Drop the term Anglo-Saxon as it is ‘bound up with white supremacy’, say academics

First topic message reminder :

Academics have called for the term Anglo-Saxon to be dropped because it is “bound up with white supremacy” — an idea described as “mad as a bag of ferrets” by one historian.

The term traditionally refers to groups from across the North Sea, including Angles and Saxons, who settled in Britain after the end of Roman rule, and to their descendants and their culture until the Norman Conquest.

However, it has also been used by imperialists and white-supremacists to describe white people of British origin. Hitler wrote admiringly of “Anglo-Saxon determination” to hold India. Some academics believe that the term is not only tainted by these associations but is also historically inaccurate.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/drop-the-term-anglo-saxon-as-it-is-bound-up-with-white-supremacy-say-academics-d66dlztfj



The best response to this idocy, was by Historian and author Tom Holland. Who is very left wing to say the least but sums up dumb this view is.

Tom Holland wrote:
Ffs - you don’t take “problems with white supremacy seriously” by ceding a phrase used by our most heroic & admirable king to racists, & replacing it with a word profoundly inadequate to explicating the complexities of how an Anglian/Saxon polity emerged.

To reiterate: anyone not driven mad by spending too long in the hothouse of a US humanities department can recognise that when French economists, American Nazis & British archaeologists use the phrase ‘Anglo-Saxon’, they all mean different things by it. It’s really not difficult.

The only way that will change is if academics persist in waving the white flag (sic), surrendering the use of the phrase, & allowing racists to take possession of it.

Not least because ‘English’ is already the word that white racists in England tend to use to describe themselves, whereas for most people in this country ‘Anglo-Saxons’ = the losers who got shat on at the battle of Hastings

Plus, of course, describing the early Anglian & Saxon kingdoms as ‘English’ would be as anachronistic & distorting as describing Clovis as ‘French’.

The very contingency of the term ‘Anglo-Saxon’, the way it was constructed by Alfred to signify the emergent kingdom of what would become England, & to be back-projected onto an imagined past, is what makes it so useful.

It’s basically a projection of an academic culture war in the US onto the very different circumstances prevailing in this country. One might almost call it colonialist.

https://twitter.com/holland_tom/status/1192703551090417664

phildidge wrote:

phildidge wrote:

Matthew Goodwin wrote:
In the last few YouGov polls the % of 18-24-year-olds planning to vote Labour has moved from

October 25 - 35%

October 30 - 38%

Nov 1 - 44%

Nov 6 - 54%

https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1192799362537152513

A glowing example of leftist indoctrination in schools

As this is the biggest support pool that the far left labour have under Corbyn

No other age group matches the support for this form of far leftism

I rest my case

It is not surprising that young people support a leftist party - this is pretty common throughout the last 100 years.

Eilzel wrote:

phildidge wrote:Wonderful but failed to answer the second and mot important of all questions

Well communism does not work for many reasons, as it always entails enforcing authoritarianism. Many young people will not often see or be taught the many times it is problematic and has been in history. So if you are an exception to the rule, because in my time, it was haild as magical, by said history teacher. So you claim you would be impartial. Sorry but everyone has a bias even when teaching and nobody is immune to this. If you think you are, then you are lying. As no teacher is truely impartial. Their own subconcious bias always plays out in these situations

Again what would you have done facing the issues at Evergreen?

Would you have backed the polict to have whites not attend school?

Would you have been like Bret Weinstein and stood up to this racist bullshit or been complict in this racist bullshit?

I would never stand by a policy that doesn't allow white people to attend a school, never.

Of course we are all going to have a bit of bias, that is impossible to avoid and I don't deny it. This would not be helped by home schooling, however, if fact more likely it would be worsened. But a good teacher will do their best to be impartial. My history teachers (at school and uni) were (though one openly admitted to being a bit 'red' he never let it slip into his teaching). I believe I balance this well too, but of course I would.

To be fair, considering GCSEs and A levels cover the Soviet Era and Stalinism, I find it hard to accept students are not being exposed to the horrors of Soviet Communism.

See my last post and see why revently students tried to argue that gulags were a good thing

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/09/11/soviet-labour-camps-compassionate-educational-institutions-say/

Eilzel wrote:

phildidge wrote:

It is not surprising that young people support a leftist party - this is pretty common throughout the last 100 years.

Really, show the stats to prove your stance here?

phildidge wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

phildidge wrote:Wonderful but failed to answer the second and mot important of all questions

Well communism does not work for many reasons, as it always entails enforcing authoritarianism. Many young people will not often see or be taught the many times it is problematic and has been in history. So if you are an exception to the rule, because in my time, it was haild as magical, by said history teacher. So you claim you would be impartial. Sorry but everyone has a bias even when teaching and nobody is immune to this. If you think you are, then you are lying. As no teacher is truely impartial. Their own subconcious bias always plays out in these situations

Again what would you have done facing the issues at Evergreen?

Would you have backed the polict to have whites not attend school?

Would you have been like Bret Weinstein and stood up to this racist bullshit or been complict in this racist bullshit?

I would never stand by a policy that doesn't allow white people to attend a school, never.

