3 ms·

I appreciated the dispassionate detachment of the comment. Like others, I'm a little suspicious of your "feminism annexed academia" bit (though not in the same

by rdiddly 11y ago

I appreciated the dispassionate detachment of the comment. Like others, I'm a little suspicious of your "feminism annexed academia" bit (though not in the same kneejerky way). But what I really wonder is, could you expand on "why Occupy failed?" I've never really viewed it through that lens. Here, I'll give it a go. Certainly the unifying mythos was there - the 1%/the 99% - and by the way this isn't preposterous. But since you say "necessarily preposterous," would you say it was in fact, not preposterous enough? Too easily subjected to rational verification/quantification? Also there were no resources of any import seized, for redistributing. Promises of future rewards seem like they were in place however. The "prisoner's dilemma" portion, was effectively impossible without becoming an armed mob. They wanted to convert fence-sitters through sympathy, but I guess we're saying, fear is what works? Therefore instead of sympathy for the guys & gals getting pepper-sprayed, Joe Middleclass fears being pepper-sprayed himself, and the STATE is the one triggering the loss aversion. Interesting.

spritzifutz 11y ago
Can you explain to me why the institute of applied physics is now looking for two research assistants in gender studies? It's 19 hours and 55 minute of work every week with a 3 year contract to do gender studies in a physics department. Do you know that the Nazis had a field for facial recognition of Jewish features on faces? https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.uni-muenster.de%2FRektorat%2FStellen%2Fausschreibungen%2Fst_20162901_sk14.html&edit-text= https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&pr...
- matthewmacleod 11y ago
  My understanding is that there is a persistent gender imbalance in physics generally. Is seems obvious that the IOP would want to fund research into why this is happening and ways in which it can be solved. Is the Nazi comparison really necessary?
- arrrg 11y ago
  They won’t be doing physics. They will be doing (in the broadest sense) empirical social research with a focus on gender and physics, i.e. why are people with certain genders deciding to go into physics or not. Are you really surprised that universities are looking for researchers researching all kinds of things? Someone I know just got a (post-doc) job researching social comparison theory and she can pretty much do whatever she wants in that field. That’s not even socially relevant, it’s merely interesting (nothing wrong with that). Given how socially relevant this topic is (i.e. why do women decide against going into physics or even leave physics? How can we attract more women?) I’m really quite confused why you turn your nose at some poorly paid social research job looking into this for two days a week … Social research is not luxurious. It’s badly paid, the methods at our disposal suck, the topic and subject (human brains and how they interact with each other) is fucking complex as hell, we don’t even know how to deal with it … it ain’t easy. Just so you know.
batz 11y ago
The point of a preposterous myth is that it is a wedge issue that allows the majority to identify "enemies" and dangerous dissidents, because intelligent people just can't help themselves. It creates a target rich environment for the truly contemptible who will inform on, denounce, and betray their neighbors for a few extra rations or a commendation from some apparatchik, maybe just a fellowship. An absurd dogma causes trouble makers to self-select out. The "%1/%99" trope was cheap demagoguery, and to this day reliably identifies skeptics as discreditable "liberarians," or "tea baggers," and "probably racists." Occupy had no resources to distribute, and no ultimatum for the upper middle classes, so as a revolution it was a dud. Post-modern feminism has been a successful revolution (unless it's counter-revolutionary to say the revolution has ended already, comrade)because its resource was essentially sex, whereby male academics and administrators were convinced that being a "sensitive new age guy" would get them laid, and that critical theory was something more than gibberish. This ushered in a generation of cultural studies programs that exist primarily to legitimize the victimization claims of groups who incorporate an anti-capitalist mandate into their demands for public money. Governments are cool with it because 1. they are non-violent demands for more revenue, and 2. government defers to those academics as "expert" policy advisers. It's a bit of a circle squirt. BLM has the chance to be a successful revolutionary movement, much moreso than the Oregon ranch guys or some of the militias, but they haven't got the formula down yet. I don't want to help because all these movements have totalitarian aims, as from their perspective it's ok if it's a dictatorship of "good" people. Have fun storming the castle!
- selestify 11y ago
  What about the Soviets? I guess they offered political power.
- nikdaheratik 11y ago
  This is not very smart political thinking, but great for making an entertaining argument on the Internet. Other than ISIS, none of the movements you listed could be considered revolutionary in terms of actually changing forms of government. 1. Occupy Wall Street was about the financial crisis in '08. People were angry that the banks got bailed out and everyone else just got (arguably) left out. It went away when the economy finally improved, though there is still enough anger to fuel at least one Presidential campaign. 2. Feminism is about equal jobs and rights for women (including in politics). While I'm sure some of the men had ulterior motives, alot more of them probably just listened to what the women were actually saying and realized that they had a point. Why should half the population be treated worse than the other half? All of your other complaints about a "pro-victim" academic curriculum, or whatever you're trying to say here, are just nonsense. Academics have always been weird. The politics behind universities are also weird, but ultimately small stakes and hardly "revolutionary". People don't face down the police and the army because their college doesn't have the right sort of Women's studies program. 3. BLM is about one segment of the population being prosecuted, hurt, and killed by police more than any other group of people. "Stop shooting us" is a powerful message, especially when it's backed up by numbers and video, but it's not revolutionary. I would also add that the problem has been made worse by the Drug war and the prison-industrial complex so what's surprising is that it hasn't happened sooner and with more people backing it. 4. Trump just wants to be President. His supporters are basically the anti-Occupy Wall Street crowd. They're angry about job prospects (especially since 2008), but they blame immigrants and Democrats (+ NAFTA, GATT, etc.) rather than rich bankers. It's not something we've seen at this level since the 1900s or earlier, but it's not new and they don't really seem to want to change anything politically with the way government works. TL;DR: your thesis doesn't seem to hold up once you examine why each movement exists and what it's trying to do. Other than ISIS, but basically they're just Saddam Hussein's old posse with some new faces.

