Prof: Algebra, geometry perpetuate white privilege

[Forty Two]

[edit - to take out "what are you talking about?" because I really don't care]

If you want to talk about the paper about math and white privilege, let's do it. What are your thoughts, other than it being insignificant?

[pErvinalia]

I don't think Maths is white privilege.

[Forty Two]

Incisive.

[Brian Peacock]

Knowledge knows no race. Facts know no gender. A rice pudding will not stir itself, as the poet said.

[Svartalf]

rice pudding you say?

[JimC]

Damn, I haven't had rice pud for ages. Must start nagging Bron to make one...

[Hermit]

And on this thread, I'm accused of my knickers being in a twist, right? Why? I didn't start the thread. I chimed in about it, which I think is fair, isn't it? And, even if it is a fringe issue, why would that be something we can only discuss if our knickers are twisted about it? Brian Peacock implied I was some old grandad who doesn't understand the new things these days... well, if he agrees with me on it, that this is a nonsense issue and the paper is bollocks, then what is it that I'm not getting? Is it that we agree, but it should be hush-hush - let's not talk about it? Why?

Right. In this thread alone you have contributed near enough to one third of all its posts - 24 out of 78 so far to be precise - using 4373 words. That suggests an obsession with the fringe loony left to a degree that it seems fair to say that you have your knickers in a knot on the topic, and that is even before going on to consider your enthusiasm with which you contribute on the same subject in other threads, many of which you did start yourself.

There is of course nothing at all wrong with discussing the fringe loony left and the influence of its ideology on mainstream society via mainstream institutions, laws, et cetera, but you are clearly very much obsessed with the theme. Your knotty knickers are made even more obvious by your comparable silence about events of much greater significance, such as Trump's emasculation of the EPA or his torpedoing Tillerson's attempt at coming to a diplomatic solution with North Korea among others. Perhaps you see nothing wrong with either. That worries me.

[Brian Peacock]

Damn, I haven't had rice pud for ages. Must start nagging Bron to make one...

Think of the brownie points you'd score if you made her one. Why, she'd happily pre-scrub your undies for a month.

• 1 litre full fat milk
• 150ml double cream
• 140g pudding rice
• 110g caster sugar
• knob of butter (that's not a criticism by the way)
• 1 medium vanilla pod
• good sprinkle ground nutmeg

Add the milk and the sugar to an overproof dish, add the scraped innards of the vanilla pod, the butter (don't skimp) and nutmeg. Stir. Cook in the oven on a moderate-low heat (c140C) for 2 hours, stirring once after an hour and turning the heat down to low for the final 20 minutes. Serve with a dollop of clotted cream and Fire Ant chutney on the side (optional).

[JimC]

But it's so much easier to get Bron to do it...

Mind you, next year, when I'm retired, Bron is still going to be doing her tutoring, so I've promised to do some more cooking and shopping. I'll try your recipe then...

[Brian Peacock]

Lazy bugger! It takes less than five minutes to prepare. You need to stay pudding-focused Jim - live the dream!

[rainbow]

Yours, however, appear to be decidedly twisted and knotted, given the tenor of your posts and apparent anger at the fact that this issue was raised at all.

Anger?

I'm poking fun at you and your distress over someone's twatty ideas. Learn to cope.

[Forty Two]

And on this thread, I'm accused of my knickers being in a twist, right? Why? I didn't start the thread. I chimed in about it, which I think is fair, isn't it? And, even if it is a fringe issue, why would that be something we can only discuss if our knickers are twisted about it? Brian Peacock implied I was some old grandad who doesn't understand the new things these days... well, if he agrees with me on it, that this is a nonsense issue and the paper is bollocks, then what is it that I'm not getting? Is it that we agree, but it should be hush-hush - let's not talk about it? Why?

Right. In this thread alone you have contributed near enough to one third of all its posts - 24 out of 78 so far to be precise - using 4373 words.