Of course we are all going to have a bit of bias, that is impossible to avoid and I don't deny it. This would not be helped by home schooling, however, if fact more likely it would be worsened. But a good teacher will do their best to be impartial. My history teachers (at school and uni) were (though one openly admitted to being a bit 'red' he never let it slip into his teaching). I believe I balance this well too, but of course I would.

To be fair, considering GCSEs and A levels cover the Soviet Era and Stalinism, I find it hard to accept students are not being exposed to the horrors of Soviet Communism.

See my last post and see why revently students tried to argue that gulags were a good thing

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/09/11/soviet-labour-camps-compassionate-educational-institutions-say/

Again, a bunch of activists at one university. Idiots exist, sadly, but these various isolated incidents are just that - isolated.

I'm pretty sure if you ask 99/100 students in most universities they will tell you the gulags were the brutal places they were.

My last post before i go to bed

I think homeschooling is a poor educational method. Yet the current educational system is corrupt and driven by an uinblanced number of far leftist teachers. Driving policies within schools and Universities. More so in cities than rural areas. Where at least there is some semblance of sanity.

So I do not trust the education system and even more when over 50% of 18-24% of students think Corbyn is a good thing. When he is the least popular opposition leader in history. Can you not see the issue here, for then so many young people to think he is great? That is called brainwashing mate

Night

phildidge wrote:

Eilzel wrote:


It is not surprising that young people support a leftist party - this is pretty common throughout the last 100 years.

Really, show the stats to prove your stance here?

I have no solid stats here, but the 'Churchill quote' shows this is a commonly held perception:

"If you’re not a socialist when you’re young, you have no heart. If you’re not a conservative when you’re older, you have no brain."

Regardless of how much I agree with this statement (I don't), it does show that youth leaning left is a common pattern.

If you want stats, I don't have them. If you want to take that as me being wrong, go ahead, I don't really care.

phildidge wrote:My last post before i go to bed

I think homeschooling is a poor educational method. Yet the current educational system is corrupt and driven by an uinblanced number of far leftist teachers. Driving policies within schools and Universities. More so in cities than rural areas. Where at least there is some semblance of sanity.

So I do not trust the education system and even more when over 50% of 18-24% of students think Corbyn is a good thing. When he is the least popular opposition leader in history. Can you not see the issue here, for then so many young people to think he is great? That is called brainwashing mate

Night

Translation: "I don't trust the education system because the teachers don't agree with me about politics."

I doubt that was your last post, but if it is, goodnight

Eilzel wrote:

phildidge wrote:Wonderful but failed to answer the second and mot important of all questions

Well communism does not work for many reasons, as it always entails enforcing authoritarianism. Many young people will not often see or be taught the many times it is problematic and has been in history. So if you are an exception to the rule, because in my time, it was haild as magical, by said history teacher. So you claim you would be impartial. Sorry but everyone has a bias even when teaching and nobody is immune to this. If you think you are, then you are lying. As no teacher is truely impartial. Their own subconcious bias always plays out in these situations

Again what would you have done facing the issues at Evergreen?

Would you have backed the polict to have whites not attend school?

Would you have been like Bret Weinstein and stood up to this racist bullshit or been complict in this racist bullshit?

I would never stand by a policy that doesn't allow white people to attend a school, never.

Of course we are all going to have a bit of bias, that is impossible to avoid and I don't deny it. This would not be helped by home schooling, however, if fact more likely it would be worsened. But a good teacher will do their best to be impartial. My history teachers (at school and uni) were (though one openly admitted to being a bit 'red' he never let it slip into his teaching). I believe I balance this well too, but of course I would.

To be fair, considering GCSEs and A levels cover the Soviet Era and Stalinism, I find it hard to accept students are not being exposed to the horrors of Soviet Communism.

Les, my son had a wonderful history teacher. That teacher, never failed to look at both sides and certainly didn’t indoctrinate my son. If he had, my son would have been clever enough to see through it...and he’d have hated him.
Now he’s studying for a degree in history.

Enough said.

eddie wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

phildidge wrote:Wonderful but failed to answer the second and mot important of all questions

Well communism does not work for many reasons, as it always entails enforcing authoritarianism. Many young people will not often see or be taught the many times it is problematic and has been in history. So if you are an exception to the rule, because in my time, it was haild as magical, by said history teacher. So you claim you would be impartial. Sorry but everyone has a bias even when teaching and nobody is immune to this. If you think you are, then you are lying. As no teacher is truely impartial. Their own subconcious bias always plays out in these situations

Again what would you have done facing the issues at Evergreen?

Would you have backed the polict to have whites not attend school?

Would you have been like Bret Weinstein and stood up to this racist bullshit or been complict in this racist bullshit?

I would never stand by a policy that doesn't allow white people to attend a school, never.

Of course we are all going to have a bit of bias, that is impossible to avoid and I don't deny it. This would not be helped by home schooling, however, if fact more likely it would be worsened. But a good teacher will do their best to be impartial. My history teachers (at school and uni) were (though one openly admitted to being a bit 'red' he never let it slip into his teaching). I believe I balance this well too, but of course I would.

To be fair, considering GCSEs and A levels cover the Soviet Era and Stalinism, I find it hard to accept students are not being exposed to the horrors of Soviet Communism.

