|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On November 03 2020 19:09 Silvanel wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2020 06:33 Kreuger wrote:
Vienna police just tweeted:
CONFIRMED at the moment:
*08:00 pm: several shots fired, beginning at Seitenstettengasse
*several suspects armed with rifles
*six different shooting locations
* one deceaced person, several injured (1 officer included)
*1 suspect shot and killed by police officers #0211w
They are still hunting for at least one perpetrator: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-54788613 Hopefull there wont be any more dead.
It is pretty chaotic. Yesterday, following the news it seemed like there were multiple attackers. Today I have read more than one article talking about "the" attacker (as in: the only one). So either they are not certain that there were others, or they want to prevent panic by admitting that they know about others. Lots of police everywhere in the inner districts.
Either way, in Vienna we have been advised to stay at home.
What we know by now is, that the killed attacker is a (former?) IS member.
17 people including a policeman are badly injured, 4 civilians have died. Lets hope this number doesnt grow.
The shooting started in front of a synagogue, but it is unknown if it was a supposed target or a coincidence.
|
On November 01 2020 02:14 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2020 05:38 stilt wrote:
It's tiresome to debate with you guys, you're conveniently ignoring facts and arguments as if it wasn't at all a problem (like the Ramadan one or the erasing of arab nationalism)
islamoleftism is very easy to define : the leftists who are allying themselves with the partisan of political Islam. CCFI belongs to this category as they are pushing for a more islamized society. When they begin to form themselves politically, the partisans of a religion are generally in the far right which is definetly the case here. You're betraying the left, the real one who got crushed by a political Islam funded by the usa. That's partially because of these people I met my gf tho so in a sense, I guess I have to thank you that my father in law was forced to leave his country...
This is still a total betrayal of the left initial values to validate a political ideology which has been used to oppress the arabic world. The confessionalisation of social conflicts is pretty sad. The reason why identity politics are "winning" in sociology classes isn't that we're winning a culture war, it's just that identity politics are objectively correct.
That made me laugh. The social sciences are notoriously immune to any argument that doesn't confirm to their ideological biases. Good luck presenting any argument or piece of evidence that doesn't identify "patriarchy" as the culprit in a gender studies seminar or "colonialism" in a post colonial studies seminar. The whole incentive structure is based on finding ways for certain groups to see themselves as under privileged. If your results are different - better not publish them here. And it works the other way around too (as Soqal squared showed): you can argue anything, however ridicules or immoral, as long as it is in line with the reigning doxa in the field.
One of the more ridicules outcomes of this permanent need to adhere to the standard perspective and interpretation is the constantly changing fashions within the humanities/social sciences: a couple of decades ago it was Marxism, then it changed to post structuralism, then to media theory and posthumanism, and now it's all about climate change etc. You want a grant for a project on 19th century art history? You better add "ecology" to the title somehow.
But what I find truly sad about this is the horrible loss of knowledge within these fields. Obviously you couldn't set foot in a university without being a marxist in 70s or a deconstructivist in the 90s, but at least they knew their own areas of expertise. I don't agree with many of the premises of Edward Said's work on Orientalism, for example, but I truly enjoy his readings of Conrad and Austen. Nowadays the theories are simply floating around freely and you don't need to say anything new about the outside world as long as you repeat the positions that are currently in fashion. It's a kind of free world version of stalinism but you don't get killed for speaking the truth, only unemployed and publicly shamed.
|
On November 03 2020 21:25 Elroi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2020 02:14 Nebuchad wrote:On October 31 2020 05:38 stilt wrote:
It's tiresome to debate with you guys, you're conveniently ignoring facts and arguments as if it wasn't at all a problem (like the Ramadan one or the erasing of arab nationalism)
islamoleftism is very easy to define : the leftists who are allying themselves with the partisan of political Islam. CCFI belongs to this category as they are pushing for a more islamized society. When they begin to form themselves politically, the partisans of a religion are generally in the far right which is definetly the case here. You're betraying the left, the real one who got crushed by a political Islam funded by the usa. That's partially because of these people I met my gf tho so in a sense, I guess I have to thank you that my father in law was forced to leave his country...
