Tuesday, December 06, 2016

Reality or group speak?

would ET use language and perceive the world as we do?

related item: Improbable research asks: Do words have meanings?

they write:

We have been advised that this published study possibly says something:

“This essay emerges from an ongoing mother-son dialogue about contemporary gender relations and their genesis in the history of patriarchy. In order to reframe patriarchy as a relational construct, rather than a simple group-based oppression, a performative notion of identities grounds the paper. It offers a critique of the body of literature that has developed under the broad heading of “evolutionary psychology,” insisting that gendered relations are not outcomes of genetic selection, divine mandate, or historical inevitability. An antidotal, millennia-spanning history of gender is offered as an epistemically and politically preferable explanation for patriarchal relations.”
actually, theOtherMcCain publishes lots of similar examples of what is cutting edge feminist group think.

or check out this right wing blog:

the dirty dozen of bizarre college courses.

A lot of it is pretty weird, (one is reminded of the taxicab driver rule: If it would sound crazy to an ordinary taxi cab driver, it probably is).

But with group think, it is outsiders who are getting the boot... starting with private business, then censoring college professors, then pushing people around under "human rights" commissions, then actually using the power of the law to stop those who disagree.

Think Brenden Eich. Think Professor Esolen. Think the Christian cakemakers. Think Mark Steyn. Think the Little Sisters of the Poor.

and with Obamacare and it's guidlines, think doctors, nurses, and Catholic hospitals being pressured into killing patients in the same way I was pressured to do abortions in the late 1960's.

the problem is related to the one I posted about a few days ago: that the proliferation of radical ideas and the censorship of those who disagree with them is not a good thing. Especially when they ignore reality.

This is not a new idea: I was reading up on Burke, who seems to have said the same thing about the French revolution, that wanted to destroy society and it's institutions so they could enact laws based on their latest intellectual fad.

But religious law, common law, and customs encode the experience of millions of years of human experience. They at least are reality based, unlike the ideas of philosopher kings.

or as Feynman put it:

"For a successful technology," Feynman concluded, "reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."
one could say the same thing for a gender theory that ignores a couple million years of evolutionary biology and how humans have made rules and customs to defend the family for at least 10 thousand years.

I understand why the snowflakes insist they need to ignore the Great Books and the ideas of western philosophy, in the name of "diversity", but you know, they never include Asian or Confucian ideas into their critiques either.

so much for "diversity".

No comments: