Berkley to cease using gendered language like "manhole"

[EastKekistan]

Either side is going to do that for that's what moral crusaders of any kind and those who pretend to be moral crusaders do.

If you allow any side to get full victory they will try to transform the entire society to fir their ideology.

So this is just a slippery slope combined with a bit of cookie-cutter centrism.

It isn't centrism. Instead it is libertinism aka "everybody and their morals need to fuck off so that professionals in the field can actually get shit done without your interference."

[Recidivism]

. Libs will try to "equalize" STEM by setting up strict racial quotas and trads will simply attempt to ban STEM due to the misguided belief that it is a part of liberalism or something..

No, they won't, since the use of racial quotas in college admissions was ruled unconstitutional in 1978.

[EastKekistan]

. Libs will try to "equalize" STEM by setting up strict racial quotas and trads will simply attempt to ban STEM due to the misguided belief that it is a part of liberalism or something..

No, they won't, since the use of racial quotas in college admissions was ruled unconstitutional in 1978.

Haha. They are already de facto doing that through AA. Neither libs nor trads believe in meritocracy. All trads will bring is of course reverse AA like the old Jewish quota or something..because everybody is only interested in a political spoils system.

[SD_Film Artists]

You don't understand. Those oversensitive and offended SJW snowflakes made a slight change in something that won't really impact anyone's life in any way.
This has gone too far.

Anti-SJWs are just the reactionary version of me when I was 19 and on Tumblr: just pathetically desperate for any content to be outraged about

It's no joke. I've seen too many autism groups become unnecessarily divided because a few SJWs thought that enforcing their personal politics was more important than autistic solidarity.

[Recidivism]

No, they won't, since the use of racial quotas in college admissions was ruled unconstitutional in 1978.

Haha. They are already de facto doing that through AA. Neither libs nor trads believe in meritocracy.

Affirmative action does not necessarily mean "racial quotas." Racial quotas are a form of affirmative action. Your claim that affirmative action constitutes de facto racial quotas is just ignorant, and if it were true, many universities would have been sued already.

Nor does support of affirmative action necessarily constitute a rejection of meritocracy. Merits have to be considered in context.

[EastKekistan]

Haha. They are already de facto doing that through AA. Neither libs nor trads believe in meritocracy.

Affirmative action does not necessarily mean "racial quotas." Racial quotas are a form of affirmative action. Your claim that affirmative action constitutes de facto racial quotas is just ignorant, and if it were true, many universities would have been sued already.

Nor does support of affirmative action necessarily constitute a rejection of meritocracy. Merits have to be considered in context.

Context? Haha. Just admit that it is a spoils system please.

Nah. I want the Singaporean system.

[Vassenor]

So this is just a slippery slope combined with a bit of cookie-cutter centrism.

It isn't centrism. Instead it is libertinism aka "everybody and their morals need to fuck off so that professionals in the field can actually get shit done without your interference."

So how is this stopping the professionals in the field from doing their work?

[EastKekistan]

It isn't centrism. Instead it is libertinism aka "everybody and their morals need to fuck off so that professionals in the field can actually get shit done without your interference."

So how is this stopping the professionals in the field from doing their work?

When trads could get rid of people like Alan Turing due to his homosexuality and libs can get rid of peoples like James Watson due to his belief in HBD how aren't they harmful? That's literally stopping researchers from properly doing their work.

Hell if the moral crusaders get more power they will probably begin to incarcerate and kill people for dissidence. Since intellectuals are perpetually dissidents to almost all major sociopolitical factions how can they be safe if any side is strong?

[Recidivism]

Hell if the moral crusaders get more power they will probably begin to incarcerate and kill people for dissidence. Since intellectuals are perpetually dissidents to almost all major sociopolitical factions how can they be safe if any side is strong?

I like your imagination.

[EastKekistan]

Hell if the moral crusaders get more power they will probably begin to incarcerate and kill people for dissidence. Since intellectuals are perpetually dissidents to almost all major sociopolitical factions how can they be safe if any side is strong?

I like your imagination.

It happened many times. Nazi Germany had this "da German Physics" shit and claimed that "Jewish Physics" is pseudo-science. Soviets and PRC had this "socialist science" shit and claimed that "capitalist science" is fucking evil and shit. Even before that the Roman Catholic Church persecuted guys such as Bruno.

These aren't my imagination. Instead they are fucking real. The best place for moral crusaders in a society is a virtual arena where they virtually fight against opposing moral crusaders without changing the society lol.

[Recidivism]

These aren't my imagination. Instead they are fucking real. The best place for moral crusaders in a society is a virtual arena where they virtually fight against opposing moral crusaders without changing the society lol.

That is exactly what we have already. You just seem to think people are somehow being repressed.