I daresay most of it is defending my posting here, defending the value of the discussion of this topic, defending against people calling me old grandad and alleging I am only posting because my knickers are in a twist, etc. -- i.e. trying to address the refrain that discussion of these types of issues is somehow not proper.

That suggests an obsession with the fringe loony left to a degree that it seems fair to say that you have your knickers in a knot on the topic, and that is even before going on to consider your enthusiasm with which you contribute on the same subject in other threads, many of which you did start yourself.

One, most of my words here have been responding the tangential issues of the value and significance of the topic, and various veiled and not so veiled insults, so that hardly "suggests" an obsession with the topic.

And who the hell cares even if my knickers were in a knot? Why is it so important that my knickers not be in a twist? Or, that I get them twisted about issues anyone else agrees merit knicker-twisting? The topic is still the topic, and those interested can discuss it and those who aren't interested don't have to. It does not hurt anyone to discuss a topic.

Imagine if my knickers were twisted over the results of the recent US baseball World Series championship, and I posted a thread where I raged against some perceived injustice by umpires, faulty reporting by media, and improper behavior by players. I am just enraged by it. Let's also imagine few other ratzians think the issue merits discussion, and most think it is an insignificant issue and of no reason for concern of any kind.

So what? The reality is, even if I created several threads involving several discrete incidents during the World Series, and only one other ratzian even cared enough about baseball to interact with me at all about it, would that be reason for folks to go on and on about how my knickers were in a twist, and bleating about how I'm overblowing the significance of the sport and the events in question? Of course not - you know what would happen? People who were interested would discuss the topic and those that weren't wouldn't. And, some folks would joke about how baseball isn't a real sport, or how it's really just rounders ,and whatnot, and how only Americans like baseball for some stupid reason, etc., but the constant interference with the thread by people obviously trying to shut down discussion of baseball-related topics would not exist.

There is of course nothing at all wrong with discussing the fringe loony left and the influence of its ideology on mainstream society via mainstream institutions, laws, et cetera,

Or, even just discussing individual instances of lunacy, without reference to its influence or the influence of leftist ideology on mainstream society. Either way - nothing wrong with it.

but you are clearly very much obsessed with the theme.

Interested, yes. It's like someone interested in atheism and religion. They tend to create many threads within that heading. Moreover, who cares if I'm obsessed? Some people create a lot of threads about gun crime or guns? Are they "obsessed" or just "interested?" Either way, do we have to render each thread in that topic area a referendum on the merits of having the discussion at all, or the significance of the issue and whether other members of the forum think the topics are worth discussing?

Your knotty knickers are made even more obvious by your comparable silence about events of much greater significance, such as Trump's emasculation of the EPA or his torpedoing Tillerson's attempt at coming to a diplomatic solution with North Korea among others. Perhaps you see nothing wrong with either. That worries me.

There are plenty of highly significant issues that I don't create threads about, or spend time talking about. I daresay, I'm sure there are numerous highly significant issues that you don't focus much attention on either. However, I haven't seen you create threads on Trump's emasculation of the EPA or the torpedoing of Tillerson's attempt at coming to a diplomatic solution with North Korea, among others.

Failing to discuss issues is not a statement of whether one sees nothing wrong with something. I don't see you posting anything about Australia's injustice toward its indigenous people, or Australia's environmental problems, like overfishing, overgrazing, deforestation, an the displacement of biodiversity through infrastructure development along the coast. Perhaps you see nothing wrong with that. Should that worry me?

The point I'm trying to make is that on a forum discussion board where topics range from the taste of semen, to stupid memes, to serious political discussion, to sports, to theater, to movies, to music, to parodies of serious threads, to parodies of parodies of other threads, to discussion of atheism, religion, human rights, to the environment, to geology, to geography and maps, to cartoons, to 50 year old sitcoms, to books and movies people like, to the beer people feel like to drinking on Friday, and to whether someone is having a bad day today.... I mean -- come on dude. You're really going to suggest that I have to make sure I only post on topics of sufficient seriousness (in other people's estimation) that they are of greater "significance?"