Les, my son had a wonderful history teacher. That teacher, never failed to look at both sides and certainly didn’t indoctrinate my son. If he had, my son would have been clever enough to see through it...and he’d have hated him.
Now he’s studying for a degree in history.

Enough said.

Exactly, a prime example of the qualities of so many teachers. My cousin just got into a really good college and is doing history too, I hope he'll take it though to university in a year and a half when he finishes his A levels. Again, both clearly have great education. I think some people have too negative a view on young people, seeking to deride them for any decision that strays even a little from what they think is right

Your son will do great at Cambridge, for sure, he's done very well for himself, and while you and I may disagree a lot, he definitely has you to thank too for his own critical thinking and open mindedness.

Eilzel wrote:

phildidge wrote:My last post before i go to bed

I think homeschooling is a poor educational method. Yet the current educational system is corrupt and driven by an uinblanced number of far leftist teachers. Driving policies within schools and Universities. More so in cities than rural areas. Where at least there is some semblance of sanity.

So I do not trust the education system and even more when over 50% of 18-24% of students think Corbyn is a good thing. When he is the least popular opposition leader in history. Can you not see the issue here, for then so many young people to think he is great? That is called brainwashing mate

Night

Translation: "I don't trust the education system because the teachers don't agree with me about politics."

I doubt that was your last post, but if it is, goodnight

You mean not agree with me on fighting antisemitism?

Indeed, as why would over 50% support a part y that is far left in views.

Like I said to Quill. I stand against rthe far right and far left

The left stand against the far right and stand hand in hand with the Far left

I dont trust the education system, if it was politically corrupt and so should you also concern yourself at this

You do not of course because you also have no issue with the extreme left

Eilzel wrote:

phildidge wrote:

Really, show the stats to prove your stance here?

I have no solid stats here, but the 'Churchill quote' shows this is a commonly held perception:

"If you’re not a socialist when you’re young, you have no heart. If you’re not a conservative when you’re older, you have no brain."

Regardless of how much I agree with this statement (I don't), it does show that youth leaning left is a common pattern.

If you want stats, I don't have them. If you want to take that as me being wrong, go ahead, I don't really care.

lol a quote by Churchill

ha ha ha

I knew you never had them, because you continually talk bollocks

Like I said, the young are easily currptable by an educat-ion system that is inherantly left biased

Kids brains have not developed properly by this point and hence are easily swayed by poor and bad teachers. Who place their own political bias over teaching what is best for children

The funniest thing though is the plan by schools to indoctrinate kids, seems to fail when their brains fully develope. They clear come to recognise the garbage they have been spoon fed by teachers and no longer support leftist claptrap

Is not the human body wonderful...

Mate, you've had 4 hours kip and come back as ratty as you were this morning (my time).

Go back to bed

lol so nothing to counter my points just immature personal claptrap lol

I never need much sleep

https://twitter.com/HeatherEHeying/status/1193244578221973504

Anothr glowing example of this madness

Eilzel wrote:

phildidge wrote:Do you know what really fucks me off is how the left continually deny this reality,. Even when i was in school I had one history teacher so inept. You thought his political views matter more than teaching the history syllabus. So much so that out of 103 students only 5 of passed the history exam. Me with an A. Mainly as I read outside the bullshit that was being taught in the classroom. He congratulated every student except me for passing and hated the fact he had to accept me into his A'levls politics class. Which I am not even going to go into.

Do you know I used to get into so much trouble at school, because I was cocky, but no matter what. My parents laid the law down to me and if ever I was in trouble at school I got a right hiding. Except for one occasion. When this militant leftist teacher. Teaching latin. Whilst in the thrid year. Got very political and i stood up to his bullshit. He made up some crap about me and I got suspended. When I told my parents what had happened. My dad was furious, even more over this teacher politicising a language lesson. It was the only time I saw my father get angry and take my side. In the end thre teacher was suspended. Who I later became friends with funnilly enough when I left school.

The point is I have seen first hand the kind of claptrap indoctrination that goes on in schools and for that twat eilzel to think I get this from youtube videos. Show how little he actually respects me. For you to discount my experince and how I have researched this. Shows its not me being closeminded mate, but you

I'm sorry you had such a bad teacher.

However, who is being closed minded when it is you telling me what I do as a teacher?

So I'll ask again for clarification: what exactly would I allow as a teacher?

Edit: no I would not allow any of those things. Mostly because if I taught in England, I'd teach History or English l, where they wouldn't be relevant. Even if I taught science though, I'd teach the curriculum, not trendy nonsense.

Any more?

The key to understanding didge's antipathy toward higher education is: he was kicked out of a university graduate History program, given a lesser certificate, and sent along his way. Now, he resorts to pure tribalism for revenge: university = leftists who (surprise!) censor contrary ideas. Because...that's what happened to him!

Didge is not a processor of ideas; he is an accumulator, or collector, of ideas. (Very little of his contribution on this site goes beyond posting other people's ideas, in a c&p fashion.) A graduate program requires some ability in theory and analysis. He didn't make the cut, and has been vindictive and resentful ever sense.

