So you've now gone with the same ad hominem twice. Nice high road you've built there. Typical of Christians, always telling others to turn the other cheek.
Republicans wants Iowa universities to explain ‘compulsory heterosexuality’ and other concepts being taught ‘It's not a witch hunt. It's just simply,
- Thread starter cigaretteman
- Start date
Some critics of the exercise noted that of the journals successfully fooled by the articles, only a few, including Hypatia, have significant standing. Most were interdisciplinary journals in highly niche fields, where there is less agreement about acceptable methodologies and the standards of peer review.I didn't say ALL of sociology is hogwash.
But some parts of it ARE in fact hogwash.
I am characterizing it correctly.
By the time of the reveal, 7 of their 20 papers had been accepted for publication, 7 were still under review, and 6 had been rejected.[3] Included among the articles that were published were arguments that dogs engage in rape culture and that men could reduce their transphobia by anally penetrating themselves with sex toys, as well as Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf rewritten in feminist language.[2][4] One of the published papers in particular had won special recognition from the journal that published it.[4]
Grievance studies affair - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Hoaxers Slip Breastaurants and Dog-Park Sex Into Journals (Published 2018)
Three academics tested a theory about the intellectual integrity of peer-reviewed “grievance studies” by cooking up, and publishing, their own.
I fail to see how this relates to college courses. Were any of those published articles used as the basis of university course?
There are other priorities, that's the point. But not so much in business which is why it's taught. But it is most definitely a right wing ideology. That you can't admit that is your failing.
Or it may just bring both sides to continue to hate one another as they talk past each other. IDK maybe a college campus the discussion would be better natured and everyone would learn more than in regular society but I know in regular society it doesn't seem to work like that.
As far as cancelling controversial speakers, it's dicey. I'm 100% for not allowing hate speech and figures that promote hateful ideologies. The problem is identifying what constitutes hate speech.
The other issue for me is that there is a difference between a controversial speaker and a college class. Giving something a college class I feel gives it certain level of intellectual gravitas that it quite frankly might not deserve.
Link for us the movements driving efforts to have religious entities pay taxes.
You won't because you can't. Hack.
There isn't any "promotion" - that's the fallacy the right wing propaganda has gotten you to believe.
So what's wrong with identifying the different perspectives and letting students figure out for themselves what makes the most sense?
Some critics of the exercise noted that of the journals successfully fooled by the articles, only a few, including Hypatia, have significant standing. Most were interdisciplinary journals in highly niche fields, where there is less agreement about acceptable methodologies and the standards of peer review.
Hoaxers Slip Breastaurants and Dog-Park Sex Into Journals (Published 2018)
Three academics tested a theory about the intellectual integrity of peer-reviewed “grievance studies” by cooking up, and publishing, their own.www.nytimes.com
I fail to see how this relates to college courses. Were any of those published articles used as the basis of university course?
No but these disciplines that accepted hoax articles are taught at Universities. In all likelyhood the "professors" that approved Mein Kamphf for feminists and dog rape culture are still teaching at universities right now.
And I don't care so much if there was less agreement about acceptable methodologies of peer review. Ultimately peer review boils down to a person who is suppose to be well educated and one would think smart reading an article and deciding if in their professional opinion (as a well educated person on a topic) the article has any scholarly merit.
With topics like that you would think any well educated person educated in ANY FIELD would read those articles and call bullshit.
So to me it sounds like either peer reviewers are not doing their job or their field is a load of hogwash in which the entire point of the field is to comfort some groups of people as being inherently virtuous but victimized and label another group as inherently evil oppressors with zero ability to empirically prove such things.
Uh….wut?
I think you are confused. You presented the ad hominem attacks. And what does the comment about turning the other cheek have to do with anything? It is possible you may have committed a second logical fallacy here.
To bolster my point, and the point of others:
(From the author and professor, Jonathon Haidt, of HORT favorite essay, WHY THE PAST 10 YEARS OF AMERICAN LIFE HAVE BEEN UNIQUELY STUPID)
jonathanhaidt.com
Nowadays there are no conservatives or libertarians in most academic departments in the humanities and social sciences. (See Langbert, Quain, & Klein, 2016 for more recent findings on research universities; and see Langbert 2018 for similar findings in liberal arts colleges.) When everyone shares the same politics and prejudices, the disconfirmation process breaks down. Political orthodoxy is particularly dangerous for the social sciences, which grapple with so many controversial topics (such as gender, race, poverty, inequality, immigration, and politics). America needs innovative and trustworthy research on all these topics, but can a social science that lacks viewpoint diversity produce reliable findings?
(From the author and professor, Jonathon Haidt, of HORT favorite essay, WHY THE PAST 10 YEARS OF AMERICAN LIFE HAVE BEEN UNIQUELY STUPID)
Viewpoint Diversity | Jonathan Haidt
jonathanhaidt.com
Nowadays there are no conservatives or libertarians in most academic departments in the humanities and social sciences. (See Langbert, Quain, & Klein, 2016 for more recent findings on research universities; and see Langbert 2018 for similar findings in liberal arts colleges.) When everyone shares the same politics and prejudices, the disconfirmation process breaks down. Political orthodoxy is particularly dangerous for the social sciences, which grapple with so many controversial topics (such as gender, race, poverty, inequality, immigration, and politics). America needs innovative and trustworthy research on all these topics, but can a social science that lacks viewpoint diversity produce reliable findings?