[EastKekistan]

These aren't my imagination. Instead they are fucking real. The best place for moral crusaders in a society is a virtual arena where they virtually fight against opposing moral crusaders without changing the society lol.

That is exactly what we have already. You just seem to think people are somehow being repressed.

James Watson and James Damore will tell you that repression of STEM people do exist.

[Recidivism]

That is exactly what we have already. You just seem to think people are somehow being repressed.

James Watson and James Damore will tell you that repression of STEM people do exist.

You're a libertarian who doesn't understand voluntary cooperation? James Watson doesn't have the right to academic respectability.

[EastKekistan]

James Watson and James Damore will tell you that repression of STEM people do exist.

You're a libertarian who doesn't understand voluntary cooperation? James Watson doesn't have the right to academic respectability.

He doesn't. However academic respectability should be independent from whether someone conforms to certain morals.

[Recidivism]

You're a libertarian who doesn't understand voluntary cooperation? James Watson doesn't have the right to academic respectability.

He doesn't. However academic respectability should be independent from whether someone conforms to certain morals.

Looks like you have moral crusades of your own.

Every individual should be able to decide the extent to which they will be involved with James Watson. As it turns out, pretty much nobody wanted to. That's not repression.

[EastKekistan]

He doesn't. However academic respectability should be independent from whether someone conforms to certain morals.

Looks like you have moral crusades of your own.

Every individual should be able to decide the extent to which they will be involved with James Watson. As it turns out, pretty much nobody wanted to. That's not repression.

Fine. My crusade is for the interests of STEM people and the Silicon Valley (actually also merchants and Wall Street guys). I want science and tech to be advanced as fast as possible and want humanity to be richer and richer. For the sake of truth I will fight against anyone, trad or lib, who tries to impose values other than truthseeking on science and scientists because I believe that will insert falsehoods into science.

[SD_Film Artists]

Looks like you have moral crusades of your own.

Every individual should be able to decide the extent to which they will be involved with James Watson. As it turns out, pretty much nobody wanted to. That's not repression.

Fine. My crusade is for the interests of STEM people and the Silicon Valley (actually also merchants and Wall Street guys). I want science and tech to be advanced as fast as possible and want humanity to be richer and richer. For the sake of truth I will fight against anyone, trad or lib, who tries to impose values other than truthseeking on science and scientists because I believe that will insert falsehoods into science.

Hear hear!

[Recidivism]

Fine. My crusade is for the interests of STEM people and the Silicon Valley (actually also merchants and Wall Street guys). I want science and tech to be advanced as fast as possible and want humanity to be richer and richer. For the sake of truth I will fight against anyone, trad or lib, who tries to impose values other than truthseeking on science and scientists because I believe that will insert falsehoods into science.

Hear hear!

STEM and tech are good and all that, but let's not lionize anybody here. Tech leaders have yet to fully consider the wider social and political implications of their work. They know how to get from point a to point b, but not whether we should.

i.e. praising science is not the solution to humanity's problems

[Duhon]

This is the sort of silly cosmetic shit that actually is fucking virtue-signaling -- it does nothing but piss off both the sensible, who see nothing offensive in words that clearly aren't coined by and for bigots, and the nonsensical, who see changes of this sort as ammo for rolling back the actually necessary.

Fucking Berkeley at it again, godfuckingdammit.

[Vassenor]

This is the sort of silly cosmetic shit that actually is fucking virtue-signaling -- it does nothing but piss off both the sensible, who see nothing offensive in words that clearly aren't coined by and for bigots, and the nonsensical, who see changes of this sort as ammo for rolling back the actually necessary.

Fucking Berkeley at it again, godfuckingdammit.

Who said anything about it being offensive?

[Tristian]

What's next? Renaming mail?

[Duhon]

This is the sort of silly cosmetic shit that actually is fucking virtue-signaling -- it does nothing but piss off both the sensible, who see nothing offensive in words that clearly aren't coined by and for bigots, and the nonsensical, who see changes of this sort as ammo for rolling back the actually necessary.

Fucking Berkeley at it again, godfuckingdammit.

Who said anything about it being offensive?

If they're not changing terms that weren't meant to signify anything offensive except to Bob Dylan caricatures come to life to not offend anyone whatsoever, then what's the point?

[Vassenor]

What's next? Renaming mail?

And there we go with the slippery slope again.

[Duhon]

What's next? Renaming mail?

And there we go with the slippery slope again.

This has a lot more weight than others.

I mean, having a beef with fucking "manhole".

FUCKING.

MANHOLE.

[Vassenor]

And there we go with the slippery slope again.

This has a lot more weight than others.

I mean, having a beef with fucking "manhole".

FUCKING.

MANHOLE.

So basically what we're saying is it's dangerous to accept that not everyone who works in the sanitation department is a man.