Please pay attention.

You might do the same.

Some advice:

You're imagining things. What's your argument? That we ought not discuss articles like this? When academe comes up with arguments about how science, logic or mathematics is a tool of the patriarchy used to oppress the marginalized, and a feature of white privilege, nobody should talk about it because you consider that "fussing?"

Isn't the reality here that you don't like how often the folks with whom you align yourselves politically and ideologically come across as boobs and lunatics with nonsense like this? I think that's it, really. You and some others want to shush-shush these issues. Don't talk about them. If we talk about them, we might have to acknowledge how ludicrous these folks are.

[JimC]

Most of us have acknowledged that this tiny fringe of the looney PC left do come out with nonsense, it's just that we think that mainstream academia or society in general is not going to be derailed by the silly few...

[rainbow]

If you care to discuss how mathematics is white privilege and such, then make your argument.

I have already explained to you that mathematics was invented in Africa.

What does that have to do with whether it is white privilege?

Nada.
Nothing.
Fuck All.

Why does everything have to be explained to you three times?

What's your argument? That we ought not discuss articles like this?

Discuss it as much as you feel like.

I will continue to when you get your knickers in a twist over it.

[Forty Two]

Most of us have acknowledged that this tiny fringe of the looney PC left do come out with nonsense, it's just that we think that mainstream academia or society in general is not going to be derailed by the silly few...

Oddly, though, much of the commentary seems to be quite aggressively in defense of this tiny fringe and looney PC.

But they are being derailed. When mainstream authors and college professors get assaulted at university conferences, and mainstream political commentators get shut down and tossed off campuses, then it is actually having an impact. When policies and practices, and even legislation, is being informed by the underlying ideology, then there is at least some reason to give pause.

Moreover, even if everyone here was in full agreement that the issue raised in a given thread involved only a lone fringe voice of lunacy in the wilderness, why would that be something that generates massive angst and anger, and general calls or the solid implication that the topic should simply not be raised on a thread? Is there something wrong with raising isolated or lone or fringe issues? Why? It seems to me that looking all over the forum there are a lot of obscure and boundary pushing threads.

[Forty Two]

If you care to discuss how mathematics is white privilege and such, then make your argument.

I have already explained to you that mathematics was invented in Africa.

What does that have to do with whether it is white privilege?

Nada.
Nothing.
Fuck All.

Why does everything have to be explained to you three times?

It doesn't. But since you've noted that it has nothing to do with the topic of the thread, then that point is agreed.

What's your argument? That we ought not discuss articles like this?

Discuss it as much as you feel like.

I will continue to when you get your knickers in a twist over it.

My knickers are not in a twist. Yours, however, appear to be decidedly twisted and knotted, given the tenor of your posts and apparent anger at the fact that this issue was raised at all. Since it makes you uncomfortable, it might be best if you concentrate on threads you actually think are worth talking about.

[pErvinalia]

Most of us have acknowledged that this tiny fringe of the looney PC left do come out with nonsense, it's just that we think that mainstream academia or society in general is not going to be derailed by the silly few...

Oddly, though, much of the commentary seems to be quite aggressively in defense of this tiny fringe and looney PC.

Where?

[Forty Two]

Here on this thread, not so much. And my post was inartfully worded, as my intent was to express that on various threads involving ridiculous issues like this, it seems I am generally on the defensive. If everyone agrees with me, why am I attacked on threads like this?

And on this thread, I'm accused of my knickers being in a twist, right? Why? I didn't start the thread. I chimed in about it, which I think is fair, isn't it? And, even if it is a fringe issue, why would that be something we can only discuss if our knickers are twisted about it? Brian Peacock implied I was some old grandad who doesn't understand the new things these days... well, if he agrees with me on it, that this is a nonsense issue and the paper is bollocks, then what is it that I'm not getting? Is it that we agree, but it should be hush-hush - let's not talk about it? Why?

[pErvinalia]

Here on this thread, not so much. And my post was inartfully worded, as my intent was to express that on various threads involving ridiculous issues like this, it seems I am generally on the defensive. If everyone agrees with me, why am I attacked on threads like this?

Oh ffs, you can't be this clueless, can you?? You are put on the defensive over your insistence that this is a significant problem. Not because a lot of these people are nutters. If you can't see this, it's no wonder you so often adopt utterly bizarre interpretations of other people's writing.

And on this thread, I'm accused of my knickers being in a twist, right? Why? I didn't start the thread. I chimed in about it, which I think is fair, isn't it? And, even if it is a fringe issue, why would that be something we can only discuss if our knickers are twisted about it? Brian Peacock implied I was some old grandad who doesn't understand the new things these days... well, if he agrees with me on it, that this is a nonsense issue and the paper is bollocks, then what is it that I'm not getting?

