Well now you’re an agnostic on the matter but earlier you were attacking Steven Pinker, who is far from being uninformed on this subject. Why?
I know Harvard. I’m familiar with the psuedo-scandals people have whipped up against Summers in the past.
She’s leaving Harvard for NYU, but very much alive.
Who decides what is “sensitive”? “Sensitive” is a weapon of power these days.
I have been an agnostic on the matter for each of my posts. My only position on the subject is that the reaction in this thread is emotional and not based on the facts reported. So was Pinker’s. He wasn’t there. His authority on neurobiology has no bearing on what happened or whether anyone is attacking “facts.” For all any of us know, the MIT biologist quoted has a great respect for the facts but was offended on another level.
The analogy about his mom is is that he said “the truth can’t be offensive.” While that’s true, it’s irrelevant, because there is no reason to believe it’s the truth that the professors couldn’t handle. The article is ambiguous. Someone might be able to handle the scientific fact that their mom has an obesity issue, but be offended if a non-expert brings it up in an inappropriate context.
I am not attacking him, I’m saying his logic is wrong. He’s doing what you are doing. He’s speculating that the people who were offended just can’t handle the topic of the gendered brain on an emotional level, but there’s no evidence of that. You are all just projecting.
We also have what Summer’s indicated he said. Do you have evidence that he said anything to the contrary? Did those who were “offended” offer anything Summer stated that is outb of bounds in an academic environment? Or were those academics “offended” by the propostion alone?
In relation to Pinker — show me where Pinker’s statements went awry in your mind. Why Pinker is one in a pair of “dolts” - as you put this. We do have his entire statement.
It’s a matter of perspective. To me, it seems that he is doing what’s right, and that it is a positive thing. He is not in a degraded position by apologizing. In my mind’s eye, it’s entirely possible that he is genuine in his comments and apologizes without resentment because he truly wants to express himself clearly and without anyone misunderstanding. In your mind’s eye, he shouldn’t have to, it is unlikely that he misspoke, and he is only bullshitting to save his job. We are both guessing, and I hope we both know it, so we should agree to disagree and call it a matter of perspective.
Not Pinker’s statement. I was referring to Summers’ statement. PINKER does not have SUMMER’S statement, only his paraphrase after. Sometimes when someone makes an offensive comment that they didnt’ know was offensive, they later phrase it completely differently, the way they would have liked to say it in the first place. Pinker goes awry when he says that people were offended by the facts. Unless he’s reading a better article than the one on CNN, he has no way of knowing anyone is offended by facts, he is tearing down the same strawman you are.
I’m going to have to say, you are having a logic problem. You don’t know what happened, Pinker does not know what happened, and if you all want to imagine a big drama that may not have happened, enjoy yourself.
No, I understand you perfectly. Problem is — there’s nothing there to indicate this was an “offensive” comment in and of itself. And I have to say pokey – that in your world, it seems that unless you’re there, and you’re certain all mental and necessary physical facilities are in proper working order – you can’t comment on a matter. Why? Well spoken communication only tells us a part of the story. So, even a transcript is no good - true?
In fact, we do have what Summer indicated he said — and we have NOTHING that substantially contradicts that — even from those who were “offended.” Summer merely suggested a proposition for consideration. Is there statements out there to the contrary? Summers also indicates that stated that there may be innate differences between men and women. Now THAT proposition HAS been mentioned. And, I suspect, is the source of the complaints of “offense” -
Then what specifically qualifies Pinker as a “dolt?” As you stated he was –
Unless, of course, your perspective is that I have offended you, in which case I’d better get down on my knees and beg forgiveness.
Yep. And I bet she never saw a great movie called Cannibal Women in the Avocado Jungle of Death, a hysterical satire of ultra-feminist politics, in which a pre-Politically Incorrect Bill Mahr makes the trenchant observation about French broads and Kryptonite.
Marie Curie wasn’t actually French, by the way. She was from Poland and named Polonium in tribute.
[sub]i.e. I call “whoosh” on you[/sub]
George Will finally weighs in on the Summers gender incident ----
And Nancy Hopkin’s “hysterical” reaction -
Here’s the link.