This is still a total betrayal of the left initial values to validate a political ideology which has been used to oppress the arabic world. The confessionalisation of social conflicts is pretty sad. The reason why identity politics are "winning" in sociology classes isn't that we're winning a culture war, it's just that identity politics are objectively correct. That made me laugh. The social sciences are notoriously immune to any argument that doesn't confirm to their ideological biases. Good luck presenting any argument or piece of evidence that doesn't identify "patriarchy" as the culprit in a gender studies seminar or "colonialism" in a post colonial studies seminar. The whole incentive structure is based on finding ways for certain groups to see themselves as under privileged. If your results are different - better not publish them here. And it works the other way around too (as Soqal squared showed): you can argue anything, however ridicules or immoral, as long as it is in line with the reigning doxa in the field. One of the more ridicules outcomes of this permanent need to adhere to the standard perspective and interpretation is the constantly changing fashions within the humanities/social sciences: a couple of decades ago it was Marxism, then it changed to post structuralism, then to media theory and posthumanism, and now it's all about climate change etc. You want a grant for a project on 19th century art history? You better add "ecology" to the title somehow. But what I find truly sad about this is the horrible loss of knowledge within these fields. Obviously you couldn't set foot in a university without being a marxist in 70s or a deconstructivist in the 90s, but at least they knew their own areas of expertise. I don't agree with many of the premises of Edward Said's work on Orientalism, for example, but I truly enjoy his readings of Conrad and Austen. Nowadays the theories are simply floating around freely and you don't need to say anything new about the outside world as long as you repeat the positions that are currently in fashion. It's a kind of free world version of stalinism but you don't get killed for speaking the truth, only unemployed and publicly shamed.
I was wondering what was behind the current global wave of unemployed conservatives....
|
Lol. You dont need to be conservative to be against things Elroi explained - which are very real. The humanities departments in universities are notoriously politicisied. Hell even this years noble prize winner in physics Roger Penrose is complaining abut this problem in his book in relation to physic!!!: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fashion,_Faith,_and_Fantasy_in_the_New_Physics_of_the_Universe
Even in physics - it sometimes more important to have "proper views" and work with theory that is currently fashionable or You wont be able to get funds or get published -->despite the results. Situation in social sciences is much more dramatic because they are a lot less rigorous and methodoligically sound than hard sciences - it is much more difficult to defend You work on merit alone.
And once again this isnt about progressivism vs conservatism, this is about:
"Superstring theory" vs Tensor theory (or whatever)
Relativism vs objectivism (or pragamatism or whatever)
Gender Studies vs anything else
and so on
The problem is much more deeper --> it isnt just about some conservative snowflakes being denied grants to work on proving that brown people are inferior. Its about completely legitimate scientific work being denided funding becuse it is not fashionable. Like for example Penrose is showing in his book.
|
I hesitate to say this, but... you guys realize it's not true that you have to have the right ideology to set foot in a university, correct?
|
Did You actually read what i have written? What kind of ideology i am pushing when i am saying i would rather work on Tensor theory than SuperString theory?
EDIT: Who exactly am i opressing when i am saying that i dont believe universe have 26 dimensions?
|
On November 03 2020 22:20 Silvanel wrote:
Did You actually read what i have written? What kind of ideology i am pushing when i am saying i would rather work on Tensor theory than SuperString theory?
I was referring to Elroi's post, which you seemed to back. I have no opinion on Tensor theory or SuperString theory.
|
On November 03 2020 22:20 Silvanel wrote:
Did You actually read what i have written? What kind of ideology i am pushing when i am saying i would rather work on Tensor theory than SuperString theory?
That's not what elroi was saying though, you have changed the subject slightly.
