Prof: Algebra, geometry perpetuate white privilege

[Forty Two]

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.

That's why I listed it among the examples of sources where these "looney" issues are reported and published. It's precisely BECAUSE it is a mainstream, highly respected publication. Recall, the issue was "oh, 42, where in heavens name do you find these crazy issues..." and I said mainstream sources, and I was then asked to show those sources - and I did. I don't think the Washington Post is wackjob sjw all the time either, but they did publish articles about the devastating sexism of air conditioning.

[pErvinalia]

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.

That just sums it up, really. The Guardian isn't far left.

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.

Good for you. And we reply because we think you are blowing this stuff out of proportion. Deal with it.

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.

Don't be disingenuous. You've repeatedly stated in the past that you view these people as a threat to a society.

[pErvinalia]

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

[pErvinalia]

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.

That's why I listed it among the examples of sources where these "looney" issues are reported and published. It's precisely BECAUSE it is a mainstream, highly respected publication.

So which is it, "far left" or "mainstream"? I suppose you are going to claim now that the far left is the mainstream. I hope not. That would be especially ridiculous.

Recall, the issue was "oh, 42, where in heavens name do you find these crazy issues..." and I said mainstream sources, and I was then asked to show those sources - and I did.

Recall that you called the Guardian "far left". We disagree. Deal with it.

[Animavore]

The Guardian is only just left of centre and it's reporting one of the most accurate on Fact Checker. It also has some of the best science reporting in the World. Unlike climate-denying right-wing rags it actually has actual scientists or science-trained journalists rather than fossil industry shills. It's one of the go-to stops if another paper posts an article on a science paper you suspect is straight up bullshit.

Far left me bollox. Anyone who thinks that has lost the plot.

[Animavore]

Fox is so far right it's considered only good for confirming your biases. And Breitbart and InfoWars are barely considered news.

[NineBerry]

Mainstream publications nowadays have columns where people write controversial posts that are not in line with the editorial stance of the publication. That's for generating clicks and income from a diverse audience that would otherwise not come to this publication.

[Forty Two]

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

Thomas the Tank Engine is White Supremacy - https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... en-parents - Sir Topham Hatt, is the symbol of white supremacist dictatorship, ruling over the slave trains who have to do what Hatt says and are chided to be "really useful." LOL

The Guardian warns of the "danger" of Katy Perry, Avril Lavigne and Gwen Stefani using Japanese imagery https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ing-racism

Hairy microaggressions - https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... e-daughter

This Week in Patriarchy - https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... nti-column

Lifelong Liberal says Sam Harris and Milo Yianopoulus nearly turned him into a raving racist - https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... lamophobia

[Animavore]

Ah! Revenue clicks. I've heard of those.

[NineBerry]

Note the "commentisfree" in the URL. This is what I have described above. This is a trap to lure people on the site to generate income from advertisement with little investment. You seem to run into these traps like a wasp for plum cake.

[Animavore]

Note the "commentisfree" in the URL. This is what I have described above. This is a trap to lure people on the site to generate income from advertisement with little investment. You seem to run into these traps like a wasp for plum cake.

Other red flags you're looking at worthless, click-bait articles that show up in URLs are :-

Code: Select all

http://www.breitbart.com 
http://www.infowars.com 

[Forty Two]

From the Guardian, among other mainstream publications. I'm not claiming the Guardian is a bullshit clickbait source. You are.

[NineBerry]

The "commentisfree" part of the Guardian is a bullshit clickbait source targeting people not able to recognize it as such...

[Forty Two]

Yes, and the question here is not the validity of the papers, which of course we all say is looney and wacko, right? The question posed to me was "where do you find these articles" and stating that they are only published on obscure websites or right wing wacko stuff. I responded that I found the stuff in mainstream publications, and the Guardian was one of many. That's true. It's not bizarre to find stuff in the Guardian. It's not bizarre to find it in the Washington Post. I'm not digging this stuff out of the woodwork from some silly blog.

[NineBerry]

The question where those stories are published and how you find them are two different ones.