|
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 April 22 2017 23:20 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2017 23:12 maybenexttime wrote:On April 22 2017 22:47 TheDwf wrote:On April 22 2017 22:43 maybenexttime wrote:On April 22 2017 19:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 22 2017 19:34 bardtown wrote:On April 22 2017 17:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 22 2017 08:28 bardtown wrote:On April 22 2017 08:15 Big J wrote:On April 22 2017 07:43 bardtown wrote:
[quote]
Who knows. The point is simply that they don't get shut down or blocked from bringing their speakers, etc. By the way, the intersection between radical feminists and communism is huge, so if you actually want to find large groups of communists that is where you need to look. They are also the same people who are blocking events and speakers (and I know you have them in Germany too). That's just not true. FPÖ shut down a school event with a (green-affiliated) speaker, because he called student connections close to the FPÖ out for extremist views. We have identitaries' actionism all the time, often disrupting events etc. We have Nazi groups attacking and burning refugee homes or blackmailing people, even identitairies threatening people on reddit from personal experience. How the fuck are those not right-wingers trying and sometimes succeeding to shut down others views and free speech? You have to be blind to believe this is not happening both ways. I don't know enough to comment about Austria, but in the UK that simply does not happen. The right wing has almost no presence on university campuses here. More in America so than in the UK, it always amazes me that the hard and far right winger complain so often that they are absent from universities, but never reflect about why that would be. You hear so often republican pest against those liberal university professors, but maybe if their ideas were a bit more appealing to vastly knowledgable, very curious and very smart people, they wouldn't be completely absent from the intellectual centres of the country. I don't know. It's obvious that virtually no one in the university system in the US would support the GOP, these days they essentially represent closed mindness, lack of curiosity, intellectual dishonesty and alternative facts. It's pretty damn hard to become a university professor if those are your values really. Same goes with UKIP. You run a demagogic, anti intellectual platform, why complain that university people don't like you? The thing about politics is that neither the left nor the right is more correct than the other. It's a matter of what you prioritise and how you think the world should work. You will find just as many intelligent people in the private sector who lean right, so it's not the case that all intelligent people go one way. I'm not complaining about it, anyway. I'm just stating a fact. That said, campuses often feel like hotbeds of group think as a result. About political opinion, no. But it's not purely political opinion, but a relationship to the truth, to science and to intellectualism that turn academic people off. When the GOP promotes creationism in school, elect a serial liar, fight an open war against climate science and so, it loses smart people, academics and university students. That's all I'm saying. Support creationism or make friends in universities. The GOP has made its choice, now I ask its supporters not to whine about the consequences. We'll have a serious discussion about the GOP under representation in universities the day it stops being the party of stupid. It's not like the left is devoid of such anti-scientific nonsense. For some reason ideas like " gender is a social construct", " patriarchy is oppressing women", "fetuses are not human beings" or communism are tolerated. Similarly stupid ideas on the right do not get the same leeway. Exactly what is “anti-scientific” in those? Communism is a political ideology, what does this have to do with science? Because gender identity is heavily rooted in sexual dimorphism, as proven by numerous studies that actually hold up to scientific scrutiny. E.g. other primates, like humans, exhibit a propensity to prefer different types of toys depending on their gender/sex. "Patriarchy is oppressing women" is pure conjecture, based on misinformation like "wage gap". Communism is not merely a political ideology. It is also a branch of political economy, founded on the concept of labor theory of value, which is at odds with reality. As pointed out by Alfred Marshall, "It is not true that the spinning of yarn in a factory ... is the product of the labour of the operatives. It is the product of their labour, together with that of the employer and subordinate managers, and of the capital employed." 1) But that means its linked to the brain and not the body (since the body does not choose a toy). So you can have someone with a female brain inside a male body. And boom gender based on physical characteristics becomes a social construct. 2) Be sure to mention 'wage gap' when asking any historian if women have been oppressed at some point in history. 3) And where are all these lefties advocating for communist economies?
1) First of all, brain is part of the body... Second of all, having a person with a male body and a female brain clearly proves that the origin of gender identity is biological in nature, not a social construct. You're talking nonsense.
Left-leaning sociologists make unscientific claims that contradict our knowledge in the field of biology.
2) Bad straw man. I never said that historically it wasn't the case. I am talking about the present. In the Western world there is currently no patriarchy that is trying to hold women down. It's a conspiracy theory not founded in reality.