An important facet of didge's personal platform is to punish lefty teachers and professors for what they did to him. A great deal of his agenda involves c&p's about universities and their allegedly restrictive practices. They rejected him, largely because of his lack of reasoning abilities, and he wants to change the narrative to: it was intolerance of his RW views. Hence, his preoccupation with, not just universities, but their allegedly restrictive policies and practices.

lol, you know when someone is desperate they make up a load of bat shit bullshit about me. I take that as a compliment. As it means Quill has no answer to my points and can only try to deligitimise me with falsehoods. But I expect nothing less from the left.

At no point have I ever expressed to punish teachers or professors, which is something the actual cancel woke culture do. Which is even more hilarious and it shows the desperate lenghs Quill will go to in debates. The worst being his false cvlaims against Nicko. It shows fundementally Quill when losing debates has to resort to lies.

Considering my economic views are right wing and my social views are liberal shows again Quill after many years of debating. Does not have the first clue about me.

Again i find that hilarious

Higher Education’s Enemy Within

An army of nonfaculty staff push for action and social justice at the expense of free inquiry.

American higher education seems to be in a permanent state of crisis. Almost monthly, a federal court has occasion to reprimand some college or university for improperly chilling speech, even as some students continue to complain that campuses are too friendly to the wrong kind of speakers. Many institutions have cut back on faculty hiring, even as the cost of tuition grows. Two basic, and mutually reinforcing, phenomena are behind the chaos on campus.

First, colleges and universities have subordinated their historic mission of free inquiry to a new pursuit of social justice. Consider the remarkable evolution of Yale’s mission statement. For decades the university said its purpose was “to create, preserve, and disseminate knowledge.” The language was banal enough, but nevertheless on the money. In 2016, however, Yale’s president announced a new mission statement, which no longer mentions knowledge. Instead, Yale is now officially “committed to improving the world” and educating “aspiring leaders”—not only through research, but also through “practice.”

Second, American colleges and universities have been overwhelmed by a dangerous alliance of academic bureaucrats and student activists committed to imposing the latest social-justice diktats. This alliance has displaced the traditional governors of the university—the faculty. Indeed, nonfaculty administrators and activists are driving some of the most dangerous developments in university life, including the erosion of the due-process rights of faculty and students, efforts to regulate the “permissible limits” of classroom discussion, and the condemnation of unwelcome ideas as “hate speech.”

How did the university lose its way? How did this new alliance of activists and administrators supplant the faculty?

Though there are many factors, they all point back to a far-reaching intellectual confusion that pervades the nation’s campuses, from dorm rooms to classrooms. Too many in higher education are unwilling or unable to maintain a distinction that lies at the core of the liberal democratic project, and at the center of the West’s intellectual tradition: the distinction between inquiry and action, speech and conduct.

At one time, not so long ago, it was obvious that colleges and universities were the embodiment of this distinction, dedicated above all to serious reflection. Their purpose was to instruct students in methods and habits of free inquiry. It was equally clear what universities were not. They were not places to absorb and enforce “correct” answers to our unsettled social, cultural, moral or economic debates.

Maintaining that distinction between inquiry and action has always been crucial to academic freedom. It is difficult, after all, to obtain the truth while you are being bludgeoned into submission.

But today that distinction has been blurred, with nonfaculty administrators doing the blurring. Gone is the approach that I took for granted when I was one such administrator. As the legal adviser to three Yale presidents, I was pleased to think that my job was largely to protect our faculty from undue risks, so that the university could fulfill its core mission as a place of inquiry.

But now the ambitions of university staff are much greater. They seek to achieve diversity, inclusion and equity—defined, ever vaguely, on their terms. And so the nonfaculty staff—who, unlike the faculty, are dedicated to doing rather than deliberating—set the tone on campus.

A similar conceptual confusion has facilitated the rise of today’s student activists.

It may surprise you to learn that the faculty plays almost no role in the admissions process at most universities. Instead, that process has been handed to specialized “admissions departments.” Faculty members who want to be involved in admissions are relegated to toothless advisory committees, where they are lucky to be invited to glimpse the making of the sausage. Admissions “professionals” are less interested in traditional academic criteria, such as scholastic talent and intellectual openness, than they are in flashier virtues such as “activism,” “leadership” or “overcoming adversity.” Students now arrive on campus having been instructed to promote themselves as “social entrepreneurs” or “change makers.” It has become common for applicants to claim to have “founded,” at 17, some shiny-sounding nonprofit devoted to beneficent acts.

The contemporary admissions process thus reflects and advances a transformation of the university from a place of thought to an instrument of social action. Is it any wonder that students go searching for windmills at which to tilt?

As the new species of bureaucrats and student activists have come to dominate the university, they have reshaped it in their image. Wherever possible, they have sought to muddle the distinction between intellectual deliberation and political action—thus making certain thoughts, like certain deeds, into crimes.

What can be done to counteract these baleful developments? We must look to the faculty itself, which can still exercise substantial influence, even if only in self-defense. The faculty, besieged though it is, must reassert its historic centrality in the university and stand ready to protect the search for truth. If it fails to do so, faculty members have only themselves to blame for their disempowerment.