I agree that in scientific study that has nothing to do with social science, these concerns should be secondary to the actual science, and the funding gap for stuff that goes against scientific orthodoxy is a huge problem.
However, to say that we live in a modern day stalinist society where people are regularly shamed/fired for not adhering to current social science theory is massively over the top.
edit: I like Penrose too (huge fan of Orch OR and CCC which are both really interesting theories), and you might notice, that despite him holding these very public opinions about dogma in science, he just received a nobel prize, so the problem can't be that bad that we have to go invoking Stalin.
|
On November 03 2020 22:20 Silvanel wrote:
Did You actually read what i have written? What kind of ideology i am pushing when i am saying i would rather work on Tensor theory than SuperString theory?
EDIT: Who exactly am i opressing when i am saying that i dont believe universe have 26 dimensions?
Neither of those questions are relevant, the inquiry is focused on more generalized concepts, like whether specific incidents actually evidence a trend, for example.
|
United States44258 Posts
It’s also never been easier to make money as an antiestablishment public intellectual. There are dozens of them, all with their own Patreons, YouTube channels, books, and so forth that make the Sky News circuit giving their dumb opinions as factual commentary on events. Conservatives are so desperate to believe in oppression narratives that all you have to do is say “I was kicked out of electoral college where I was studying the troops for saying that men have penises” and they’ll fund your kickstarter.
|
On November 03 2020 22:18 Nebuchad wrote:
I hesitate to say this, but... you guys realize it's not true that you have to have the right ideology to set foot in a university, correct?
I work in a university and regularly give courses on cultural theory. I'm faced by this every day and I talk with colleagues who experience the same oppressive ideological climate. I eagerly await the day when some journalist gets the bright idea to interview staff in Swedish universities anonymously to see what they really feel about the state of their institutions right now. I think it would be pretty brutal.
Just to be clear: I'm not against the humanities and I am even interested in postmodernism. I have published on Michel Foucault, for example. But what I see now in the universities is just an ideological climate that has become toxic and extremely intellectually dishonest. It has come to point where it is truly ridicules. I remember being at a seminar once where a grad student said that she disregarded a particular part of the previous research on her subject because it was "too white". No one in the audience had any objection to that. I think they simply were too afraid of being perceived as conservative.
|
On November 03 2020 22:22 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2020 22:20 Silvanel wrote:
Did You actually read what i have written? What kind of ideology i am pushing when i am saying i would rather work on Tensor theory than SuperString theory? That's not what elroi was saying though, you have changed the subject slightly. I agree that in scientific study that has nothing to do with social science, these concerns should be secondary to the actual science, and the funding gap for stuff that goes against scientific orthodoxy is a huge problem. However, to say that we live in a modern day stalinist society where people are regularly shamed/fired for not adhering to current social science theory is massively over the top. edit: I like Penrose too (huge fan of Orch OR and CCC which are both really interesting theories), and you might notice, that despite him holding these very public opinions about dogma in science, he just received a nobel prize, so the problem can't be that bad that we have to go invoking Stalin.
I myself did not invoke Stalin (at least not consciously) and i also disagree with notion that social sciences should be treated differently than hard sciences. I belive that in academic world it should matter more if You are right rather then if You are offending someone (because if You are right and this is offending to someone then he/she is offended by truth).
That being said i am not conservative and i have no intention of defending people who were or are abusing academic priviliges to push their agenda - whatever that agenda might be. I am strong believer in science and academic freedom to pursue truth whenever it might lead - also in social sciences.