They're better of helping women in Islamic countries, where they are actually oppressed...
3) Here's an example of a Marxist preacher being given a platform by various universities in the USA:
https://www.nyu.edu/projects/ollman/docs/ssr_ch05.php
I've read about communists being given a platform at universities in the US, France and the UK. I don't have any other links at my disposal, but I could do some further research in that regard. I am not claiming that these people are part of the mainstream. But their views are tolerated by academia in some Western countries, and far-right views do not get the same treatment.
4) Human fetuses are members of the Homo sapiens species. They are humans per definition. If we arbitrarily choose to exclude fetuses, based on age/level of development, what stops us from excluding other members of our species based on whatever criteria?
The actual point of contention is the idea of personhood. That is a matter of philosophy. Calling human fetuses not human in a claim in the field of biology.
|
On April 22 2017 22:54 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2017 22:43 maybenexttime wrote:On April 22 2017 19:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 22 2017 19:34 bardtown wrote:On April 22 2017 17:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 22 2017 08:28 bardtown wrote:On April 22 2017 08:15 Big J wrote:On April 22 2017 07:43 bardtown wrote:On April 22 2017 07:37 Simberto wrote:On April 22 2017 07:31 bardtown wrote:[quote] http://communists.soc.srcf.net/In my city. Most universities have a communist group, or at least a socialist society, and they are often indistinguishable. By the way, read the first sentence on their website and think about it for a second. It really cracked me up :D. How many people are actually in that society, though? When i click on the "Meetings" page of that website, the first result is "Meetings: Michaelmas 2014". I don't exactly know what Michaelmas is, but if the last meeting they bothered to put on that page was in 2014, that group is probably not exactly a thriving community. The facebook link to the Cambridge Communist party seems to be broken, too. Who knows. The point is simply that they don't get shut down or blocked from bringing their speakers, etc. By the way, the intersection between radical feminists and communism is huge, so if you actually want to find large groups of communists that is where you need to look. They are also the same people who are blocking events and speakers (and I know you have them in Germany too). That's just not true. FPÖ shut down a school event with a (green-affiliated) speaker, because he called student connections close to the FPÖ out for extremist views. We have identitaries' actionism all the time, often disrupting events etc. We have Nazi groups attacking and burning refugee homes or blackmailing people, even identitairies threatening people on reddit from personal experience. How the fuck are those not right-wingers trying and sometimes succeeding to shut down others views and free speech? You have to be blind to believe this is not happening both ways. I don't know enough to comment about Austria, but in the UK that simply does not happen. The right wing has almost no presence on university campuses here. More in America so than in the UK, it always amazes me that the hard and far right winger complain so often that they are absent from universities, but never reflect about why that would be. You hear so often republican pest against those liberal university professors, but maybe if their ideas were a bit more appealing to vastly knowledgable, very curious and very smart people, they wouldn't be completely absent from the intellectual centres of the country. I don't know. It's obvious that virtually no one in the university system in the US would support the GOP, these days they essentially represent closed mindness, lack of curiosity, intellectual dishonesty and alternative facts. It's pretty damn hard to become a university professor if those are your values really. Same goes with UKIP. You run a demagogic, anti intellectual platform, why complain that university people don't like you? The thing about politics is that neither the left nor the right is more correct than the other. It's a matter of what you prioritise and how you think the world should work. You will find just as many intelligent people in the private sector who lean right, so it's not the case that all intelligent people go one way. I'm not complaining about it, anyway. I'm just stating a fact. That said, campuses often feel like hotbeds of group think as a result. About political opinion, no. But it's not purely political opinion, but a relationship to the truth, to science and to intellectualism that turn academic people off. When the GOP promotes creationism in school, elect a serial liar, fight an open war against climate science and so, it loses smart people, academics and university students. That's all I'm saying. Support creationism or make friends in universities. The GOP has made its choice, now I ask its supporters not to whine about the consequences. We'll have a serious discussion about the GOP under representation in universities the day it stops being the party of stupid. It's not like the left is devoid of such anti-scientific nonsense. For some reason ideas like "gender is a social construct", "patriarchy is oppressing women", "fetuses are not human beings" or communism are tolerated. Similarly stupid ideas on the right do not get the same leeway. funny how in your attempt to give anti-scientific examples you list a bunch of social stuff that has nothing to do with science... please provide the scientific proof that women have not been oppressed throughout human history, what makes a human a human, how the ability of animals to change gender based on their situation changes our perception of how rigid gender actually is and in what way is communism actually accepted by the left? No one here is advocating strait up communism.
