Feminist makes the case for calling Newton's Laws "Newton's Rape Manual". These are the people teaching college students.

submitted by Chipit from stephenhicks.org

all 45 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]ThePlague 14 insightful - 3 fun14 insightful - 2 fun15 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

I remember this making the rounds back in the 90s. There was, arguably, the greatest troll in history by a physicist at the time partially in response to this sort of nonsense: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair. It was absolutely glorious, and proved for all time that the social sciences aren't sciences, they're political ideologies.

[–]an_alright_start 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Hey that article reminded me of this more recent example. (And it was referenced within) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievance_studies_affair

[–]Chipit[S] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

It literally coined the term "Grievance Studies". The perpetrators of the trick founded http://areomagazine.com and write semi regularly.

[–]yellow_algebra_31 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

What is your motivation behind posting the content you do?

[–]Tom_Bombadil 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

He's a known shill.

He's pretending to be a right winger.

The goal is to discourage left-leaning Reddit refugees from visiting.

There are plenty of intellectually honest right-wingers here; probably the majority in terms of comments.

The information war is trying to keep us all divided.

[–]magnora7 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

I am starting to agree, and I am thinking about pulling the plug on him. Especially since in his comments he is always insulting everyone and calling them names, which is dragging discussion down the pyramid of debate repeatedly. He posts hyper-divisive right-leaning content, almost nonstop, like 20 posts a day. If anyone is turning saidit in voat, it is him.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I am starting to agree, and I am thinking about pulling the plug on him.

Whatever happened to saidit being a place open to ideas?

Seems like this is devolving back in to reddit pretty fast.

[–]magnora7 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Our mission goal was to avoid this place becoming voat, and when someone is deliberately hijacking the site culture to drag it in a voat-like direction, what am I supposed to do? Just let the site become voat? If we're going to just let saidit become voat, then why have saidit at all?

We have the pyramid of debate for a reason, and if someone is repeatedly dragging discussion down it, that's worthy of a ban as well.

Chipit is very closely walking the line on both these things.

We have our rules for a reason. This isn't a free-for-all, nor has it ever been, because we saw what happened to voat (and many other sites) if they just let it be a total free-for-all and we're trying to avoid that fate.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Our mission goal was to avoid this place becoming voat,

I thought it was about creating an alternative to reddit's censorship. I guess you're just removing different view points and making a different type of voat/reddit.

No wonder r/watchredditdie started promoting ruqqus instead.

We have the pyramid of debate for a reason, and if someone is repeatedly dragging discussion down it, that's worthy of a ban as well.

Like you? I guess when it's you it doesn't count, Chipit made a post using a pic of a book.

If you cared about people calling other's names you would have done something about Tom_Bombadil calling him a "known shill" (not even going in to deph about how disturbing and in bad faith that comment is). I guess the pyramid of debate doesn't matter then.

[–]magnora7 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Well you thought wrong. This site used to be named antiextremes.com for a reason. It's not a free-for-all because we don't want to be voat either.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Open ideas are great.

Allowing open forums to be hijacked by divisive shills is self-sabotage.

Voat shut down for awhile for good reason. They were attacked by shills, who had been taking advantage of the permissive nature of the site, and permanently ruined the site culture.

Scumbags like Chipshit are here to sabotage and ruin this place. They're here to drag down the conversation.

It's intellectual pollution.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Allowing open forums to be hijacked by divisive shills is self-sabotage.

right... shills are people you disagree with, very simple.

[–]Commiefa 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

In Canada a large portion of our foreign aid budget is dedicated to promoting this kind nonsense. Honk honk.

[–]teelo 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Can I get the tl;dr of that wall of moronic text?

[–]HK51 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Just a bucnh of word salad referencing some unknown "gender metaphors" in Newton's and other smarty guys' works, that they in their core are "rape"(whatever it means according to author), so Newton's mechanics should be referred as Newton's rape manual.

[–]magnora7 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Which then OP is treating as if it's genuine, instead of satire

[–]Wrang1er 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

College campuses are indoctrination sites.

[–]siriusisness 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Feminists have raped the English language.

[–]m68k 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Gravity is canceled.

[–]yellow_algebra_31 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (25 children)

Well, I didn't know Newton and Bacon talked about rape and torture metaphors in their work.

Idk, I think there's something to it.

It seems subversive, since Newton and Bacon were people we were all taught to admire and learn from (I certainly did) and this undermines them (like "Santa isn't real!" and "God isn't real!" and all those disturbing videos they tried to show kids on youtube.)