EDIT: Regarding Penrose and noble prize - i was also very glad when received it - not only because of his acomplishments but also becuse his thoughts on all variants of SuperString theory echo my own.
|
On November 03 2020 22:38 Silvanel wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2020 22:22 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 03 2020 22:20 Silvanel wrote:
Did You actually read what i have written? What kind of ideology i am pushing when i am saying i would rather work on Tensor theory than SuperString theory? That's not what elroi was saying though, you have changed the subject slightly. I agree that in scientific study that has nothing to do with social science, these concerns should be secondary to the actual science, and the funding gap for stuff that goes against scientific orthodoxy is a huge problem. However, to say that we live in a modern day stalinist society where people are regularly shamed/fired for not adhering to current social science theory is massively over the top. edit: I like Penrose too (huge fan of Orch OR and CCC which are both really interesting theories), and you might notice, that despite him holding these very public opinions about dogma in science, he just received a nobel prize, so the problem can't be that bad that we have to go invoking Stalin. I myself did not invoke Stalin (at least not consciously) and i also disagree with notion that social sciences should be treated differently than hard sciences. I belive that in academic world it should matter more if You are right rather then if You are offending someone (because if You are right and this is offending to someone then he/she is offnded by truth). That being said i am not conservative and i have no intention of defending people who were or are abusing academic priviliges to push their agenda - whatever that agenda might be. I am strong believer in science and academic freedom to pursue truth whenever it might lead - also in social sciences.
So if someone was to publish a social sciences study with the title 'Why are Jewish People so good with money?' or 'Investigating the inherent criminality of black and middle eastern people' You wouldn't see a problem with that?
There has to be some limits on scientific study, based on whether the contribution it could feasibly make is worth the serious issues studies like that could cause..
I can't see any way in which a physics study could foreseeably cause social problems.
Again though, I get that there is overreach and its important to point it out where it exists.
|
I dont think this "someone" would find proper evidence to substantiate such claims and if he would send something like to publication it wouldnt stand against peer review.
Edit: But i agree there should be some limits, i just think currently in some areas that limit is in wrong place.
|
On November 03 2020 22:37 Elroi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2020 22:18 Nebuchad wrote:
I hesitate to say this, but... you guys realize it's not true that you have to have the right ideology to set foot in a university, correct? I work in a university and regularly give courses on cultural theory. I'm faced by this every day and I talk with colleagues who experience the same oppressive ideological climate. I eagerly await the day when some journalist gets the bright idea to interview staff in Swedish universities anonymously to see what they really feel about the state of their institutions right now. I think it would be pretty brutal. Just to be clear: I'm not against the humanities and I am even interested in postmodernism. I have published on Michel Foucault, for example. But what I see now in the universities is just an ideological climate that has become toxic and extremely intellectually dishonest. It has come to point where it is truly ridicules. I remember being at a seminar once where a grad student said that she disregarded a particular part of the previous research on her subject because it was "too white". No one in the audience had any objection to that. I think they simply were too afraid of being perceived as conservative.
It's interesting that you're not letting the fact that you work in a university with the wrong ideology get in the way of the theory that you can't set foot in a university with the wrong ideology.
I wasn't very political when I was at university, so I only remember politics being pushed when it was really obvious, it was the history course that I got on "Populism", where it was explained to me why being far left or far right was a very bad idea and you needed to be a centrist. Those were the times 
Depending on what that grad student was studying, part of the previous research being "too white" could be a completely valid issue. What was it about?
|
On November 03 2020 22:49 Silvanel wrote:
I dont think this "someone" would find proper evidence to substantiate such claims and if he would send something like to publication it wouldnt stand against peer review.
The issue is that in social science there are many layers of interpretation of past theories that go into any conclusion that is made. It is perfectly feasible that someone could write a study like this and justify it, and when it was rejected by peer review, use the exact same argument that you are making (that anti establishment scientists are being persecuted and shut down unfairly).