Funny that you immediately cite scientific perspectives on "a bunch of social stuff that has nothing to do with science."
Like it really looks to me that you find scientific support to question gender being anything more than a social construct from the field of Biology.
|
On April 22 2017 23:18 farvacola wrote:
Relating humans to other primates in service of establishing that there is a scientific basis for excluding collective recognition of non-traditional gender identities entirely misunderstands what science is and what it can tell us lol.
What does that have to do with my post? Nowhere did I say anything regarding how such people should be treated.
Some people use "gender is a social construct" as a justification for pushing for certain policies. This justification is as stupid as using climate change denialism to justify certain climate-related policies. They're both based on pseudoscience. Anti-scientific claims are not a valid reason for anything.
|
On April 22 2017 23:09 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2017 23:06 TheDwf wrote:On April 22 2017 23:05 bardtown wrote:On April 22 2017 22:57 Gorsameth wrote:On April 22 2017 22:51 bardtown wrote:On April 22 2017 22:06 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 22 2017 19:46 bardtown wrote:On April 22 2017 19:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 22 2017 19:34 bardtown wrote:On April 22 2017 17:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:
[quote]
More in America so than in the UK, it always amazes me that the hard and far right winger complain so often that they are absent from universities, but never reflect about why that would be. You hear so often republican pest against those liberal university professors, but maybe if their ideas were a bit more appealing to vastly knowledgable, very curious and very smart people, they wouldn't be completely absent from the intellectual centres of the country.
I don't know. It's obvious that virtually no one in the university system in the US would support the GOP, these days they essentially represent closed mindness, lack of curiosity, intellectual dishonesty and alternative facts. It's pretty damn hard to become a university professor if those are your values really. Same goes with UKIP. You run a demagogic, anti intellectual platform, why complain that university people don't like you? The thing about politics is that neither the left nor the right is more correct than the other. It's a matter of what you prioritise and how you think the world should work. You will find just as many intelligent people in the private sector who lean right, so it's not the case that all intelligent people go one way. I'm not complaining about it, anyway. I'm just stating a fact. That said, campuses often feel like hotbeds of group think as a result. About political opinion, no. But it's not purely political opinion, but a relationship to the truth, to science and to intellectualism that turn academic people off. When the GOP promotes creationism in school, elect a serial liar, fight an open war against climate science and so, it loses smart people, academics and university students. That's all I'm saying. Support creationism or make friends in universities. The GOP has made its choice, now I ask its supporters not to whine about the consequences. We'll have a serious discussion about the GOP under representation in universities the day it stops being the party of stupid. Yeah, I don't know a single creationist in the UK, so I don't think that's it. It's all about a desire to be moral, in my opinion. But I don't believe left wing politics are more moral than right wing politics, they just appear so at face value. Things like 'Refugees welcome!' that don't consider the actual consequences of this stance, etc. That's precisely why i mentionned that i was mainly talking about the States. Maybe have you thought that in a lesser extent the same reasoning applied to Europe? If academics and university students don't engage in conservative ideas, it might be that the type of people who have the open mindness, reflection, curiosity and intelligence to potentially be researchers have very little chance to be seduced by Nigel Farage or Michael Gove. For your second point, beng on the left is not about taking the moral high ground. It's also to be genuinely compassionate and tolerant. To carry on with your example I think it's more important for a syrian fleeing war to find a new home than for me not to have one more brown person / muslim immigrant / foreigner that might take some time to integrate in my country. And I am mit scared of muslim, islam ir immigrant because they make up 90% of my district and are perfectly nice, so i didn't see any disaster incoming. It doesn't mean i think immigration is never problematic, that we should have totally open borders. Simply that Farage and consort and their rethoric of fear and hatred repel me. Look at the paper RvB found. It's interesting. It suggests that open mindedness is a factor, but that the most intelligent people in the UK have roughly the same voting split as the country as a whole, so intelligence is not. Which is more or less what I said before: there isn't a correct approach to politics, because it all depends on what you want to achieve, and what you think is a fair route to get there. Intelligent people do not come to the same conclusions. I do not think the approach taken to the migrant crisis is compassionate in anything more than a knee jerk emotional way. In fact I think it has done tremendous harm to Europe and has resulted in the deaths of thousands of people - mostly not Syrian. It's funded a huge criminal network and the migrants are even being traded as slaves now in Libya. I don't see how helping less people (because it costs so much more to house them in Europe) justifies this cost. There needs to be a lot less of this 'compassion', and a lot more reason. I'm confused. How does the EU's willingness to accept immigrants make us responsible for slave trade in Libya Oo It is a direct result of your failure to discourage migrants. Yup, not enough of them die in the Mediterranean. Some survive, the incentive is still too strong! That is also a direct result of your failure to discourage them... If they knew that there was no chance of being rehomed in Europe, they wouldn't risk the journey. By the way, I'm not sure if you know how this works but this is what they do: they go into the sea - not far from the Libyan coast - and then they intentionally sink themselves as soon as they see an international vessel. You're being used.
