Post Reply The Left's Bret Weinstein (Biologist) testifies before Congress on how he lost his job.
mxdan 
11935 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / A Husk.
Online
Posted 6/14/18 , edited 6/14/18
https://youtu.be/uRIKJCKWla4

Being a Biology graduate myself this really interests me. Save for the chairman's tribalist response I'd say the conversation here was very fruitful all things considered. I'm amazed that the house relatively reasonable here. The orthodoxies happening on universities over the last 30 years threaten to destroy American ingenuity all together. That is to say, the person who has a different framework and can't keep quiet when there is dissent in thought are systematically being found and made to either quite or give up their reasoning. These people are the exception to the rule within a patterned system. That is to say that it is likely that their way of thinking is a gift to whatever field they inhabit and they may be laying the groundwork for new and inventive ways in their field. Orthodoxy doesn't see it this way. It looks out of the lense of idealism and makes thought to be a uniform thing that need not be challenged.

The way Bret Weinstein was treated shows something of a failure in our colleges. For instance, it still isn't really shown if Gender studies do anything of value beyond indoctrination. Sure we all want equality for all, who doesn't. But the way that these courses make things into a specific facet of philosophical undertones, with a marginalized sense of pessimism that inhabits the system makes a recipe for outcome that turns everything into the very thing it claims to be trying to understand. Something that hardly exists in a realistic sense and is manufactured on lies is almost impossible to fight, so what are students left with -- adversarial natures. I think Bret was right too when he said in this video that this is a reaction to the failings of governance. For like the failings in specific courses of study within our schools when your are left with systems that can't be impacted and fail to get better, people start to go down the road the students did at Evergreen college.

When Bret said that:

"The 1st amendment simply isn't sufficent enough to protect free speech in the private sector... ... And also on college campuses."

He absolutely has a point.

-----

Perhaps I'm going to far here and if so feel free to ignore this last paragraph as it is littered with pseudo-thinking, but the constitution also isn't sufficient enough to protect people against massive corporations as well and the mechanics of greed have created a system that works for conglomerates but not the people its sworn to protect. So it rarely changes. Even with the promises of Trump we see things going down the same steady stream. Net neutrality had the support of 80% of Americans and yet it was fought tooth and nail. So it fuels a growing sense of uneasiness amongst the people, and what we are seeing in colleges and around the united states are people desperately looking for a means to change things.
runec 
39944 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 6/14/18 , edited 6/14/18

mxdan wrote:
For instance, it still isn't really shown if Gender studies do anything of value beyond indoctrination.


Gonna snip this part out quick as it could easily be red meat for trolls. Gender studies by itself isn't a problem. How gender studies is taught on the other hand and how it's inevitably being used in a broader culture war is a problem. Which, honestly, seems to make it an example of the broader point here.

mxdan 
11935 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / A Husk.
Online
Posted 6/14/18 , edited 6/14/18

runec wrote:


mxdan wrote:
For instance, it still isn't really shown if Gender studies do anything of value beyond indoctrination.


Gonna snip this part out quick as it could easily be red meat for trolls. Gender studies by itself isn't a problem. How gender studies is taught on the other hand and how it's inevitably being used in a broader culture war is a problem. Which, honestly, seems to make it an example of the broader point here.



Thank you for specifying that. It's not the studying of genders that is inherently bad, it is its proponent as an ideological arm that has 'supposedly' figured out the philosophical reasoning behind why men and women act the way they do. More importantly, it turns it into victim and perpetrator terms. Its almost impossible to have a conversation without charging people up because people identify by its subject matter. Unlike most studies its hard to not put emotional value to it.

You must be logged in to post.