But the faculty needs help. Trustees and alumni have a role to play. Trustees can start by recalling their considerable legal authority. They should demand detailed justifications for each and every deputy deanship and assistant directorship that swells the bureaucratic ranks. Trimming nonfaculty staff positions would require effort, but it wouldn’t be impossible—unlike faculty, these positions lack the protections of tenure.

Alumni must also become wiser in their philanthropy. At big-name institutions, bureaucratic bloat is made possible by immense endowments and endless fundraising campaigns. For too long, the exchange has been simple: Donors provide funds and, in return, they receive recognition—but little influence.

This should come to an end. Donors should decline to provide single-lump gifts. Instead, donors should provide annual support for specific programs—but only as long as certain criteria are met. Of course, donors have no business telling professors what to teach or write. But neither should donors meekly trust that Alma Mater knows best.

Above all, concerned trustees and alumni should not shy away from using all available levers, including financial and political pressure, to reassert the university’s true mission.

If they fail to do so, our country—not just its colleges and universities—will be worse off. For even in this moment, our storied academic institutions still maintain a gravitational force, pulling in eager students from around the country, and, as important, from around the world, to learn in a free and open environment.

Indeed, reinforcements from abroad, attracted by the promise of what America’s institutions—including its colleges and universities—have to offer, may yet ensure that our country remains a source of inspiration and hope.

Judge Cabranes serves on the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. He was Yale’s first general counsel, and later served as a trustee of Yale, Columbia and Colgate universities. This is adapted from remarks delivered Oct. 18 to the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, which bestowed on him its Merrill Award for Outstanding Contributions to Liberal Arts Education.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/higher-educations-enemy-within-11573251941

phil wrote:I take that as a compliment. As it means Quill has no answer to my points and can only try to deligitimise me with falsehoods.

What points?  You never come up with any.  All you do is c&p, following your confirmation bias that universities and schools are leftist institutions, or that universities and schools are out to silence RW policies.  Your points are specious, to criticize those institutions that hurt you by claiming, essentially, that they didn't listen to you.

I don't want to compound the hurt for you, but your persistent attack of these institutions deserves some defense.

Original Quill wrote:

phil wrote:I take that as a compliment. As it means Quill has no answer to my points and can only try to deligitimise me with falsehoods.

What points?  You never come up with any.  All you do is c&p, following your confirmation bias that universities and schools are leftist institutions, or that universities and schools are out to silence RW policies.  Your points are specious, to criticize those institutions that hurt you by claiming, essentially, that they didn't listen to you.

I don't want to compound the hurt for you, but your persistent criticism of these institutions deserve some defense.

I actually had many productive conversations with Eilzel on this. Which you think to jump in and now lie about me. Somehow makes you think it makes your lies valid. When all it does its prove, you are not getting enough attention

As to opinions I post on here. It seems you fear the opinions of other that are posted. They are posted to place weight to the reality that many people see a growing problem today. This is evidence and you want to place your hands over your ears and go "la la la, I'm not listening"

Which says more about your reeking of fear of others holding views on this matter

More and more people are speaking out and studies shows that Universities in the Uk, Us and Canada. No longer stand for scecular values or liberalism

I mean one of the videos actually showed students claiming that liberalism was white supremacy

I know you cannot make it up brainwashed students could be to believe that eh?

It seems, you are starved of my attention, because i was debating Eilzel instead of you. This clearly has made you jealous it seems lol.

I just posted the views of an actual judge on these issues

So do you back an education system not siffled by wokeness and social justice? Or do you allow educational systems to talk and tackle issues, no matter how problematic they may seem?

phildidge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

What points?  You never come up with any.  All you do is c&p, following your confirmation bias that universities and schools are leftist institutions, or that universities and schools are out to silence RW policies.  Your points are specious, to criticize those institutions that hurt you by claiming, essentially, that they didn't listen to you.

I don't want to compound the hurt for you, but your persistent criticism of these institutions deserve some defense.

I actually had many productive conversations with Eilzel on this. Which you think to jump in and now lie about me. Somehow makes you think it makes your lies valid. When all it does its prove, you are not getting enough attention

As to opinions I post on here. It seems you fear the opinions of other that are posted. They are posted to place weight to the reality that many people see a growing problem today. This is evidence and you want to place your hands over your ears and go "la la la, I'm not listening"

Which says more about your reeking of fear of others holding views on this matter

More and more people are speaking out and studies shows that Universities in the Uk, Us and Canada. No longer stand for scecular values or liberalism

I mean one of the videos actually showed students claiming that liberalism was white supremacy

I know you cannot make it up brainwashed students could be to believe that eh?

It seems, you are starved of my attention, because i was debating Eilzel instead of you. This clearly has made you jealous it seems lol.

I just posted the views of an actual judge on these issues

So do you back an education system not siffled by wokeness and social justice? Or do you allow educational systems to talk and tackle issues, no matter how problematic they may seem?

I have had the benefit of knowing you for a long time, over 3 - 4 different sites...significantly on ADO. You have more-or-less hidden or sandpapered your message as you got clipped on various points along the way, until it's real source is almost unrecognizable. But the hurt and the message is still there.

I merely was filling in the gaps for those who don't know the full history.