I'm sure the 5000 corpses claimed by the Mediterranean in 2016 are happy to know I'm being used
|
If dangerous trips or less welcoming host countries would prevent migration I imagine the world would look a little different today. Historically, that has never really stopped people, even if they weren't already desperate to begin with. You can really stop global migration movements with some deterrence, that's like trying to fight a storm with a hairdryer. We're better off trying to fix the systemic problems that cause this in the first place rather than trying to wall ourselves in.
|
Okay, good luck solving all of Africa's problems rather than having a sensible immigration policy.
|
British humour at its finest!
Lets fuck them up and give no shit.
To cite Avril Lavigne. Gr88888888888888888888888888t work
|
I don't even mean to imply that we fucked anything up and have a moral obligation or something, I'm talking purely practical here. Putting tape over crisis after crisis and praying that it holds is not a solution, and that's exactly what these border focused policies are. Nothing but a temporary fix.
It's quite important to make that point because this accusation of "lofty idealism" is the first thing that ever comes up. But it's really just self-interest. It is not in our interest to pay off Erdogan to solve problems, or have Africa tear itself apart, it will always bite us. As modern terrorism shows, there really is no such thing as a local conflict any more.
|
Accepting the immigrants who make the crossing is tape. You can't do it indefinitely - even Germany and Sweden have accepted this now - and by accepting any you encourage more and more to come. Rather than solving Africa's problems, we've created a whole new set for them to deal with.
I don't think modern terrorism shows any such thing, either. There are plenty of local conflicts. It's only when an ideology like Islamism is involved that people think killing indiscriminately worldwide is justified.
|
On April 23 2017 02:37 bardtown wrote:
Accepting the immigrants who make the crossing is tape. You can't do it indefinitely - even Germany and Sweden have accepted this now - and by accepting any you encourage more and more to come. Rather than solving Africa's problems, we've created a whole new set for them to deal with.
I don't think modern terrorism shows any such thing, either. There are plenty of local conflicts. It's only when an ideology like Islamism is involved that people think killing indiscriminately worldwide is justified.
People attack us because we attacked them (perceived or actually).
Africans are not coming here for terrorist attacks because we are not drone bombing Africa or 'liberating' their oil.
|
I think it is maybe a hundred pages ago when I tried to ask the "critics of immigration" about what practical and acceptable policies they would implement to limit said immigration and I am still waiting. To avoid repeating a boring argument ad nauseum, I'd like to note that I don't consider letting people drown acceptable and neither locking them all up somewhere within our territory or invading independent countries in order to return them against the will of said countries very practical.
Bardtown is repeatedly stating that the problem is that we are "allowing" the migrants, but how exactly does "not allowing" them look like? The sea border isn't practically seal-able without heavy causalities. Maybe if those are acceptable to you, this could be a solution? But is outright killing people something that our civilization really wants to do? Other than that, you need to accept that some people will get in and that many of them are difficult to return to anywhere, or will just come again. Letting them live a productive life here is then by far the most efficient solution.
|
You can deport illegal immigrants to countries willing to accept them in exchange for financial aid
|
On April 23 2017 03:47 Sent. wrote:
You can deport illegal immigrants to countries willing to accept them in exchange for financial aid
And what happens when that immigrant shows up at our border again for the 2nd or 3e time?
|
On April 23 2017 02:37 bardtown wrote:
Accepting the immigrants who make the crossing is tape. You can't do it indefinitely - even Germany and Sweden have accepted this now - and by accepting any you encourage more and more to come. Rather than solving Africa's problems, we've created a whole new set for them to deal with.
