Problematic Stuff

[Forty Two]

The impression given is that anyone espousing a socially progressive agenda is a crackpot.

Anyone? No.

A lot? Yes. Plenty.

Do you agree that "some" people espousing socially progressive agendas are crackpots?

[Brian Peacock]

The impression given is that anyone espousing a socially progressive agenda is a crackpot.

Anyone? No.

A lot? Yes. Plenty.

Do you agree that "some" people espousing socially progressive agendas are crackpots?

I wouldn't necessarily count the crackpots or outliers as espousing a socially progressive agenda, which is by its nature inclusive. They espouse more kind of bee-in-a-bonnet as-I-see-it ideologies, particularly when they collate around a single or a narrow range of issues. And no, that doesn't mean that single/narrow issue pressure groups are all crackpots.

Generally it's your conflation of left, communist, socialist, marxist, progressive, feminist, and SJW that I take issue with.

[Forty Two]

Well, then you take issue with something I don't do, and something I've recently posted more than once about (counseling that people ought not lump in moderate left leaning folks with "communists, socialists, anarchists" etc.). I can't have been more explicit about this. I don't lump them together. The reality is that when I post about some far far left group/person, or I post about some lunacy, some people here take that to mean that I am grouping moderate left leaning persons in witht the far far left group/person, etc.

Where someone is espousing the view that there is no such thing as reason or logic, or that it's a white, male construction used to oppress the minority groups - moderate left leaning folks should feel quite free to state "that's lunacy, and I don't agree with that far far left crackpot." However, I think there is a natural resistance to doing that, because to some people if they do that, they think they are handing over a point to their opposition on the right.

[JimC]

Forty Two wrote:

Where someone is espousing the view that there is no such thing as reason or logic, or that it's a white, male construction used to oppress the minority groups - moderate left leaning folks should feel quite free to state "that's lunacy, and I don't agree with that far far left crackpot." However, I think there is a natural resistance to doing that, because to some people if they do that, they think they are handing over a point to their opposition on the right.

I, and the vast majority of "progressives" at Ratz (yes, Hermit, I know you don't think I'm progressive enough... ) have repeatedly done just that. A large number here have science backgrounds (unlike yourself...), and while the general way science is structured is not immune from criticism, the basic principles of evidence-based rational inquiry have stood the test of time. At the risk of repeating stuff ad nauseam, the proportion of progressives that would assert that "science is a white, male construction used to oppress the minority groups" would be very tiny indeed. Having said that, it is not lunacy to be critical of tendency of the science establishment to put barriers (perhaps structural or unconscious) to the participation (in a statistical sense) of women and racial minorities, if the data suggests that. Also, aspects of technology that are dangerous to the environment are not immune from criticism.

As an aside, in the minds of the dipstick anti-science minuscule minority, there must be quite a conflict - I'm sure they would show the appropriate concern about global warming, our knowledge of which comes straight from rigorous science. It must be uncomfortable to share anti-science views with red-neck Trump-supporting morons...

[Brian Peacock]

... and then complain about it on the internet after heating their sad-meals-for-one in the microwave before taking their medication.

[pErvinalia]

The thing with 42 is that he's conflated far more reasonable progressive ideas in with the crazy SJW shit. Views like women and minorities face systemic disadvantage in our societies. That minorities essentially can't be racist (from a society-wide perspective). And that we live under a patriarchy. These aren't particularly contentious views in mainstream progressive thought, yet 42 likes to lump this stuff in with kooky ideas like "all white people are racist", or "maths is racist" and the like.

[JimC]

The thing with 42 is that he's conflated far more reasonable progressive ideas in with the crazy SJW shit. Views like women and minorities face systemic disadvantage in our societies. That minorities essentially can't be racist (from a society-wide perspective). And that we live under a patriarchy. These aren't particularly contentious views in mainstream progressive thought, yet 42 likes to lump this stuff in with kooky ideas like "all white people are racist", or "maths is racist" and the like.

The patriarchy idea in particular easily segues into rather a rigid viewpoint, IMO. The clear fact that women face a variety of types of discrimination doesn't require an over-arching theory which slides into the academic equivalent of "all men are bastards" far too easily...

[pErvinalia]

You're making the same mistake that 42 makes. The concept of the patriarchy considers how men are harmed by the system as well. The right seem incredulous that feminists can consider men's plight as well, but reality isn't on their side.

[Animavore]

'SJW' is slang used by the Alt-Right to smear anyone they don't like. From feminists, to BLM, to The Last Jedi, to Battlefield V. This shows how meaninfless the term is.

There is no group called the SJW. There is no one who identifies, without irony, as SJW.

The Alt-Right, on the other hand, do exist, have self-identifying members, have memes and hand signals, have leaders and beliefs.


And that's it. No need for writings massive paragraphs on this stuff.

[JimC]

You're making the same mistake that 42 makes. The concept of the patriarchy considers how men are harmed by the system as well. The right seem incredulous that feminists can consider men's plight as well, but reality isn't on their side.

I never make the same mistakes as 42...

It's a concept that clearly has some grounding, but my point is that it has been overblown, and has become ideological dogma in many cases, and the statements that come from it often are pretty crazy. Some have used it in the context of "science is a tool of the patriarchy"...

[pErvinalia]

It's mostly been overblown by the right with their misunderstanding of what it actually is.

[JimC]

The right certainly makes use of the wacky statements from some parts of US academia...

If we don't recognise and criticise the overblown crap from the extreme PC left, we hand the argument on a plate to 42 and his ilk...

[pErvinalia]

I agree and I've said as much before. But that doesn't change the fact that the right is wrong about the concept of a patriarchy.

[pErvinalia]

Speaking of feminists concerned about men, I see Germaine Greer was on Q&A last night. If she keeps up her current trajectory it might not be long before she's at-right...

[Hermit]

Speaking of feminists concerned about men, I see Germaine Greer was on Q&A last night. If she keeps up her current trajectory it might not be long before she's at-right...

She's already there. According to her, women who are terribly frightened by rape, are frightened by the wrong thing, just like huntsmen spiders are nothing to be frightened of. At Q & A yesterday:

"Trauma is something that is dictated really by the sufferer. You know, I can't bear huntsman spiders. It is not their fault. It's my fault … I decided to be frightened of them," Greer said.

"It is interesting to me that women are encouraged all the time to be terribly, terribly frightened and nearly always of the wrong thing."