by rdiddly 11y ago

spritzifutz 11y ago

Can you explain to me why the institute of applied physics is now looking for two research assistants in gender studies? It's 19 hours and 55 minute of work every week with a 3 year contract to do gender studies in a physics department. Do you know that the Nazis had a field for facial recognition of Jewish features on faces? https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.uni-muenster.de%2FRektorat%2FStellen%2Fausschreibungen%2Fst_20162901_sk14.html&edit-text= https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&pr...

matthewmacleod 11y ago
My understanding is that there is a persistent gender imbalance in physics generally. Is seems obvious that the IOP would want to fund research into why this is happening and ways in which it can be solved. Is the Nazi comparison really necessary?
arrrg 11y ago
They won’t be doing physics. They will be doing (in the broadest sense) empirical social research with a focus on gender and physics, i.e. why are people with certain genders deciding to go into physics or not. Are you really surprised that universities are looking for researchers researching all kinds of things? Someone I know just got a (post-doc) job researching social comparison theory and she can pretty much do whatever she wants in that field. That’s not even socially relevant, it’s merely interesting (nothing wrong with that). Given how socially relevant this topic is (i.e. why do women decide against going into physics or even leave physics? How can we attract more women?) I’m really quite confused why you turn your nose at some poorly paid social research job looking into this for two days a week … Social research is not luxurious. It’s badly paid, the methods at our disposal suck, the topic and subject (human brains and how they interact with each other) is fucking complex as hell, we don’t even know how to deal with it … it ain’t easy. Just so you know.

batz 11y ago

The point of a preposterous myth is that it is a wedge issue that allows the majority to identify "enemies" and dangerous dissidents, because intelligent people just can't help themselves. It creates a target rich environment for the truly contemptible who will inform on, denounce, and betray their neighbors for a few extra rations or a commendation from some apparatchik, maybe just a fellowship. An absurd dogma causes trouble makers to self-select out. The "%1/%99" trope was cheap demagoguery, and to this day reliably identifies skeptics as discreditable "liberarians," or "tea baggers," and "probably racists." Occupy had no resources to distribute, and no ultimatum for the upper middle classes, so as a revolution it was a dud. Post-modern feminism has been a successful revolution (unless it's counter-revolutionary to say the revolution has ended already, comrade)because its resource was essentially sex, whereby male academics and administrators were convinced that being a "sensitive new age guy" would get them laid, and that critical theory was something more than gibberish. This ushered in a generation of cultural studies programs that exist primarily to legitimize the victimization claims of groups who incorporate an anti-capitalist mandate into their demands for public money. Governments are cool with it because 1. they are non-violent demands for more revenue, and 2. government defers to those academics as "expert" policy advisers. It's a bit of a circle squirt. BLM has the chance to be a successful revolutionary movement, much moreso than the Oregon ranch guys or some of the militias, but they haven't got the formula down yet. I don't want to help because all these movements have totalitarian aims, as from their perspective it's ok if it's a dictatorship of "good" people. Have fun storming the castle!

selestify 11y ago
What about the Soviets? I guess they offered political power.
nikdaheratik 11y ago
This is not very smart political thinking, but great for making an entertaining argument on the Internet. Other than ISIS, none of the movements you listed could be considered revolutionary in terms of actually changing forms of government. 1. Occupy Wall Street was about the financial crisis in '08. People were angry that the banks got bailed out and everyone else just got (arguably) left out. It went away when the economy finally improved, though there is still enough anger to fuel at least one Presidential campaign. 2. Feminism is about equal jobs and rights for women (including in politics). While I'm sure some of the men had ulterior motives, alot more of them probably just listened to what the women were actually saying and realized that they had a point. Why should half the population be treated worse than the other half? All of your other complaints about a "pro-victim" academic curriculum, or whatever you're trying to say here, are just nonsense. Academics have always been weird. The politics behind universities are also weird, but ultimately small stakes and hardly "revolutionary". People don't face down the police and the army because their college doesn't have the right sort of Women's studies program. 3. BLM is about one segment of the population being prosecuted, hurt, and killed by police more than any other group of people. "Stop shooting us" is a powerful message, especially when it's backed up by numbers and video, but it's not revolutionary. I would also add that the problem has been made worse by the Drug war and the prison-industrial complex so what's surprising is that it hasn't happened sooner and with more people backing it. 4. Trump just wants to be President. His supporters are basically the anti-Occupy Wall Street crowd. They're angry about job prospects (especially since 2008), but they blame immigrants and Democrats (+ NAFTA, GATT, etc.) rather than rich bankers. It's not something we've seen at this level since the 1900s or earlier, but it's not new and they don't really seem to want to change anything politically with the way government works. TL;DR: your thesis doesn't seem to hold up once you examine why each movement exists and what it's trying to do. Other than ISIS, but basically they're just Saddam Hussein's old posse with some new faces.