Today, someone just created a thread "US vs the Netherlands" to discuss which country is better. It's unclear why that warranted multiple threads, since there already was a "truth about the Netherregions," and also "truth about the Netherlands" threads (one or the other apparently a parody), and "Well Done Holland," and various other threads about or concerning the Netherlands on one way or another. Yesterday, someone created a thread entitled "Shit your neighbors do..." apparently to discuss stuff that one's neighbor does that is irksome. The other day another member created a thread about "a brilliant way to sound brainy" which discusses how to sound intelligent. A thread was created about Socialism Coming, discussing socialism - even though there are many other threads already existing about socialism - and then a parody was created called "Socialites coming" to poke fun at it, referring to debutantes. Other threads created recently include David Walliams provoking "outrage," whether it's appropriate to give your DNA to those DNA sites, and "Is it okay to be attracted to Smurfette" the cartoon character. A thread was just created about "Discarded Sweets and Chocolates." There's "Only in America" a thread dedicated to insulting Americans. Someone created a thread about Germany to Allow a Third Gender in Registry of Births, and I did not see anyone getting scolded for bringing that up. The list goes on and on.

Indeed, I notice you contributed a lot to the "Anne Frank Train" thread, about the propriety of naming a German train after Anne Frank. Oh, and "Apocalypse When" involving idle speculation about predictions of the end of the world. The "magic mushrooms" thread got your attention, too, along with "Is Facebook Killing Freedom and Liberty", "Prince Phillip" and other threads of apparently fairly low "significance" on the scale you've presented. I haven't found any threads where you're addressing Trump's decimation of the EPA or undermining Tillerson.

Isn't it the reality that most of us post on serious and not-so-serious issues, and that we all have differences of opinion as to what topics merit discussion? And isn't it the reality that nobody is prioritizing their discussions in order of geopolitical or societal importance in any real way? Don't we all post here in some respect for fun, and that some issues that are fun to discuss are not necessarily the most critical to the survival of the planet or our civilization?

[Forty Two]

Yours, however, appear to be decidedly twisted and knotted, given the tenor of your posts and apparent anger at the fact that this issue was raised at all.

Anger?

I'm poking fun at you and your distress over someone's twatty ideas. Learn to cope.

That's like arguing that an atheist is distressed by the twatty ideas of a moronic creationist, because the atheist starts threads about creationism and addresses the moronic creationist arguments. I.e., I'm not distressed by the paper. I'm interested in it because it is so stupid that the fact of its publication is rather amazing, as is the fact that otherwise educated people appear to be able to accept such ideas as having merit.

In that vein, it's the same reason I am fascinated by religious arguments, creationism and religious belief in general - because I have a hard time fathoming how someone can buy into those notions or find them rational or persuasive. I tend to look for what I must be missing. If someone is persuaded, I want to understand how they are persuaded. What is the argument? How does it make sense to them?

That's the value of addressing this kind of an issue. We an look at the conclusion, which most everyone here seems to agree is absolutely absurd and ridiculous, and we can discuss how the author came up with the argument that allowed the author to, with a straight face, submit this non-parody for publication, and how an editor or reviewer, probably more than one, read it and thought it suitable for publication.

Understanding mad arguments in that way has value.

I notice you're asking me to learn to cope now, and not grow testicles (as you previously suggested). Would it help me cope if I grew "a pair?" Are those in possession of "a pair" better able to cope? Just wondering.

[rainbow]

I notice you're asking me to learn to cope now, and not grow testicles (as you previously suggested).

...free advice. Use it, don't use it - all the same to me.

Would it help me cope if I grew "a pair?" Are those in possession of "a pair" better able to cope? Just wondering.

a figure of speech
I didn't expect you to literally gain a set of testicles. I don't even know if it is possible.

[Sean Hayden]

I'm interested in it because it is so stupid that the fact of its publication is rather amazing, as is the fact that otherwise educated people appear to be able to accept such ideas as having merit.

--smart people give dumb ideas credit because they tend to do other people's thinking for them. It's why I tend to think everyone else is a fucking genius.