I don't think modern terrorism shows any such thing, either. There are plenty of local conflicts. It's only when an ideology like Islamism is involved that people think killing indiscriminately worldwide is justified.
And there are plenty of these ideologies around. Ever since the cold war we have fought ideological wars globally. Russia and the US everywhere, civil proxy wars, religious conflicts, independence struggle even in recent European history with the Basque and Irish conflicts, today it's often something like the Kurdish / Turkish conflict being fought out here you can make a list a hundred pages long.
The belief that we only need to "control Islam" and then we'll have a Fukuyama like end of history again where we sit in our safe bubbles is a total illusion. Even if all the immigrants or Muslims or whatever wouldn't be here there would be some new source of instability. Ecological, inequality etc.. pick one, the ethnic/religious conflicts are just one dimension.
So it simply makes no sense to frame this as an issue where the German state or the British state even can 'solve' anything in a meaningful way. We need much bigger institutions to fix this stuff.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Interesting from there:
Fifth, there is growing evidence from the US that those with right-wing and
conservative views are discriminated against in the processes of hiring, funding
and promotion. When Inbar and Lammers (2012) conducted a political survey
of social psychologists, a considerable number of respondents admitted that they
would discriminate against conservative academics in paper and grant reviews,
symposium initiations, and hiring decisions.
That or maybe conservatives should just understand why their ideas are not particularly loved within the realm of learned men.
Academics are of course different in every country, but there is one thing I would say they pretty much all have in common: when it comes to grant money, they are little more than unscrupulous mercenaries for hire. Countless times I have seen academics take complete 180s on their willingness to hold any given position based on who gives them a grant or two. It's gotten worse as conservatives have started to be a bit more hostile towards obviously problematic institutions (attacking tenure etc) and academe has become less and less lucrative. And while I may not agree with all their solutions their sentiment that university function is problematic is spot on.
Ironic that universities are strongly left-leaning considering that professors are the most resistant party to any form of change (i.e. "conservative") that one could assemble.
|
Ladies and gentlemen, it's time for predictions! What will be the result of the French election tomorrow? (You can ignore candidates with small scores.)
Here's mine:
+ Show Spoiler +Le Pen 23,7
Mélenchon 22,2
Fillon 21,9
Macron 21,8
Hamon 4,1
Dupont-Aignan 3,2
Lassalle 1,1
Asselineau 0,7
Poutou 0,8
Arthaud 0,3
Cheminade 0,2
Abstention 21,8%
|
Norway28673 Posts
Macron 25.5
Le Pen 23
Melenchon 21
Fillon 20
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Gonna give an overall win chance as:
40% Macron
30% Melenchon
15% Fillon
15% Le Pen
Macron looks favored still but his star is fading. The right-wingers suffer from a tough Round 2.
|
Thousands of former Taliban fighters may have entered Germany over the past two years among an influx of more than a million migrants and refugees, Der Spiegel magazine reported on Saturday.
Germany's Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF) informed security officials that thousands of migrants had identified themselves as former Taliban insurgents during the asylum application process, the magazine said.
It added that at least 70 Afghan men were being investigated by Germany's over-stretched chief federal prosecutor, though it was not clear whether all of them were suspected of being active Taliban militants.
Six are being held in investigatory detention and preliminary court hearings involving several others are due to start next week, the magazine added.
No comment was immediately available from the migration office or federal prosecutors.
The government of Chancellor Angela Merkel, under fire for allowing in so many migrants, especially after several militant attacks linked to migrants last year, has been actively deporting groups of rejected Afghan asylum seekers.
Merkel, seeking a fourth term in a Sept. 24 election, this month defended the increase deportations of rejected Afghan asylum seekers, saying all other European Union countries were doing the same.
She said about 55 percent of Afghans were granted refugee status in Germany, while 45 percent were turned down.
Source
|
On April 23 2017 04:49 TheDwf wrote:Ladies and gentlemen, it's time for predictions! What will be the result of the French election tomorrow? (You can ignore candidates with small scores.) Here's mine: + Show Spoiler +Le Pen 23,7
Mélenchon 22,2
Fillon 21,9
Macron 21,8
Hamon 4,1
Dupont-Aignan 3,2
Lassalle 1,1
Asselineau 0,7
Poutou 0,8
Arthaud 0,3
Cheminade 0,2
Abstention 21,8%
what a time we're living when the two probably top score can* come from the far-right and the far-left
jesus
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