But one must also remember that Europeans were turned against their own women who were keeping their ethnic cultural traditions alive during period of persecution of witches.

I think these topics and ideas are worth discussing. There is probably a way to do it that's not subversive.

[–]Chipit[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (22 children)

I think there's something to it.

You are insane. These feminists are insane. This isn't a new idea, either. That you would take their side looks really, really bad for you.

"The truth is that Mozart, Pascal, Boolean algebra, Shakespeare, parliamentary government, baroque churches, Newton, the emancipation of women, Kant, Marx, Balanchine ballets, et al., don't redeem what this particular civilization has wrought upon the world. The white race is the cancer of human history; it is the white race and it alone - its ideologies and inventions - which eradicates autonomous civilizations wherever it spreads, which has upset the ecological balance of the planet, which now threatens the very existence of life itself. What the Mongol hordes threaten is far less frightening than the damage that Western "Faustian" man, with his idealism, his magnificent art, his sense of intellectual adventure, his world-devouring energies for conquest, has already done, and further threatens to do."

-- Susan Sontag, Feminist, 'Styles of Radical Will' (1966)

[–]yellow_algebra_31 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (20 children)

This entire comment is just ad hominem and name-calling. Respectfully, I'm not particularly interested in engaging with participants who want to engage in this way with me.

Admins /u/magnora7 and /u/d3rr I'm not sure if this is something you want to address or not in regards to how this participant is attempting to influence the site culture, so I'll just leave this notification here.

[–]Chipit[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Oh look, a feminist is trying to shut down discussion and silence her critics. How unusual.

I get the idea you've never heard arguments against feminism before. It's the result of being in an echo chamber where all dissenting opinions are silenced. You know who Susan Sontag, right? You've read her, right? She's insane. It's not controversial or name-calling. It's just a fact. Calling Newton's Laws a rape manual is insane, too. It's just the social normalization of deviance. This means that people within the organization become so much accustomed to a deviant behavior that they don't consider it as deviant, despite the fact literally nobody else considers it sane. It's how the Space Shuttle blew up.

[–]magnora7 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Calling Newton's Laws a rape manual is insane, too. It's just the social normalization of deviance.

And yet you keep giving these people the spotlight, over and over and over. It's almost like you want it to be normalized, so you can push divide and conquer as hard as you can.

[–]Aureus 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I wish it were that way, but I feel the likelier scenario is that the OP pic is the rhetoric used in private, while more "moderate" rhetoric is used in public and taught in university courses.

[–]magnora7 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

To be fair, he supported his argument with a quote from a feminist, so it's not entirely ad hominem, otherwise I would remove it. But it is sad he can't make a point without being insulting and crude. He does drag discussion down the pyramid of debate quite frequently.

[–]yellow_algebra_31 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

Imo that part of his argument was a form of ad-hominem, using guilt by association. This is, of course, not my site to moderate, but I would like to present my reasoning for any readers and for mods/admins to consider or not in moderation decisions as they wish to.

This is my evaluation of his comment:

You are insane.

Imo this is closer to name-calling than ad-hominem.

These feminists are insane. This isn't a new idea, either. That you would take their side looks really, really bad for you.

[...] -- Susan Sontag, Feminist, 'Styles of Radical Will' (1966)

In the "pyramid of debate" graphic, the "Ad-Hominem" level is described as "attacks another's characteristics or authority but not the substance of their argument."

He made statements about "these feminists," and said that it "looks bad" if they and I are in agreement about anything. This would be "guilt by association," and it does not address any of the arguments I made (none of which were "argument from authority" of any feminist author -- this sort of attempt to discredit feminist authors might have been appropriate if I had made an argument like that.) Additionally, he merely quoted an author while calling them negative names ("insane," "looks bad"). While it still would not have been engaging with my actual arguments, he also did not engage with the arguments of the feminist he was quoting.

My arguments were roughly:

  1. rape and torture metaphors being present in the works of Bacon and Newton was new information to me

  2. I think the OP book text is meant to be subversive (I made comparisons to other things I think are subversive)

  3. there was a period of somewhat recent European history during which many Europeans turned on and attacked their own women

  4. we should find non-subversive ways to discuss information like is presented in the OP book

The feminist quote seems mostly meant to illustrate that its writer had an anti-Western attitude, but I already addressed that in point #2 and #4. That he would make this argument anyway shows a lack of engagement (for whatever reason) with my actual arguments.

If it addresses #1 or #3 I'm not sure how.

