anyone see Rick Gervais on the American Golden Globe awards?

[vuk]

I view your opinion on LGBT rights etc with all the weight of someone who for years hurled the phrase ‘girlymen’ around online as abuse, referred to things you didn’t like as ‘gay’ etc. These are facts too. I was there, I saw you.

so this is your plan B (or D) attack, in which you fall back to arguing that my comments on the cognitive mechanisms of social identity (mirrored in a very successful PhD thesis) are not legitimate because i also happened to make some politically incorrect jokes in a room full of guys on the internet a decade ago. btw -- "boybander" was the key one and i certainly did say "girlieman", but the "gay" is very unlikely.

in terms of scientific debate, if i actually hated group X or Y and you were convinced it has distorted my logic, it would be very much in your favour to welcome my presentation (not delete posts) which you could then demolish very easily, for everyone to see.

 

[Tony L]

Only a couple of months ago we had to delete a widely reported picture of Ru Paul you’d dropped into a thread to ridicule, demean or disenfranchise that minority, so sorry, but this attitude is clearly not in the past for you. FWIW your “very successful” PHD thesis was way back in the mid-90s, so I can’t speak for your attitude then. I just have a pretty clear impression of what it is right now.

PS I should really have the basic sense to leave this one alone and just bin the whole thread, but if you keep digging the hole I’ll keep providing shovels at least for a short while.

 

[vince rocker]

Tony L is probably more tolerant than other webiste hosts tbh, and the audio advice on this site is fantastic. Can I just suggest though Tony that your perceptions on what is permissible to say are a bit narrow sometimes. I really don't see the point in deleting stuff when people debate in a polite and usually well mannered way. One thing you said which alarmed me somewhat as if it was a given 'truth' was "university(s) attempting to provide a safe and welcoming environment for minority students". Universities have never really been places where 'minority students' have had to worry about outright racism, but over the past 20 years the effects on UK society of both the health & safety and PC cultures have brought about an alarmist and over protective attitude to undergraduates for one. You probably recognise moans about PC etc as 'gammony', but that of course is another - rather ugly - prejudice. I was at uni in 1994 - London Guildhall - it had many Asian and Black students, there was never any question of racism being tolerated, minority students faced no more hurdles than any other students. In the 25 years since then I really don't see how all the recent 'protections' for minority students could have possibly helped them, quite the opposite in fact as it constantly draws attention to their race.

"I didn't see racism, therefore it doesn't exist"?
"effects on UK society of both the health & safety and PC cultures" these are descriptions used by right-wingers to belittle treating people with respect.

 

[vuk]

Only a couple of months ago we had to delete a widely reported picture of Ru Paul you’d dropped into a thread to ridicule, demean or disenfranchise that minority,

the target was ron paul, the libertarian. the joke: he's such a minor, insignificant public figure that i thought the poster i was replying to was talking about hollywood celebrity ru paul (the fact that 2 people could not look more different is part of the humour). disenfranchising? wtf? i've always liked ru paul. if i recall, even matthew joined in with a variation on the joke. are you going to chastise him too?

you may, on the other hand, want to question the biases and motives of the people who "reported" the picture. in quebec, we have a popular slang expression/label which i think might be appropriate: "mémère".

anyhow, you are still relying entirely on personal attacks and ad hominem. to follow your lead, i should say: it's a classic alt-right, anti-science, anti-reason strategy.

 

[Tony L]

anyhow, you are still relying entirely on personal attacks and ad hominem. to follow your lead, i should say: it's a classic alt-right, anti-science, anti-reason strategy.

I am anti-bad science. I am against people dressing up their own personal biases and bigotry with a smokescreen of scientific rhetoric or educational privilege. There has always been bad science; that which still denies climate change, eugenics, that which attempts to belittle certain races etc. To my eyes some of what you have attempted to post on my site falls under that general category, at least to some degree. Your bias was obvious, you forced the scientific rhetoric to fit. Anyway, I have no interest here beyond very firmly defining what this site is prepared to publish, and what it is not. Your views on LGBT rights, identity etc fall in the latter category.

This is a very real civil rights issue, e.g. a trans activist was murdered recently not too far away from you (Globe And Mail). Get on the right side of the argument FFS!

PS I notice it took you a whole three hours from your first draft of your response to think up and add the ‘Ron Paul’ defence! Not convincing, sorry.

 

[TheDecameron]

it's really convenient that you get to prune things.

That reads like a Woody Allen gag. That and your sheer infallibility.

 

[vuk]

I am anti-bad science. I am against people dressing up their own personal biases and bigotry with a smokescreen of scientific rhetoric or educational privilege. There has always been bad science; that which still denies climate change, eugenics, that which attempts to belittle certain races etc. To my eyes some of what you have attempted to post on my site falls under that general category, at least to some degree. Your bias was obvious, you forced the scientific rhetoric to fit. Anyway, I have no interest here beyond very firmly defining what this site is prepared to publish, and what it is not. Your views on LGBT rights, identity etc falls in the latter category..

you say you are anti "bad science" but you are not discussing the science at all here. you are not saying what exactly is "bad" about any point that i made. is this basic/fundamental flaw really hard to understand over and over again or is it because you fear you can't defend your position? you're accusing me of ignorance or some kind of wilful distortion, but i'm not allowed to post and defend what i'm saying. meanwhile, you get to play judge, jury and executioner, as the saying goes.

PS I notice it took you a whole three hours from your first draft of your response to think up and add the ‘Ron Paul’ defence! Not convincing, sorry.

really? really? that's your big logic? am i also not allowed to be interrupted from posting by work? the other part of the truth is that i thought the challenge was so absurd, it wasn't worth addressing, but then i figured some people might get the wrong impression and believe your misrepresentation.