Red Mosquito

Yeah, maybe you can mitigate food/weight shame without building your society on diabetes and heart disease.

That video feels like it's part of a low-rent CIA plot to kill black people

B wrote:Yeah, maybe you can mitigate food/weight shame without building your society on diabetes and heart disease.

Some might even say that using the identification and dismantling of hierarchies as a society's guiding principle is itself a dangerous mistake.

Bi_3 wrote:

B wrote:Yeah, maybe you can mitigate food/weight shame without building your society on diabetes and heart disease.

Some might even say that using the identification and dismantling of hierarchies as a society's guiding principle is itself a dangerous mistake.

Tell kids that eating excessive sugar is unhealthy. > Something, Something > Jordan Peterson becomes President.

This is probably the wrong thread, because I still don't understand the difference between an SJW and any other kind of progressive person, but I thought this needed a home on RM.

Am I understanding correctly that the nutrition expert lecturing me in this video has the word fatty in her twitter handle? No words…

By the way, rank the things that progressives have made progress on in, say, the last 7 years.

Bammer wrote:Am I understanding correctly that the nutrition expert lecturing me in this video has the word fatty in her twitter handle? No words…

By the way, rank the things that progressives have made progress on in, say, the last 7 years.

Their biggest success is extending the elimination of objective meaning in favor of subjective meaning from social science theory to the rest of the world.

But the most impactful on daily basis is probably the substitution of critical analysis in place of critical thinking and all the downstream doublespeak and head-in-the-sand nonsense that results from it:

The second paragraph is not indented.

WTF?

They appear to have succeeded in making middle aged white men less comfortable in the world, which is pretty huge.

Bi_3 wrote:

Bammer wrote:Am I understanding correctly that the nutrition expert lecturing me in this video has the word fatty in her twitter handle? No words…

By the way, rank the things that progressives have made progress on in, say, the last 7 years.

Their biggest success is extending the elimination of objective meaning in favor of subjective meaning from social science theory to the rest of the world.

But the most impactful on daily basis is probably the substitution of critical analysis in place of critical thinking and all the downstream doublespeak and head-in-the-sand nonsense that results from it:

the social sciences, like other sites of knowledge production, are contested at various levels -- methodologically, historically, theoretically. all of those levels have a political valence. i think it's a mistake to imagine progressive liberals as the sole political faction contesting them, when conservatives (academics or otherwise) have their own offensives & counter-actions within (and beyond) these fields.

a bit earlier BI_3 cut to the core of the disagreements that animate threads like these. what is our relation to hierarchy? does it obtain or not (in whatever object or event we're discussing)? is it good or not? is it necessary or not?

to seriously answer bammer, i don't think the left has had much success since the late 70s. the most glaring exception being same-sex marriage. for various reasons (too thorny to get into here) we've been in a period of revanchism since hard-purchased labor and civil rights wins during the 20th century.

i started reading part of a wall street journal article that Bi_3 posted much earlier about the exhaustion of american liberalism. the beginning of the article compares the movements of the 60s to movements now, and characterizes the earlier protests as heroic and dignified. but conservatives & reactionaries opposed those demonstrations and movements then as they oppose the inheritors of those struggles today. they will have their arguments, mostly resting on the naturalization of historically specific, contingent social relations. they fetishize the old order -- even if the old order (in this case the civil rights movement of the 60s) was actively opposed to their own.

Bi_3 wrote:

Bammer wrote:Am I understanding correctly that the nutrition expert lecturing me in this video has the word fatty in her twitter handle? No words…

By the way, rank the things that progressives have made progress on in, say, the last 7 years.

Their biggest success is extending the elimination of objective meaning in favor of subjective meaning from social science theory to the rest of the world.

But the most impactful on daily basis is probably the substitution of critical analysis in place of critical thinking and all the downstream doublespeak and head-in-the-sand nonsense that results from it:

That reminds me a few Saturdays ago we did a campus visit with our high schooler to Wash U in St. Louis. Before the tour there's a power point about various things and the speaker from the admissions department first off wanted to recognize that the city of St. Louis and the university sat on lands once used by indigenous peoples and they wanted to explain they realize that and realize the opportunities that are afforded by using the land (I guess settling the area without respect to who first lived here hundreds of years ago)

Wow sounds terrible, I can't believe it.

Mickey, open your eyes. These platitudes are what stand in the way of Wash U otherwise handing the land back to the native peoples of the region. That would definitely happen!

They should try giving me a job.

spike wrote:They appear to have succeeded in making middle aged white men less comfortable in the world, which is pretty huge.

The Bammer internet persona really took this one on the chin.

blueviper wrote: (I guess settling the area without respect to who first lived here hundreds of years ago)

Is your point that American Indians had once lived on the land, but had long since abandoned it by the time white settlers came in and set up camp?

blueviper wrote: That reminds me a few Saturdays ago we did a campus visit with our high schooler to Wash U in St. Louis. Before the tour there's a power point about various things and the speaker from the admissions department first off wanted to recognize that the city of St. Louis and the university sat on lands once used by indigenous peoples and they wanted to explain they realize that and realize the opportunities that are afforded by using the land (I guess settling the area without respect to who first lived here hundreds of years ago)

Side note: the St. Louis area has some amazing ancient history: https://bigthink.com/the-past/cahokia/

Bi_3 wrote:

blueviper wrote: That reminds me a few Saturdays ago we did a campus visit with our high schooler to Wash U in St. Louis. Before the tour there's a power point about various things and the speaker from the admissions department first off wanted to recognize that the city of St. Louis and the university sat on lands once used by indigenous peoples and they wanted to explain they realize that and realize the opportunities that are afforded by using the land (I guess settling the area without respect to who first lived here hundreds of years ago)

Side note: the St. Louis area has some amazing ancient history: https://bigthink.com/the-past/cahokia/

Yeah, Cahokia is a great visit and learning experience

B wrote:

blueviper wrote: (I guess settling the area without respect to who first lived here hundreds of years ago)

Is your point that American Indians had once lived on the land, but had long since abandoned it by the time white settlers came in and set up camp?

My point or Wash U's point?

Are they talking about the Cahokians that fizzled out in the 1300s or some more recent tribes in the area? I know the US wasn't too kind to Native Americans up through 1850s (Trail of Tears and the Indian displacements during that time)

I don't know. I dismantled the argument too much to figure out who said what now. Please move on without me.