What you are not getting (despite my incredulity that you actually don't get it), is that you have an overblown concern about these issues.

[Forty Two]

Look - pipe down with your nonsense about "clueless" this and "clueless" that. Try to talk to someone like a normal human being.

I didn't suggest that this particular article, itself, bore any great significance. I have suggested that the leftist progressive SJW ideology does have some significance, in that they are having an impact on policies and practices in colleges, universities and in some employment contexts. Also, there are legislative impacts that we have cited in various threads that relate to the underlying ideology behind things like this article.

Now, as to the significance of what significance I place on the issue -- why do you care what significance I place on the issue? All I do is either start a thread on an event that was in the news or reported in some way -- in the proper forum location "new, politics and current events" etc. or "general serious discussion" etc. And, then I talk about it. I don't focus on the particular significance an event has on the nation or the world as a whole. Almost no issue we discuss on this forum, in and of itself, has any great significance - barring a few exceptions - almost no thread is about a particularly "significant" issue, in and of itself.

Threads don't have to be about significant issues - or issues about which you place some sort of significance - they can be about nonsense issues, fringe issues, radical issues, reactionary issues, dopey issues, funny issues, stupid issues, or issues raised just for fun. A thread about how a college professor actually wrote a paper suggesting that mathematics and such are "white privilege" false within a number of those -- it's at bottom, for some people, a fun issue to discuss - if we could actually get down to discussing it - because understanding the professor's argument would be interesting - seeing where she was coming from - analyzing and/or refuting it - all can be quite entertaining, even if the issue is way out there and of no real significance to you.

The reality is, that it's not the lack of significance or the overblown concern that you react to. Because there are tons of threads here that most likely do not concern you at all, and that you would think are pointless, etc., but you don't take the time to derail them or fill them with posts about how much people should not be concerned about them. It's CERTAIN threads that you and some others clog up with irate posts about how nobody should be concerned about the issue, and why are we talking about them, and why do "we" allow so many threads on similar "nonissues which merit no concern?"

However, to me, the pervasiveness of things like this article - the pervasiveness of the argument that such-and-such is white privilege, that such and such is sexist, that such-and-such is sexist -- I mean, I think there is even a dormant thread about that "everything is sexist" with a list of things a mile long, article after article and event after event that is declared sexist or other ist. So, again, it's not the particular brick in the wall that is in and of itself of major concern - it's the wall, completed with hundreds of bricks, that starts to add up to something somewhat concerning to me.

And, finally, again, you may think my concern is overblown, and that's fine. However, the argument on these threads is not about how much concern about the issue at hand is appropriate. The argument is about the truth of claims and assertions, and the arguments made by those asserting them. Even a lone voice in the wilderness can, sometimes, be in possession of the right answer, a groundbreaking argument, or an important point worth considering. That lone voice, of course, may also be in possession of an absurdity which is laughable. Or something in between. But, that's some people discuss such points. There is value in examining the fringe. There is value in examining the absurd. There is sometimes wisdom to be found there, and sometimes wisdom to be gained by understanding the absurd.

Now, go on and tell me how I lack a clue, and how you already explained something to me, and this is my pattern/practice of posting on the board, and how I'm lying and being disingenuous. Call me a fox news devotee and conservative or a reactionary or a liberal or whatever you want to call me. Maybe since we know what you always call me, or imply about me, we can just dispense with the nastiness and just talk about the issue raised in the OP like people who are interested in the topic. Or, if one of us is not interested in the OP, we can just go to threads in which we are interested, and stop the namecalling.

[pErvinalia]

Look - pipe down with your nonsense about "clueless" this and "clueless" that. Try to talk to someone like a normal human being.

I didn't suggest that this particular article, itself, bore any great significance. I have suggested that the leftist progressive SJW ideology does have some significance, in that they are having an impact on policies and practices in colleges, universities and in some employment contexts.

And this is what we are challenging you on. It's hard to treat you like a "normal human being" when you don't interpret things like a normal [ratzian] human being.

Now, as to the significance of what significance I place on the issue -- why do you care what significance I place on the issue? All I do is either start a thread on an event that was in the news or reported in some way -- in the proper forum location "new, politics and current events" etc. or "general serious discussion" etc. And, then I talk about it. I don't focus on the particular significance an event has on the nation or the world as a whole. Almost no issue we discuss on this forum, in and of itself, has any great significance - barring a few exceptions - almost no thread is about a particularly "significant" issue, in and of itself.

