Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Not only did I name one, I named thousands of them. You're still ignoring every one of the professors on that list. For each one of them, you have untold numbers of students and colleagues who supported removal or censure of those professors.
|
If it's that easy, name one. I didn't see that in the thing you linked -- what did I miss? I was literally looking for the details who said what, etc., and you're right that it was untold.
Quote:
|
The orthodoxies are numerous: Hyper-sensitivity to even slight offenses (microaggressions) must be tolerated. Demands for changes to things like "patriarchy" and reversal of "power dynamics" must be treated seriously (no eye rolls, no questioning). Belief one is of a certain sex makes one as much a member of that sex as being actually born of that sex (no equivocations allowed). If one is not antiracist, one is racist. Women must be believed regardless of dubiousness of claim (and even if brought forth by Michael Avenatti). 1619 is the truth and the history you heard before is not. All things must be seen primarily through the lens of gender or race. Identity politics is righteous and necessary.
|
I don't know of anyone who believes any of your "orthodoxies," which is to say you are twisting the views of other people with whom you disagree in order to make them seem ludicrous. The reason I asked you for specifics is to try to get you to respond to actual things people are actually saying.
For one example, people who talk about the patriarchy are, in my experience, usually using that as a shorthand for the very real and well understood history and presence of gender inequality, expressed and perpetrated through different power dynamics. It's like the broad definition of "racism" -- it's a term that a captures a complex set of phenomena usefully if you want to have certain conversations about what to do with them. If you are going to roll your eyes at that, it raises a pretty strong presumption that you are hostile to efforts to do anything about the problems, and that your complaining about "orthodoxies" is a mask for a hostility to more gender equality. Not a rebuttable presumption, so go ahead and rebut it if you want to. But in my life, I see a lot more evidence of persistent gender inequality than I do of harm from some notional orthodoxy about demands for change to the patriarchy.
Quote:
|
The list of beliefs of this new amorphous religion goes on for a lot of text. But in a nutshell, it comes down to this: We, the historically aggrieved, own this moment, and we are entitled to have it, and you must listen.
|
Yes, that must be very hard for you if what you don't want to do is listen.
