Prof: Algebra, geometry perpetuate white privilege

[pErvinalia]

You read a great variety of news sites. I subscribe to both the Guardian and The Daily Telegraph and I rarely come across these kinds of stories - though The Telegraph is a bit quicker to highlight the 'PC gone mad' stuff than the Gruniad. Then again, I don't really do Facebook or Twitter etc, so I'm not going to get more of these stories floating up the top the more I click on those kind of links.

If he gets them via social media then he's essentially circle-jerking himself. Facebook etc basically serve up more of what you've searched for and looked at in the past.

LOL, I don't read news from Facebook. I don't even get any news from facebook. My wife controls our joint facebook page,

Cuck!

[pErvinalia]

You read a great variety of news sites. I subscribe to both the Guardian and The Daily Telegraph and I rarely come across these kinds of stories - though The Telegraph is a bit quicker to highlight the 'PC gone mad' stuff than the Gruniad. Then again, I don't really do Facebook or Twitter etc, so I'm not going to get more of these stories floating up the top the more I click on those kind of links.

If he gets them via social media then he's essentially circle-jerking himself. Facebook etc basically serve up more of what you've searched for and looked at in the past.

LOL, I don't read news from Facebook. I don't even get any news from facebook. My wife controls our joint facebook page, and it's just full of marketing posts about some fitness program, meal replacement system or other home-business thing. I see relative's photos and events, and it helps me keep from forgetting some birthdays here and there.

I've posted where I find them, and when I link to the stories in my posts and threads, they are usually involving either mainstream news sources, as I've listed, or feminist sources.

But, again, this is another diversion. Who gives a fuck where I get the stories from? When I make a post about an event, I include a source - and that source is self-explanatory - if there is a problem with the accuracy of the story because the source is unreliable, then that can be addressed in the thread. However, the attempted allegation here that I do not find these stories in reputable media publications is ridiculous. You're really reaching.

And, also, what's the point of trying to suggest that this is only outlandish stuff, which is not mainstream, but only fringe? I said it before and I'll say it again - I like talking about the stuff I think is wacko. This stuff IS wacko. That's why I post it. That's why, I think, whoever created this thread about the Algebra being sexist and white privilege did it. Because it's fucking bizarro. That's what makes it fun to talk about.

So, you're just pissing in the wind with this nonsense about it being published in click-baity sources and being just a loony fringe. I agree, it's loony. And, the sources are mainstream. Cronus started this thread with a link to campusreform.org, which publishes a lot of material like this and is not an unreliable site. On that page cited, another professor, from esteemed Vanderbilt University, had an article published in an academic journal about the masculanization of mathematics -- https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=9544

CNN was way ahead of the curve on this, with an article in September, 2016, more than a year before the article generating this thread, about how mathematics was racist. http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/06/technol ... index.html A University of North Dakota professor published a paper about how Science in general is sexist because it's not subjective, among other things -- http://nsuworks.nova.edu/cgi/viewconten ... ontext=tqr - that was January, 2016.

There's more.

So, yeah - maybe you folks haven't read up on it, but that's not because it's not readily available or published in mainstream sources.

And, once again - if you aren't interested in the topic, then go discuss topics you are interested in. There is no reason to clog up a thread like this with bullshit about how you think this is not mainstream publication material, or how it's fringe or looney or how people are obsessed with the topic. None of that is relevant. It's just a diversionary tactic and a way to implicitly slur people you don't like, by implying, or even coming straight out and saying, they are "obsessed" with issues you think are nonissues unworthy of discussion.

Many of the posts you folks make are not thought of as interesting, relevant or significant by other people. Most of the time, those other people just move on to things they want to deal with. It's just downright weird that some of you are continuing to grouse on and on about how irrelevant, loony, and fringe you think these issues are, and how "obsessed" you think other people are.

It's understood - you don't want to talk about this issue. You don't think it should be brought up because it's just the loony left fringe, and not anything that matters. Right! Got it! Anything else? Or are you just going to keep repeating it?

Keep ya panties on...

[JimC]

Well I think there is some value in seeing the whacky PC crap from the fringe, and you may note that most posters are not defending it, but agreeing with 42 that it is pretty damn silly, and needs to be treated as such. The proviso, of course, is that we don't see it presaging the end of civilisation as we know it...