Original Quill wrote:

phildidge wrote:

I actually had many productive conversations with Eilzel on this. Which you think to jump in and now lie about me. Somehow makes you think it makes your lies valid. When all it does its prove, you are not getting enough attention

As to opinions I post on here. It seems you fear the opinions of other that are posted. They are posted to place weight to the reality that many people see a growing problem today. This is evidence and you want to place your hands over your ears and go "la la la, I'm not listening"

Which says more about your reeking of fear of others holding views on this matter

More and more people are speaking out and studies shows that Universities in the Uk, Us and Canada. No longer stand for scecular values or liberalism

I mean one of the videos actually showed students claiming that liberalism was white supremacy

I know you cannot make it up brainwashed students could be to believe that eh?

It seems, you are starved of my attention, because i was debating Eilzel instead of you. This clearly has made you jealous it seems lol.

I just posted the views of an actual judge on these issues

So do you back an education system not siffled by wokeness and social justice? Or do you allow educational systems to talk and tackle issues, no matter how problematic they may seem?

I have had the benefit of knowing you for a long time, over 3 - 4 different sites...significantly on ADO.  You have more-or-less hidden or sandpapered your message as you got clipped on various points along the way, until it's real source is almost unrecognizable.  But the hurt and the message is still there.

I merely was filling in the gaps for those who don't know the full history.

And yet after all these years. You have not the first clue of understanding about me

Hence why you jumped in and made the most idioctic and immature accusations against me

Sadly Quill you are an attention seeker, that invents alternate realities for your life, because you actually see yourself as a failing

phildidge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I have had the benefit of knowing you for a long time, over 3 - 4 different sites...significantly on ADO.  You have more-or-less hidden or sandpapered your message as you got clipped on various points along the way, until it's real source is almost unrecognizable.  But the hurt and the message is still there.

I merely was filling in the gaps for those who don't know the full history.

And yet after all these years. You have not the first clue of understanding about me

Hence why you jumped in and made the most idioctic and immature accusations against me

Sadly Quill you are an attention seeker, that invents alternate realities for your life, because you actually see yourself as a failing

Sadly, I know you all too well. You fit the template of many failed graduate students I have had. I worked on you for so long, trying to get you to break out of your shell.

But, alas, you fear the deep waters of theoretical thinking. You would rather deal with clichés and jargon that you inherited from the 1950's, rather than original thinking.

if the left are so fond of theoretical thinking, why is it only the left that wants to shut down any debate?

you hardly ever find people from the right wanting to de platform, protest speakers, shut people down, etc,,,that is always from the left

it seems it's the left that seem over fond of ridiculous, nonsense unthinking comments like,,,,

liberalism is white supremacy

quill, do try to stop making it about didge and focus more on the topic in hand

Eilzel wrote:

gelico wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

gelico wrote:


but les, i disagree.  they are ALL being turned into victims by giving them these ridiculous so called ''safe spaces'' and ''trigger warnings'' etc.  they're not going to get any of that shit in the big wide world so it's actually really damaging and limiting and harmful to them in the long run to be allowing this.

furthermore, most of the students would have been used to clapping from being babies, so being suddenly denied a form of expression that they have always used throughout their whole lives can possibly really stress them out.

but you see, it's not a gay issue is it?  it doesn't affect you or your life in any way so,,,,,meh

Such a stupid claim. I care about issues with ACTUAL victims - racism, sexism, ageism, whatever it is. Pretty low and unusual for you to play the 'you only care if it concerns gay people' card, more so since YOU brought that up, not me

As for the clapping, I agree that it IS ridiculous. So it's a good thing it is only happening in student union events at ONE university.

There are bigger problems in the world than this, get real.

ok first of all, it wasn't low because it wasn't a dig at you in any way, les.  it may well be unusual but i'm not playing any card.  i said that because - rightly or wrongly - that's genuinely my perception

actual victims?  like i said, they all are

it isn't just ridiculous that's why it shouldn't be just dismissed as such with ''it's only one''

it is hugely damaging to them all

universities of all places in the world have been places where minds are open, opinions are aired and exchanged, there have always been the radicals and the not so radicals but we already lost count of the amount of ''de-platforming'' of many speakers on a variety of subjects in case some poor snowflake's sensitivities got hurt.  that should never have been allowed to happen.  it only needed to start with ONE and now it's happening all over.

so now, just ONE has said ban clapping.  you think that's not going to spread?

then it will be ban pronouns of he/she and make everyone refer to themselves and each other as they/them/ze, zay, or whatever other lunacy takes their fancy.  all in the name of being fully inclusive of course

if this insanity continues they will end up bigoted, one demensional 'thinkers' (I use that term in the loosest possible way)

they will also be intellectually, psychologically and emotionally retarded and completely unable to cope in the big outside with different opinions and no safe spaces

you don't get how dangerous this is, that's why i said you just dismiss it like it doesn't really matter.

in fact, imo, if this continues then the current uni generation will end up being, themselves, the ''bigger problems in the world'' of which you speak

you're the one who needs to get real,

so there

All of 'will be' based on paranoid speculation.

If your perception of me is that I only care about gay issues - when I don't even remember the last time I posted here about gay issues - then perhaps your perception is wrong? Perhaps because I'm gay you look at all I say through that lens. Not to worry, you wouldn't be the first poster to do that.