You attacked my education directly, I didn't attack you personally that I can see (apologies if you perceived an attack).
Really . . . know anyone with a doctorate in women's studies who doesn't believe in feminist theory? Know anyone who majored in that field who doesn't believe it?
I would need to see how those articles were used in a course before making a judgement. I agree it should be embarrassing that some took those articles on face value, but that doesn't make their field of study worthless. College courses encourage discussion and questioning of theories. Seems like a great chance for students to use their reasoning skills.
Religious studies is grounded in the truth that this group of people believes this and this group of people believes that.
Religious studies doesn't promote religion it simply studies it. There are almost certainly atheist religious studies professors. Guarantee there are not many women's studies professors who don't believe in feminist theory.
You are jumping to wild conclusions based on right wing propaganda.
What's wrong with believing in feminist theory and why do you want to control that? Should I control your beliefs about religion?
What parts of feminist theory do you believe are not reality?
The courses you cite present the same way. You have jumped to a conclusion because you're gullible and believe the nonsense being spewed by the right wing.
You're a huge hypocrite.
You're not a conservative Christian? My bad. I thought I was talking to the guy who had posted under your handle since its inception.
When everyone in the department believes the same stuff they are more likely to present it as fact and less likely to accept or even tolerate criticism of that belief.
The topic in this thread is republicans are seeking details and definitions of public university courses that are viewed as questionable.
And questioning the motivations for that or for supporting that is out of bounds, I guess?
No, it’s not out of bounds. What is a logical fallacy is attacking my own personal motivation and character rather than my argument directly.
Challenge curriculum or the professor? When did college become debate club? There are plenty of theories/topics that I didn't agree with and I never felt the need to challenge someone else's beliefs. Nor did I take them as gospel.
I did what 95% of college students do when they are learning about a topic that isn't mandatory for their future career, remember it long enough to answer the question on the test and then forget it.
The 5% who get their panties in a bunch over being exposed to these ideas are a bunch of snowflake conservatives that don't want to be exposed to ideas that don't fit their worldview.
But religious studies professors likely believe different things. If all religious studies professors at a public university were conservative Christians I would be saying the same thing.
Crap even at Valpo the theology faculty were of differing views and religious backgrounds.
And you are making wild accusations about professors and teachers of other non-provable subjects.
Fact is you're a right wing religious person who accepts religion as "gospel" and therefore see no issues with teaching it. But something like LGBTQ studies, or women studies or any number of other topics you become intolerant and believe they shouldn't be taught because you don't believe in the foundational premise. Doesn't matter that they are taught by people with a variety of beliefs - you want them cancelled. That's completely hypocritical.
What I'm hearing is we need diverse viewpoints in sociology departments and some other departments in colleges where certain viewpoints are not represented. That sounds great to me. I have an idea for making that happen that will work better than legislators effing with professors to do some political grandstanding: people who have those viewpoints should stop attacking public education so young people who share their viewpoints don't view it as a waste of time.
I don't think Christianity should be taught in public schools other than in the sense of a study of what different religions believe.
I certainly don't want it taught as fact. For a couple reasons. . . one it's not grounded in something empirical. You can't test Christianity.
Secondly because as a Christian then I see fights coming about what doctrines are taught and if my kids are going to learn Christianity then I want them to be learning the proper doctrines and not heterodox doctrines. Which is why I would rather then learn in a church I can choose or from me specifically.
And I don't think public money should be going to religious schools to "indoctrinate" them.
Exploring an expanse of ideologies in college is good for our culture. It's too bad we have the likes of you and others who want to control the narrative so that only what you've grown to believe is available to explore.
I would agree I don't agree with most of the Republican's attacks on education because they often don't want people to read about racial history or know that gay people exist.
That said simply stopping the attacks isn't going to get conservatives and moderates into sociology departments. A problem with the idea of conservatives studying sociology is even if they want to there is likely a self selecting bias when it comes to the study in those fields. How do you think a paper critical of feminist theory would be graded by women's studies professors? Maybe some are honest and give it a grade based on the merits. But will all?
See I disagree that is a bad thing because the parents still get to decide what school the kid goes to.
In terms of ideologies when you give a college class or a degree it gets a certain intellectual gravitas that it might not deserve.
Ok so I just looked up compulsory heterosexuality on wikipedia and this is something I would pitch a fit over.
We don't need to be teaching far left social hypotheses in schools no more then we need to be teaching far right social hypotheses.
Compulsory heterosexuality - Wikipedia
Without seeing the syllabi, reading materials, etc., taking random phrases without the context makes it impossible to judge in a vacuum.
Without the context, idk how you think there wouldn’t be pushback.
Without seeing a full list of the courses each of these phrases were taken from, the course syllabi, reading materials…you are making some massive assumptions here.
Sure the parent gets to decide where their kid goes, that's not the point. It's that public money should not be funding religious schools. I have no idea what you're trying to get at with your last sentence.
Really wish I could choose like 4 different emojis for my "Like" Response. 👍 😢 😠 🤣