Threads don't have to be about significant issues - or issues about which you place some sort of significance - they can be about nonsense issues, fringe issues, radical issues, reactionary issues, dopey issues, funny issues, stupid issues, or issues raised just for fun. A thread about how a college professor actually wrote a paper suggesting that mathematics and such are "white privilege" false within a number of those -- it's at bottom, for some people, a fun issue to discuss - if we could actually get down to discussing it - because understanding the professor's argument would be interesting - seeing where she was coming from - analyzing and/or refuting it - all can be quite entertaining, even if the issue is way out there and of no real significance to you.

The reality is, that it's not the lack of significance or the overblown concern that you react to. Because there are tons of threads here that most likely do not concern you at all, and that you would think are pointless, etc., but you don't take the time to derail them or fill them with posts about how much people should not be concerned about them. It's CERTAIN threads that you and some others clog up with irate posts about how nobody should be concerned about the issue, and why are we talking about them, and why do "we" allow so many threads on similar "nonissues which merit no concern?"

Talk about totally missing the point. I don't care about what you consider significant any more or less than I care about what any other random person thinks is significant. What I'm saying is that we disagree with you about the significance of this sjw stuff.

And, finally, again, you may think my concern is overblown, and that's fine. However, the argument on these threads is not about how much concern about the issue at hand is appropriate.

Unmitigated bullshit. That is the constant argument you get from us. Man, you really have an utterly alien interpretation of things.

The argument is about the truth of claims and assertions, and the arguments made by those asserting them.

Rubbish. It's rarely about that. More common is us trying to highlight how a particular issue isn't as black and white as you'd like to portray. That's not an argument "about the truth of claims and assertions". That's an argument against rigid thinking and an argument for nuance.

Now, go on and tell me how I lack a clue, and how you already explained something to me, and this is my pattern/practice of posting on the board, and how I'm lying and being disingenuous. Call me a fox news devotee and conservative or a reactionary or a liberal or whatever you want to call me. Maybe since we know what you always call me, or imply about me, we can just dispense with the nastiness and just talk about the issue raised in the OP like people who are interested in the topic. Or, if one of us is not interested in the OP, we can just go to threads in which we are interested, and stop the namecalling.

Get thee to a safe space, STAT!

[Forty Two]

Look - pipe down with your nonsense about "clueless" this and "clueless" that. Try to talk to someone like a normal human being.

I didn't suggest that this particular article, itself, bore any great significance. I have suggested that the leftist progressive SJW ideology does have some significance, in that they are having an impact on policies and practices in colleges, universities and in some employment contexts.

And this is what we are challenging you on. It's hard to treat you like a "normal human being" when you don't interpret things like a normal [ratzian] human being.

There are two different issues -- the significance of the Algebra article itself, and the significance of the ideology. This thread is about the Algebra article. Whether it is "significant" or worth any concern is beside the point. Those who ARE interested can discuss the topic, and those who AREN'T can easily go where they find issues of concern.

I know you are "challenging" my position that there is some significance to the leftist progressive SJW ideology. So what? That's not an end to discussion of these issues or a reason why interested folks should refrain from discussing the Algebra article. You haven't discussed it at all. You've just bleated about cluelessness, facepalming, and right wing this and that, and that you think it's of no concern.

Fine- I'm interested in the topic, so I'd like to discuss the topic. Would you like to discuss it? Yes or no?

Now, as to the significance of what significance I place on the issue -- why do you care what significance I place on the issue? All I do is either start a thread on an event that was in the news or reported in some way -- in the proper forum location "new, politics and current events" etc. or "general serious discussion" etc. And, then I talk about it. I don't focus on the particular significance an event has on the nation or the world as a whole. Almost no issue we discuss on this forum, in and of itself, has any great significance - barring a few exceptions - almost no thread is about a particularly "significant" issue, in and of itself.

Threads don't have to be about significant issues - or issues about which you place some sort of significance - they can be about nonsense issues, fringe issues, radical issues, reactionary issues, dopey issues, funny issues, stupid issues, or issues raised just for fun. A thread about how a college professor actually wrote a paper suggesting that mathematics and such are "white privilege" false within a number of those -- it's at bottom, for some people, a fun issue to discuss - if we could actually get down to discussing it - because understanding the professor's argument would be interesting - seeing where she was coming from - analyzing and/or refuting it - all can be quite entertaining, even if the issue is way out there and of no real significance to you.

The reality is, that it's not the lack of significance or the overblown concern that you react to. Because there are tons of threads here that most likely do not concern you at all, and that you would think are pointless, etc., but you don't take the time to derail them or fill them with posts about how much people should not be concerned about them. It's CERTAIN threads that you and some others clog up with irate posts about how nobody should be concerned about the issue, and why are we talking about them, and why do "we" allow so many threads on similar "nonissues which merit no concern?"