Appreciate the green btw

In case you missed this.

Eilzel wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

All of 'will be' based on paranoid speculation.

If your perception of me is that I only care about gay issues - when I don't even remember the last time I posted here about gay issues - then perhaps your perception is wrong? Perhaps because I'm gay you look at all I say through that lens. Not to worry, you wouldn't be the first poster to do that.

Appreciate the green btw

In case you missed this.

in case you missed this (minus my 'paranoid' predictions)




it is hugely damaging to them all

universities of all places in the world have been places where minds are open, opinions are aired and exchanged, there have always been the radicals and the not so radicals but we already lost count of the amount of ''de-platforming'' of many speakers on a variety of subjects in case some poor snowflake's sensitivities got hurt. that should never have been allowed to happen. it only needed to start with ONE and now it's happening all over.


they will also be intellectually, psychologically and emotionally retarded and completely unable to cope in the big outside with different opinions and no safe spaces




any comment?

do you honestly not see the danger here?

gelico wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

All of 'will be' based on paranoid speculation.

If your perception of me is that I only care about gay issues - when I don't even remember the last time I posted here about gay issues - then perhaps your perception is wrong? Perhaps because I'm gay you look at all I say through that lens. Not to worry, you wouldn't be the first poster to do that.

Appreciate the green btw

In case you missed this.

in case you missed this (minus my 'paranoid' predictions)




it is hugely damaging to them all

universities of all places in the world have been places where minds are open, opinions are aired and exchanged, there have always been the radicals and the not so radicals but we already lost count of the amount of ''de-platforming'' of many speakers on a variety of subjects in case some poor snowflake's sensitivities got hurt.  that should never have been allowed to happen.  it only needed to start with ONE and now it's happening all over.


they will also be intellectually, psychologically and emotionally retarded and completely unable to cope in the big outside with different opinions and no safe spaces




any comment?

do you honestly not see the danger here?

I see a very slight danger. Despite this idea that every controversial speaker is deplatformed at western universities, this isn't the case. Yes, there have been a few high profile cases, and I agree that this IS problematic, it does not equate to campuses no longer being places where freedom of expression is allowed. More it is an extreme expression from radical students, caught up is what will end up being a passing fad, exercising their own democratic rights to bar certain figures the right to speak in these places.

I do not see millions of Gen Z people being intellectually or emotionally retarded as you and didge seem to, I have more faith in people, I suppose.

But then, I'm just some gay guy who only cares about gay issues, so whadoIknow?

No les,you care about other issues beside Gay ones I know that, you just seem to err on the leftist side, but that's just who you are , it's not a problem with me anyway !

You are giving the whole argument much too much credibility.

As a general rule, discoveries, new ideas, new philosophies and new devices move from the left, and trickle down to the rest of the population, including a begrudging right.  How did we transition from horse & buggy to the automobile without youth adopting the new mode of transportation?  It's a natural law: new ideas move from the left, and filter down to the rest of the people, including the right.

In the wake of this, those who want to make a cause of the old, are left in the dust cloud.  The whole world has moved on, and they are shivering on the roadside.  Now, from their perspective it looks like they are being shut down; but the reality is, they are being left behind.  It’s not censorship, but indifference.

Universities are about new and exciting things.  The ‘new & exciting’ pushes the old out of the way unconsciously.  For those who want to make a cause of the old, they must do something extra to be heard.  So, they invent alt.facts: claims dressed up into conspiracy theories and falsehoods (we did not go to the moon, or 9/11 was our own doing).  That’s where a backlash sets in and the left, and even some middle-of-the-roaders begin to push back.

It’s not censorship, but excessive dismissal and disgust.  And when these alt.facts encounter genuine, positive movements in racial, climate and gender matters, the inevitable question is: why do we listen to this shite?  The true work of universities is innovation; the RW tries to emulate this, and push these pseudo truths.  When they are laughed at (Faux News), or shouted down over their shear ridiculousness, they call it censorship.

I say, let them speak in the marketplace of ideas.  Let them make fools of themselves.  When people turn their backs and/or laugh hysterically, they get their just desserts.  Trump or BoJo, for example…

Holy crap on a cracker. The view is that pushback is around conspiracies like 9/11 and the Moon landing. The former that was started by the left?

That is not what is being censured and cancelled by Univesities or the mass of probolems around PC, fragility of students etc

I cannot take Quill seriously anymore. He is so out of touch with everything that has been said. Its ridiculous now

phil wrote:I cannot take Quill seriously anymore. He is so out of touch with everything that has been said. Its ridiculous now

gelico wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

phildidge wrote:


And further proof of what I have been stated in you being close minded
Your first point of attack is on me over emotiomns.
Not the facts surrounded your actual excuses here

You are biased, when you make a point of decency. Have you learnt nothing how such a word was used to demean homosexuals for centuries. This is why you are fucking clueless. Thw whole concept around decency has been used to persecute people for simple being in love as conscenting adults and you even argued off this as a view to understand their reasons?

One word to say to that

wow

I agree its important to understand everything and how people become. Whoich is why I am trying to explain to you the problems with Universities and Colleges today, which you have at every step tried to downplay and even deny. So why have you done so?