I maintain that the comment does not rise above the level of ad hominem. A statement supported by evidence and argumentation is still an ad hominem if that evidence and argumentation is directed towards attacking the author rather than engaging with the arguments.

[–]magnora7 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

Perhaps, but usually I judge comments by their highest part. So I would say the best part of his comment qualifies as a counter argument (as it does use a citation quote to back itself up)

https://saidit.net/static/PyramidDebate.jpg

However the lowest part of the comment is obviously him calling you insane, which classifies as name-calling, I'd agree completely.

Then everything else in his comment is somewhere between those two. So the overall quality is not great, no question about it.

[–]yellow_algebra_31 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

We're currently in agreement that he made a citation, but we're currently in disagreement about what that citation addresses.

If it addresses me or my character, then it's an ad-hominem, no? And if it addresses an argument I made, then it's a counter-argument or refutation, no?

[–]magnora7 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

I think his point is "feminist ideology is insane" and the quote does back up his point, so I think it's a fair counter-argument. But the worst part of his comment is definitely name-calling. I wish he could just make his point without flinging names around like a child. Seems to be a pattern with him.

[–]yellow_algebra_31 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

I find myself in disagreement on these points:

  • I think his argument about feminist ideology being insane does not rise above the level of namecalling. Though he quotes her, he does not make any argument regarding his opinion of Susan Sontag's work quoted there, and I don't think 'insane' really qualifies as a claim about an attribute of her work so much as just name-calling.
  • I think in general (not just specific to this particular author and quote) the argument that "feminist ideology is insane" is not really an argument, but a form of name-calling. Actually arguing that someone is insane usually requires some sort of evaluation of a medical problem of the brain of that person, and is usually done in more specific and technical language than "insane". "Feminist ideology is insane" here may as well be "Feminist ideology is ass-hat-ish".
  • I think the argument "feminist ideology is insane" doesn't address any of my arguments, and thus does not qualify as a counter-argument.

I find myself in agreement on these points:

  • he quotes a feminist author (I don't know much about Susan Sontag but I think she's usually considered a feminist author)
  • at least part of his comment qualifies as name-calling

[–]magnora7 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

If I said "scientology is insane and here's a quote that shows it", then that's an argument, not just name-calling. But I get what you are saying.

[–]charlie6067 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Another angry white woman hating her own race. Hahahaha. Reminds me of former white dude Shaun King aka Talcum X.

[–]yellow_algebra_31 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

There's a line from Jurassic Park, if anyone remembers it from Ian Malcolm the mathematician, "What's so great about discovery? It's a violent, penetrative act that scars what it explores. What you call discovery, I call the rape of the natural world."

Although now that I think back on the movie, it seems like there are subversive elements in it.

  • The paleontologist couple live together and value their work more than family, including a quote from the beginning about how gross kids are (until the end when it's implied they change their mind, maybe that's an anti-subversive message).
  • The female doctor (paleobotanist) Ellie gets to be a plant expert, which is probably non-subversive imo, as it is a traditional interest of women.
  • Anti-discovery is probably subversive.
  • Ian makes degrading, objectifying comments about Ellie, and the female child Lex is a bit of a target for degrading things (her brother Tim makes fun of her, and there's even a scene where she is covered on her face and body with the forcefully expelled mucus of a dinosaur sneezing when she thought she was going to have a nice interaction with it), which is imo subversive, women are supposed to be protected and nurtured not abused in a healthy society.
  • The overall message of the movie is "don't science, don't explore, don't envision and dream because you'll just mess it all up and it's all hubris," which imo is subversive, that's practically the European soul, especially the male European soul, and it isn't gross or hubristic or harmful or rapey when not done in a gross way. (European men often go well out of their way to be kind to animals and the natural world, and appreciate the beauty and majesty of what they explore and discover.)
  • Grandfather (Hammond bringing his grandchildren Lex and Tim to his Jurassic Park island) as a harmful figure instead of a magical wonderful one helping you discover the good, wonderous things in the world (like the Santa figure) seems subversive.
  • Not sure what to make of Ian's quote that sent me down this rabbit hole. On the one hand, the way we treat living organisms when doing scientific experiments with them is extremely disturbing. I think he has a point about how we do science. On the other hand, it seems anti-discovery and exploration which seems subversive.

[–]yellow_algebra_31 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

For all the talking about how this person undermining the Western tradition is bad, I feel like I'm the only one in this thread actually attempting to hold the conversation to the actual Western standards of logic, reason, and evidence in the conversation here.

Does nobody else here see this? I posted the only comments here attempting to engage with the actual ideas presented in the text.