[Seabass]

Well, your suggestion is noted. And, I have explained several times that I do not have an obsession with it, but I have an interest. I find it entertaining. I find it fascinating. I find it fascinating for the same reason I find religious fanatics and creationists, etc., fascinating and interesting - it's not that I imbue them with an overblown importance on the world - I think creationists have little real importance, but I am nevertheless fascinated by what they believe, and why they believe it.

The entire GOP are creationists, and they control the government and military of the most powerful country in the world. The "fringe loony left" in America throw bottles and sticks and break the occasional store window, and have been known to take political correctness a bit too far.

I think you are worried about the wrong things.

[rainbow]

Well I think there is some value in seeing the whacky PC crap from the fringe, and you may note that most posters are not defending it, but agreeing with 42 that it is pretty damn silly, and needs to be treated as such. The proviso, of course, is that we don't see it presaging the end of civilisation as we know it...

Quite.
Have a good larf and carry on.

[Forty Two]

Well I think there is some value in seeing the whacky PC crap from the fringe, and you may note that most posters are not defending it, but agreeing with 42 that it is pretty damn silly, and needs to be treated as such. The proviso, of course, is that we don't see it presaging the end of civilisation as we know it...

Hardly a topic discussed here involves an issue which presages the end of civilization as we know it. If we only discussed those kinds of issues, then we'd not discuss important, but not existential, issues of legislation, gun control issues, the separation of Catalan from Spain, Brexit, the latest elections in the Netherlands or France, the movies we want to see, the music we like.....

This thread was not created by me, and I've commented here almost exclusively defending against allegations that it is of no concern or significance and that there are other topics which should be discussed instead. That's because the usual suspects try to divert any thread that discusses funny and interesting issues like this into side-bar issues, derails and personal grousing.

Yes yes yes! It's damn silly! These folks are ridiculous! But...let's not talk about it...let's not understand where they author is coming from. Let's not see what her premises are, and how she reaches her conclusion. After all, we think it's ridiculous, but we want to sweep it under the rug because it's embarrassing to "our side." We only want to talk about the fringe "deniers" -- if it's a Creationist loon who thinks the world was created 6,000 years ago - that's proper fodder for thread discussion -- but, fringe loons who say logic is a creation of the patriarchy to keep women down, well, shush - no point in discussing that.

[Forty Two]

Well, your suggestion is noted. And, I have explained several times that I do not have an obsession with it, but I have an interest. I find it entertaining. I find it fascinating. I find it fascinating for the same reason I find religious fanatics and creationists, etc., fascinating and interesting - it's not that I imbue them with an overblown importance on the world - I think creationists have little real importance, but I am nevertheless fascinated by what they believe, and why they believe it.

The entire GOP are creationists, and they control the government and military of the most powerful country in the world. The "fringe loony left" in America throw bottles and sticks and break the occasional store window, and have been known to take political correctness a bit too far.

I think you are worried about the wrong things.

Well, i think you're wrong about "the entire GOP," and I think you minimize what the fringe loony left does. However, I think you worry about the wrong things, but that has no real relevance to the discussions of these kinds of threads. Discuss what you're interested in.

And, I am not in the least "worried" about the loony left - I am amused. I am entertained. I am fascinated. I am amused at their behavior (a more recent example is the other day when they had "scream at the sky" day and went out in public to holler their "barbaric yawp" at the sky express their displeasure to the world). I am entertained, because discussions of the looney left are fun for me. And, I am fascinated, again, because I sincerely do try to understand how anyone of normal intelligence can actually find their positions persuasive - so much so, that just like with religious loons, that their conviction and certainty give me this 1% pause - this nagging tap on the shoulder -- that I must - must -- literally MUST be missing something in what they're saying. Because how can arguments so bizarre, so internally inconsistent, and so illogical actually be accepted by the people making them?

[Forty Two]

Does the author in the OP have a point?

She argues that "emphasizing terms like Pythagorean theorem and pi" give the impression that math "was largely developed by Greeks and other Europeans." So, she implies either that maths was largely developed by non-Europeans, and the impression that should be given is that math was developed by non-Europeans, or that maths was largely developed by Greeks and other Europeans but that impression should be avoided or minimized because of the fact that it denigrates non-Europeans even though Greeks and other Europeans did largely develop maths.