You do realise you have done this throughout with trying to look clever by asking me to post more links to banning clapping? You knew the view was around poor policies being created by Universities and Colleges and you sought to look a smart alec and say. "Well its only been one and half Universities, so what is the problem?" 

Ignoring the blatnat fact that this is just one of a number of policies created based around the fragility of students. Meaning you failed to see the bigger picture of the issue. 

You then claim you do not agree will all of it? Really? You either agree to have a multicultural society, one which has njow seen the rise of Muslim/Christian families protest the right to teach your very existance and inclusion. I disagree with these protestors, but they have every right to do so. I am in your courner on this, but I would never ban them.

So if you focus on the clapping and banning the word "Anglo Saxon". Why is it it is already starting to happen, where One University has done so and academics are looking to  the same with language? So yes in Oxford it has been banned to clap. This is how a pandemic always starts and spreads. Unless you speask up against this. Instead of as you are doing making pathetic excuses. Then you allign yourself with irrational beliefs.

Its time you starting speaking out against not only poor religious beliefs, but even beliefs that stem from your political ideology

Going round in circles isn't getting us anywhere, especially when you clearly still think Oxford has banned clapping completely, which as stated is NOT the case. It is only banned in the minority of events which are Student Union events, it is NOT university policy.

Since you can't even grasp that clear point, the rest is wasted time.

les, what if it were something like a minority of students 'felt uncomfortable' around gay people so the student union decided to ban gay people from attending certain events.

even if it were only A FEW events dotted here and there and it really WASN'T university policy,,,,,

would you be so complacent about it?

He never answered your question but I will. Perhaps I’m wrong but....

I don’t think he’d like it, and rightly so.

Actually I did, on page 2.

eddie wrote:

gelico wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

phildidge wrote:


And further proof of what I have been stated in you being close minded
Your first point of attack is on me over emotiomns.
Not the facts surrounded your actual excuses here

You are biased, when you make a point of decency. Have you learnt nothing how such a word was used to demean homosexuals for centuries. This is why you are fucking clueless. Thw whole concept around decency has been used to persecute people for simple being in love as conscenting adults and you even argued off this as a view to understand their reasons?

One word to say to that

wow

I agree its important to understand everything and how people become. Whoich is why I am trying to explain to you the problems with Universities and Colleges today, which you have at every step tried to downplay and even deny. So why have you done so?

You do realise you have done this throughout with trying to look clever by asking me to post more links to banning clapping? You knew the view was around poor policies being created by Universities and Colleges and you sought to look a smart alec and say. "Well its only been one and half Universities, so what is the problem?" 

Ignoring the blatnat fact that this is just one of a number of policies created based around the fragility of students. Meaning you failed to see the bigger picture of the issue. 

You then claim you do not agree will all of it? Really? You either agree to have a multicultural society, one which has njow seen the rise of Muslim/Christian families protest the right to teach your very existance and inclusion. I disagree with these protestors, but they have every right to do so. I am in your courner on this, but I would never ban them.

So if you focus on the clapping and banning the word "Anglo Saxon". Why is it it is already starting to happen, where One University has done so and academics are looking to  the same with language? So yes in Oxford it has been banned to clap. This is how a pandemic always starts and spreads. Unless you speask up against this. Instead of as you are doing making pathetic excuses. Then you allign yourself with irrational beliefs.

Its time you starting speaking out against not only poor religious beliefs, but even beliefs that stem from your political ideology

Going round in circles isn't getting us anywhere, especially when you clearly still think Oxford has banned clapping completely, which as stated is NOT the case. It is only banned in the minority of events which are Student Union events, it is NOT university policy.

Since you can't even grasp that clear point, the rest is wasted time.

les, what if it were something like a minority of students 'felt uncomfortable' around gay people so the student union decided to ban gay people from attending certain events.

even if it were only A FEW events dotted here and there and it really WASN'T university policy,,,,,

would you be so complacent about it?

He never answered your question but I will. Perhaps I’m wrong but....

I don’t think he’d like it, and rightly so.

Wait, we're going to pretend that banning clapping is the same thing as banning gays?

Making a culturally homogenous group feel ashamed, devalued and disempowered.

Way to bring us all together in brotherhood?

We all know how that turns out.

drsynne wrote:Making a culturally homogenous group feel ashamed, devalued and disempowered.

Way to bring us all together in brotherhood?

We all know how that turns out.

+1

Exactly, people fail to learn from history

Thorin wrote:

drsynne wrote:Making a culturally homogenous group feel ashamed, devalued and disempowered.

Way to bring us all together in brotherhood?

We all know how that turns out.

+1

Exactly, people fail to learn from history

++1.

I tend to veer between just left of to just right of centre on many things.

But I've got to say that the current progressive identity politics of today is reverting everything we've been working towards since Martin Luther King.

drsynne wrote:

Thorin wrote:

+1

Exactly, people fail to learn from history

++1.

I tend to veer between just left of to just right of centre on many things.

But I've got to say that the current progressive identity politics of today is reverting everything we've been working towards since Martin Luther King.

100% agree. 

Identity politics whether on the alt right or far left is illiberal and regressive.