OH NOES!! Her widdle feewings were hurted.
Ah yes, Tone Policing. When all else fails, ignore facts and reasons and fall back on tone policing. Management that does this shit needs to be removed from management.
Yes, because the school admins advising her that she hurt the teacher’s feeling is totally on point and relevant to the real issue.
There wasn’t any real issue at all, except maybe the parent shitting herself over a word change.
E Plebnista
Well, can’t argue with that. It’s the Pledge, after all…
It is not uncommon at all to change the text of the Constitution to fix the parts that have been changed by Amendment. (Generally, you cross out the old version.) The 14th and 19th amendments change the original meaning of “men” to mean “human.”
Yes, in our past, we could have argued that “men” meant the same thing as “human.” But our language has changed. So, to make that clear now, it makes sense to update the language.
This is once again a tiny nothing burger, and the only people who get upset are ironically the people who say we shouldn’t care about offending people. So the concept is self-refuting. It offends you, but we’re not supposed to care about you being offended. You should be happy we don’t care about your “widdle feewings.”
So here’s some real bullshit.
The link is to reddit because the actual article is behind a paywall and this has mirrors.
A researcher at Bath Spa university (yes, I also didn’t believe that was a real thing at first glance) wanted to do research on transgender regret, and transsexual people who detransitioned. Here’s the money quote:
That is legitimately concerning on numerous levels. What the fuck, guys?
I can sort of see both sides here. On the one hand, this (presumably - I haven’t read the proposal) is a legitimate and valuable piece of research. It’s certainly an area where any solid data that can be gleaned has potential benefit in the arena of transition counselling.
On the other hand the potential for it to bring down a media (social and otherwise) shitstorm from all sides of the political spectrum is high, which would incur real and intangible costs for the university. I strongly suspect Caspian, as someone “not even on social media”, does not understand just how bad things could get, nor how much pressure and harassment would likely be brought to bear from interested parties, activists and trolls to get him to tweak his findings in one direction or the other.
Difficult call for the university and they erred on the side of caution at the cost of the potential value of the research. Was it the right call? I don’t know, but it’s not intrinsically “bullshit”.
We have a research institution, a public one at that, denying an important and relevant piece of research out of fear of a “shitstorm”. No, I’m sorry, while I see both sides, one side is just… wrong. Politics should not be an excuse to shut down scientific research. Heckler’s veto doubly so. Literally any scientific issue can be turned into a political hot potato. Any piece of research, if sufficiently stigmatized or politicized, could turn into this kind of thing. We have tenure so that this kind of thing doesn’t harm individual researchers, but that doesn’t matter at all if the universities themselves are unwilling to stand up for honest research. And this isn’t exactly “Mark Regnerus wants to prove that trans people can all easily be ‘cured’ with clozapine” either.
Hell, no. The prime - and only - obligation a proper university has is to science and truth (as well as we’re able to ascertain what that is).
A university that puts budget above science isn’t a real university. If they do, they deserve to lose their standing as a university.
Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk
In the latest, people who aren’t violent are racists, and people who don’t kneel for the national anthem are white supremacists.
Remind me–is it the people who argue against the articles who are the SJWs, or is it the people who wrote the article? I can never remember.
If the author is a self-described “Dad, partner, enraged citizen, opinionated writer, leftist, PhD student” then you’re probably on the right track assuming he is the SJW.
Not to mention his claim that not kneeling during the anthem is tantamount to belief in white supremacy.
But you already knew this. Obfuscation is this man’s game.
So you’ve given up on the pretension that’s it’s the behavior that upsets you, you now admit it’s the opinions?
I’m sympathetic to your views. Unfortunately, a university that doesn’t give due priority to its budget and/or its public image often isn’t a university for very long either.
“If you are not with us, you are against us” is bullshit when it comes from a conservative like Bush 43, and it is bullshit when it comes from a liberal. “Not my circus, not my monkey” is a perfectly valid way to react to a protest.
So, “due priority” = “puts it above anything else, including their raison d’etre”?
My beef isn’t with balancing their budget, it’s with allowing unscientific woo in an institution whose purpose is to develop knowledge in a scientific way
Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk
On Twitter, one of the people I follow told white players to kneel with the black players. Take the damn knee! While not as radical as what that other dude said, it’s still stupid SJW bullshit. The black players aren’t united on this and 90% of why most of them do want to kneel now has to do with Donald Trump sticking his nose into this. The white players deciding to take the knee would pretty much take the choice away from the black players, throwing the ones who don’t want to use the anthem as the venue for this protest right under the bus. Which I’m sure is a feature for many white liberals, not a bug.
This is a free country, everyone should follow their conscience. Is that really so hard to support?
Oh, you were doing so well up until the last sentence. But then constructing liberal strawmen to libel is a staple of conservative rhetoric (am I doing this right?).
For me? No. For quite a lot of other people? Yes.