She also worries that evaluations of math skills can perpetuate discrimination against minorities, especially if they do worse than their white counterparts. So, the argument is that minority groups as groups sometimes do worse than the white class on mathematics evaluations, therefore that disparity will "perpetuate discrimination." However, since Indians, Chinese, Japanese, etc., tend to do much better than whites on mathematics, it would seem to be a rather weak argument that ethnic differences on maths evaluations will "perpetuate discrimination." She does say "especially" if the minorities do worse -- and her argument really is that either way, whether the ethnicity does worse or better than whites, it will perpetuate discrimination. I.e., we discriminate against the good maths groups, and we discriminate against the bad maths groups. The only acceptable maths capability is that achieved by the whites.

“Are we really that smart just because we do mathematics?” she asks.Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... -professor I would think that a solid maths education is, in fact, an indicator of being "smart," in the sense of a level of intelligence and acumen. I mean, by way of example, an autistic kid who is deficient in most areas, but excels in maths is "smart." Someone who can handle differential equations is rather smart, I think. I don't mean to brag, I mean, I took Diffy-Q like a lot of people, and it took some study. I recall also that a knowledge of mathematics is essential for physics, chemistry, and biology, as well as economics and such. So, yes, it's a foundational discipline that is required if one is going to really be able to understand most areas of science, technology and engineering.

I've been trying to track down a copy of the actual paper. If anyone finds it, link it here.

I mean, this really is a fascinating argument she's making...

[Forty Two]

duplicate

[pErvinalia]

Well I think there is some value in seeing the whacky PC crap from the fringe, and you may note that most posters are not defending it, but agreeing with 42 that it is pretty damn silly, and needs to be treated as such. The proviso, of course, is that we don't see it presaging the end of civilisation as we know it...

Hardly a topic discussed here involves an issue which presages the end of civilization as we know it.

Except for the Trump threads...

[Brian Peacock]

Really?

Well, yeah - you can go to the Guardian's website and read their material. She, Jessica Valenti, has a recurring column, among other writings, called "This week in patriarchy." LOL. I loved her piece on the sexism of Christmas. Laurie Penny's "robots are sexist" article was fun, and the sexist and racial poison that we spread whenever we hire an Uber driver, well that was quite incisive.

But you said "rife". I don't think Valenti's weekly opinion and commentary column from a feminist perspective means The Guardian is 'rife with these kinds of stories', and Penny has penned less than half-a-dozen pieces for the paper this year. Sure, The Guardian as a publication leans to the left of the centre, but it's hardly a hotbed of progressive intolerance and feminazi killjoyery. 'Rife' is pure hyperbole. It's indicative of a kind of over-sensitivity which places disproportionate emphasis or weight on a relatively minor concern; it looks like an attempt to pass an implication, wrapped inside an exaggeration, off as a fact-of-life; a generalisation from the particular.

I read Penny's Uber article. I think she made some good points, including that Uber's attitude to it's employees and to women was symptomatic of a wider, bully-boy corporate culture, one driven by bolshi blokes that disrespects it's users and facilitators.

I get the feeling that you just don't like women speaking their minds from their own perspective, particularly when you don't like what they have to say.

[Forty Two]

Well I think there is some value in seeing the whacky PC crap from the fringe, and you may note that most posters are not defending it, but agreeing with 42 that it is pretty damn silly, and needs to be treated as such. The proviso, of course, is that we don't see it presaging the end of civilisation as we know it...

Hardly a topic discussed here involves an issue which presages the end of civilization as we know it.

Except for the Trump threads...

People are worrying about the wrong things. Worry about other things, please.

[Forty Two]

Really?

Well, yeah - you can go to the Guardian's website and read their material. She, Jessica Valenti, has a recurring column, among other writings, called "This week in patriarchy." LOL. I loved her piece on the sexism of Christmas. Laurie Penny's "robots are sexist" article was fun, and the sexist and racial poison that we spread whenever we hire an Uber driver, well that was quite incisive.

But you said "rife". I don't think Valenti's weekly opinion and commentary column from a feminist perspective means The Guardian is 'rife with these kinds of stories', and Penny has penned less than half-a-dozen pieces for the paper this year.

There are plenty. I'm not going to do a clearinghouse of every article published in mainstream publications on the subject matter we're referring to. I was asked where I find the articles - I find them at various mainstream sites. The Guardian was one, and there are plenty of articles from the Guardian that have been cited on plenty of threads. Other sources have included CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, Washington Post, New York Times, and other sources I cited previously. It doesn't have to be "rife" to be enough, but rife just means a common occurrence or widespread, and that's a perfect word to describe how often I've seen the material published in mainstream sources, including but not limited to the Guardian.