Talk about totally missing the point. I don't care about what you consider significant any more or less than I care about what any other random person thinks is significant. What I'm saying is that we disagree with you about the significance of this sjw stuff.

Well, I don't care what you consider significant. So, since neither of us care what the other finds significant, then there isn't much to discuss. I don't care that you disagree with me about the significance of this SJW stuff. That has nothing to do with the existence of threads about SJW stuff and whether other people wish to discuss the issue.

Even though I don't think the particular Algebra article is of great significance in the grand scheme of things, I am interested in talking about it. I don't care if you aren't. You've made your declarations about concern, worth or significance, many times. I'm aware of it. Unless you have something else or new to say about it, haven't we finished discussing that? I agree with you that this particular paper, about the algebra white privilege thing, is in and of itself not monumentally weighty. Great. I disagree with you that the overarching left wing progressive ideology is of no significance, and I disagree with you that threads about events and news items involving such issues are not worth talking about.

And, finally, again, you may think my concern is overblown, and that's fine. However, the argument on these threads is not about how much concern about the issue at hand is appropriate.

Unmitigated bullshit. That is the constant argument you get from us. Man, you really have an utterly alien interpretation of things.

That is the argument I get from YOU (and a couple other people). But that isn't the topic of the thread. The topic of the thread is in the OP. YOU derail the thread into an argument about how much concern you think is appropriate, how significant it is, and how you think these issues should not be talked about (by people other than you) because of their lack of worth and significance. You don't what other people talking about an issue you find unworthy of concern or lacking in significance. So, you derail it.

The argument is about the truth of claims and assertions, and the arguments made by those asserting them.

Rubbish. It's rarely about that.

It's rarely about that for YOU. Because you derail the threads into issues of their merit as threads and their significance as issues. You're the one going on about how these should not be topics for discussion because they lack worth or significnance. I keep trying to talk about the topic in the OP.

More common is us trying to highlight how a particular issue isn't as black and white as you'd like to portray.

I would love it if you actually did address, like a human being, the topic at hand and actually laid out an argument about it. You might say, "Forty Two, I think you are viewing this black-and-white. I understand you to be saying _________________________. And, I would say it's not black and white in that way because: (A), (B) and/or (C)." But, you don't do that, or anything like that. You just bleat about how it's not a significant issue and it shouldn't be discussed, or you call me clueless, right wing, foxnews/infowars, snowflake, panties in a bunch or knickers in a twist, or words to that effect.

That's not an argument "about the truth of claims and assertions". That's an argument against rigid thinking and an argument for nuance.

And it's an argument you don't make. Just saying "this isn't black and white" is not an argument. It's a declaration. For you to make and argument you need to provide some explanation, and engage the actually topic at hand, which you do not do.

Now, go on and tell me how I lack a clue, and how you already explained something to me, and this is my pattern/practice of posting on the board, and how I'm lying and being disingenuous. Call me a fox news devotee and conservative or a reactionary or a liberal or whatever you want to call me. Maybe since we know what you always call me, or imply about me, we can just dispense with the nastiness and just talk about the issue raised in the OP like people who are interested in the topic. Or, if one of us is not interested in the OP, we can just go to threads in which we are interested, and stop the namecalling.

Get thee to a safe space, STAT!

LOL. Exactly.

Game. Set. Match.

[pErvinalia]

and how you think these issues should not be talked about

Where have I said these issues shouldn't be talked about?? This is the problem with you. It's impossible to have a conversation with you as you are so completely biased that you can't interpret what other people are saying. You'd think after about the 1000th time this sort of stuff was pointed out to you that you'd take more care in reading what your opponents are actually saying instead of what you imagine they might be saying.

[Forty Two]

Now you're projecting, again.

Look, if it makes you feel better - assume, for the sake of argument, that I agree that every, single thread on the forum is of absolutely zero significance, and I am only discussing the insignificant threads that I arbitrarily opt to participate in or create.

I don't care what you find significant, or insignificant. I don't care what you think is worthy of concern. I don't care that you don't care about SJW issues, and I don't care that you don't agree with me on the import of leftist progressive ideologies.

Now, if you want to talk about the paper about math and white privilege, let's do it. What are your thoughts, other than it being insignificant, which we are taking as read?

[pErvinalia]

Sorry, chief, but you don't get to spread your bullshit interpretations about other people's arguments all over the forum, despite being regularly corrected, and just expect that you can pretend like you didn't just make shit up. It doesn't work that way.