Its why this area of discussion is a bit like a minefield.
|
On November 03 2020 22:45 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2020 22:38 Silvanel wrote:On November 03 2020 22:22 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 03 2020 22:20 Silvanel wrote:
Did You actually read what i have written? What kind of ideology i am pushing when i am saying i would rather work on Tensor theory than SuperString theory? That's not what elroi was saying though, you have changed the subject slightly. I agree that in scientific study that has nothing to do with social science, these concerns should be secondary to the actual science, and the funding gap for stuff that goes against scientific orthodoxy is a huge problem. However, to say that we live in a modern day stalinist society where people are regularly shamed/fired for not adhering to current social science theory is massively over the top. edit: I like Penrose too (huge fan of Orch OR and CCC which are both really interesting theories), and you might notice, that despite him holding these very public opinions about dogma in science, he just received a nobel prize, so the problem can't be that bad that we have to go invoking Stalin. I myself did not invoke Stalin (at least not consciously) and i also disagree with notion that social sciences should be treated differently than hard sciences. I belive that in academic world it should matter more if You are right rather then if You are offending someone (because if You are right and this is offending to someone then he/she is offnded by truth). That being said i am not conservative and i have no intention of defending people who were or are abusing academic priviliges to push their agenda - whatever that agenda might be. I am strong believer in science and academic freedom to pursue truth whenever it might lead - also in social sciences. So if someone was to publish a social sciences study with the title 'Why are Jewish People so good with money?' or 'Investigating the inherent criminality of black and middle eastern people' You wouldn't see a problem with that? There has to be some limits on scientific study, based on whether the contribution it could feasibly make is worth the serious issues studies like that could cause.. I can't see any way in which a physics study could foreseeably cause social problems. Again though, I get that there is overreach and its important to point it out where it exists.
This is the crux of the issue. On one hand, there are no doubt problems with ideological homogeneity in the Academy, and there are all sorts of specific instances of really poorly done idpol being used to bash people and stifle inquiry.
*However,* it is important to acknowledge that there is a big companion problem, namely that particular kinds of conservatism are devoted to erasing and/or stoppering legitimate, usually critical inquiry that second guesses the premises underlying establishment pedagogical frameworks like "the Canon." One-sided "the Academy is Stalinist" hot takes that lack any nuance or mention of that companion problem are as unhelpful as pretending that the Academy has no idpol problems. There's a middle ground that is too frequently ignored here, and part of that middle ground is recognizing that one-dimensional conclusions couched in availability heuristics do no one interested in the right thing any favors.
|
Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word stalinism. That was a joke. I should also say that my impressions are from universities in Sweden. When I was in France, as a student and as faculty member, the intellectual climate was much better. People in the literature department actually cared about literature...
|
If you guys let me go back to one of my classics, that's one of the reasons why using "tolerance" as a main value was a mistake. Going against tolerance says something about your moral character, which is uninteresting in general but especially in a university setting.
Now in this particular case, we are not in a university, and we are all anonymous so you won't be punished for speaking out. And yet if we come back to the initial question, I still won't hear a "rightwing theory of sociology" or whatever, because that is not a thing.
|
On November 03 2020 23:06 Elroi wrote:
Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word stalinism. That was a joke. I should also say that my impressions are from universities in Sweden. When I was in France, as a student and as faculty member, the intellectual climate was much better. People in the literature department actually cared about literature...
Indeed, even if I am inclined to quibble over minutiae, I think it's very fair for a Swedish academic to have a strong, personal experience-laden take on the academic culture of Sweden. But when the questions become larger and aimed at trends ostensibly taking hold across the world, even if only by implication, the whole thing becomes much more opaque and it can be difficult to find solid heuristic ground to stand on (which is something many folks championing notions like "schools are liberal brainwashing machines" are all too happy to take advantage of).
On November 03 2020 23:10 Nebuchad wrote:
If you guys let me go back to one of my classics, that's one of the reasons why using "tolerance" as a main value was a mistake. Going against tolerance says something about your moral character, which is uninteresting in general but especially in a university setting.
Now in this particular case, we are not in a university, and we are all anonymous so you won't be punished for speaking out. And yet if we come back to the initial question, I still won't hear a "rightwing theory of sociology" or whatever, because that is not a thing.
Yep, unadorned notions of "tolerance" beg Golden Mean problems out the wazoo.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