Sure, The Guardian as a publication leans to the left of the centre, but it's hardly a hotbed of progressive intolerance and feminazi killjoyery.

It's far left, in my view. But, I see plenty of the "looney" type articles published there and in other mainstream publications. I did not argue that it was a "hotbed" of anything. You argued that I was only getting these articles from wacko sources. I told you I get them from mainstream sources, and the Guardian is one.

'Rife' is pure hyperbole.

Not in the least. It's common to find these articles nowadays in mainstream sources. That's where I find them. They are not limited to wackjob sources.

It's indicative of a kind of over-sensitivity which places disproportionate emphasis or weight on a relatively minor concern; it looks like an attempt to pass an implication, wrapped inside an exaggeration, off as a fact-of-life; a generalisation from the particular.

Not in the least, because my choice of topics to discuss - and I'm saying this once again, after saying it multiple times before - my choice of topics has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the issue is of a major concern, and I have absolutely no concern with whether you or anyone else thinks I am placing proportionate or disproportionate weight on it. I don't go around badgering you about threads you create, and harping on about how the issue is of minor concern. I don't care if the issue is of minor concern, to whomever. I post because it's (a) fun, (b) interesting, and (c) amusing.

It is you that is taking it as a statement that world is dominated by professors who think algebra is a source of Whiteness or that the world is dominated by people who think airconditioning is sexist or that climate change is sexist. I'm not saying that. You are taking the posting of threads on those points and others to mean that these fringe views are somehow dominant and of critical importance to the world. Meanwhile, I am discussing them precisely BECAUSE they are ridiculous. Precisely BECAUSE they are looney. Precisely BECAUSE they make little sense to me. I have no real need to explore issues I already fully understand (although sometimes I like to discuss those kinds of issues too). But, where I really salivate over a topic is when, like I said before several times, it's like the creationism and religion thing - it's not because imbue those topics with disproportionate importance in the world - it's that I'm fascinated, entertained, amused, and I have a hard time fathoming how they reach their conclusions.

I don't care if only one person in the world holds a particular view. I may still find fun, entertainment, and education in a discussion of that view. Now hopefully this and my last few posts can put this dopey, idiotic discussion about who's worrying about the wrong issues, and who is talking about issues of only little importance, and whether "we" are imbuing a topic with "disproportionate" importance by having threads about it on a forum with precious little traffic in the first place, and which otherwise has threads about the taste of semen, what beer we want to drink tonight, what movies are good, NASCAR, Australia Rules Football, battles of who is better the US or the Netherlands, or the US vs Neanthertalls, shit your neighbors do that bother you, giving your DNA to ancestry sites, David Walliams, is it okay to be attracted to Smurfette, scientific proof of god, the quranic authority of the hijab and burka, whether people are as stupid as ever, the Defeat of Satan, whether God caused the solar eclipse, Jesus failing to save an idiot with a tattoo, a Pastor Eaten by Crocodiles...

So excuse me if I don't worry so much about whether you think the topics I like to discuss are being discussed instead of some other topics which you think merit discussion first...

I read Penny's Uber article. I think she made some good points, including that Uber's attitude to it's employees and to women was symptomatic of a wider, bully-boy corporate culture, one driven by bolshi blokes that disrespects it's users and facilitators.

I get the feeling that you just don't like women speaking their minds from their own perspective, particularly when you don't like what they have to say.

So you think she made some good points. Start a thread about it, and let's talk. Maybe she did. I didn't think so, when I read it. But, these ridiculous insults about me "just not liking women speaking their minds" is just silly. I don't only post what women write, and I daresay I post about equally on things men and women say. Generally, I'm not looking at the sex of the author. But you can think what you want about me. That's all more derail, irrelevancy having nothing at all to do with the topic...attacking the motive of someone raising a topic or making a point changes nothing about the topic, or the point.

[Brian Peacock]

The Guardian as a publication might appear far to the left of your particular point-of-view, but really, it's not much off the centreline - and certainly nowhere near the extreme end of the bell curve the term 'far left' might otherwise imply: basically it embodies regular social-democratic sensibilities.

[Animavore]

I guess The Guardian may seem far left for people who read publications, like Brietbart and InfoWars, so far right they fall off the far-right scale and into tinfoil hat.