Quote:
|
Originally Posted by demonrail666
I have friends in science departments who say they're increasingly self-censoring simply by not looking into areas that might end up giving the 'wrong' answer, for fear of losing funding or simple demonisation, or worse. No biologist wants to look into anything that might contradict the approved 'woke' position on gender, and face being called a trans-phobe as a consequence. Just as you won't find many Climatologists willing to ask difficult questions about man made climate change, just in case.
|
modern-day galileos facing inquisitions? i suppose there are some but i don’t think they abound (yet).
also i don’t know that gender issues are merely an issue of “wokeness” though. let’s not make a mishmash of the issues.
eg., see:
https://www.newscientist.com/article...on-brain-scan/
or
https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0213112317.htm
[eta] or:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0524112351.htm
the problem i have with peterson is—i like him as a psychologist. i like him as an intellectual even, for some things. but i don’t take him as someone who knows everything about everything.
just because he studied one neurotransmitter in a lobster tank, or wrote a book about meaning in christianity and buddhism, it does not follow that he can extrapolate knowledgeably about transgender human brains. he makes gross generalizations and is arrogant.
yes, biology is important—but he’s not an expert on transgender biology. yes, the grammar can be a pain in the ass. and yes, maybe there shouldn’t be a law in canada banning people from insulting others with the wrong pronouns—and that’s his “hot” issue, not that of gender, but one of
the wrongness of legally policing speech.
but wishing away what we can’t comfortably understand or accept, or rejecting it on the basis of coarse pseudoscientific overgeneralization is neither scientific nor honest. “biology is important.” exactly! so take it seriously.
and then the extrapolations that his followers make... into all manner of dumb atrocity (just read the comments under his youtube videos... wow....)
[eta] part of the problem of course is that almost nobody debates him on scientific terms, but shake placards in front of his face instead. it’s, again, religion that defines the terms: faith or heresy, dogma or anathema, tesring of clothes and much gnashing of teeth. but to me, his problem is simply that lobster serotonin is interesting, but it is not the key to the whole universe amd range of human experience.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by demonrail666
Meanwhile a Harvard Law professor who represented Harvey Weinstein has just been dismissed due to student protests. So Harvard Law School (supposedly the most respected law school in the world) has just folded under pressure from students effectively questioning the legal right of representation. I mean where do you even start?
|
oh yeah that is fucked up. tenure was created PRECISELY for those reasons.
if harvard law wants to become a joke then someone else will be waiting in the wings to replace them though.
eta: he wasn’t let go from the law school, he was let go as “faculty dean” of an “undergraduate house” because of “the climate.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/11/u...n-harvard.html
some kind of babysitting job looks like
their term ends june 30, and theyre not renewing them that is all.
he’s still a professor im assuming, but will find out more...
eta: this is the cattle barn known as “winthrop house”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winthrop_House
where he will no longer be a babysitter for the mentally afflicted
and this is his faculty page in harvard law school website:
https://hls.harvard.edu/faculty/dire...10870/Sullivan
where he’s still a professor.
he”s also director of the criminal law institute at harvard law school
https://clinics.law.harvard.edu/cji/staff/
nobody has taken away his tenure nor threatened to do so
he’s just no longer in charge of the daycare facility