If Mort Divine ruled the world
- Thread starter Zephyrus
- Start date
Einherjar86
Active Member
CiG
Harbinger of Metal
Is the assumption that Trump thinks Douglass is still alive?
Wouldn't he have said an example of somebody who is doing an amazing job and is being recognized more and more, I notice rather than an example of somebody who has done an amazing job and is being recognized more and more, I notice if he thought he was still alive?
I mean, it wouldn't surprise me, I doubt Trump is educated on political history or even American history much, if at all.
Wouldn't he have said an example of somebody who is doing an amazing job and is being recognized more and more, I notice rather than an example of somebody who has done an amazing job and is being recognized more and more, I notice if he thought he was still alive?
I mean, it wouldn't surprise me, I doubt Trump is educated on political history or even American history much, if at all.
Einherjar86
Active Member
I think the assumption is that he has no idea who Douglass is.
I'm really not trying to make any argumentative point here, just think it's hilarious that our president doesn't seem to know who the most famous (probably) escaped slave and black abolitionist is. I'm not saying everyone should, but I do think there's a certain level of, you know... historical learning that's expected of the commander in chief.
I'm really not trying to make any argumentative point here, just think it's hilarious that our president doesn't seem to know who the most famous (probably) escaped slave and black abolitionist is. I'm not saying everyone should, but I do think there's a certain level of, you know... historical learning that's expected of the commander in chief.
CiG
Harbinger of Metal
That expectation has a lot to do with the conditioning we have that country leaders should be career politicians, or to a lesser extent military men.
Trump is just a typical uneducated bozo, albeit with money.
Trump is just a typical uneducated bozo, albeit with money.
Dak
mentat
Einherjar86
Active Member
rms
Active Member
who is doing the fudging...you introduce a term in a certain scope and don't define it
>_>
<_<
Einherjar86
Active Member
Man, I'm just trying to laugh at the moron sitting in the White House.
"Fudging" means using vague or generic language when you don't know who/what something is in order to pass it off like you do know what you're talking about. Students do this in papers all the time; and often they get caught, like the president did.
"Fudging" means using vague or generic language when you don't know who/what something is in order to pass it off like you do know what you're talking about. Students do this in papers all the time; and often they get caught, like the president did.
rms
Active Member
Dak
mentat
Speaking of racism, this is quite interesting. The following image was in a listserv advertisement:
I was (not really)amazed that something so obviously racist like this was getting circulated, and I went to find a publicly available version to share without having to host etc, and what I found was even more interesting. This is last years version:
That's quite the shift in a year. Or are they now simply being more honest?
I was (not really)amazed that something so obviously racist like this was getting circulated, and I went to find a publicly available version to share without having to host etc, and what I found was even more interesting. This is last years version:
That's quite the shift in a year. Or are they now simply being more honest?
Einherjar86
Active Member
SentinelSlain
Suck my joined date.
- Nov 21, 2007
- 10,015
- 153
- 63
Baroque
Active Member
Dak
mentat
Yeah, if a a conference on "White Psychology" were announced and flyers with a picture of a Scandinavian superimposed on a map of Europe and references to "reclaiming our power" were circulated, can you imagine the media and student body meltdowns?
Einherjar86
Active Member
The first thing to point out is that you're assuming an equality between black and white. Now, before you turn this around and accuse me of racism for suggesting an inequality between black and white, I'll say that I don't mean that blacks and whites (i.e. black and white people) are unequal.
I mean that pretty every conference on psychology and mental habits, since psychology emerged as a practice, has been on "white psychology." It just wasn't necessary to specify, because "white" has been the de facto assumption since the Enlightenment (if not prior). A conference on "black psychology" isn't racist because it's simply focusing on an aspect of psychological study that most projects elide, either because they focus on psychology more generally or because they attempt to psychologize black mental health from the outside (that is, as primarily white people in a primarily white profession).
I would definitely be opposed to these kinds of conferences if they were promoting some kind of militant action or criminal behavior as the liberating power of black identity, or some such (which has been a tenet of black nationalism). But all this conference wants to do is try to observe the psychology of black subjects in a way that acknowledges the always-already white history of psychological practice.
Dak
mentat
White was the default because those were the only people engaging the in activity. No one was stopping non-Europeans from asking questions about the mind. I think everyone within psychology is aware of disparate outcome/impact issues that minorities face to varying degree, and many understand the need for minority psychologists to work with their respective populations. It aids in rapport etc. From that perspective, the 2016 poster is completely unobjectionable. But that 2017 poster is problematic to say the least.
I also find it interesting that there's concern about "psychologizing from the outside" from many people as it refers to race, but few are raising the same fuss about the state of the social sciences now being overwhelmingly liberal and female. If I had a "Conservative Male Psychology" conference/flyer with similar sorts of styling and rhetoric it would also be considered protest worthy I'm sure.
Einherjar86
Active Member
Seriously?
One of the first major non-white psychological/sociological figures was probably Franz Fanon, and his entire project was an illumination of how Europeans were preventing or inhibiting non-Europeans from asking questions about the mind.
I think you can say it's political responsive, definitely; but to say it's racist is just sensationalist.
You make a great point about the insular community of academia, which in part is a response to it being predominantly conservative and male until about the 1970s. It is, however, still predominantly white.
Is academia, especially the social sciences and humanities, aware of its insularity? You bet. Does it think it's a problem? You bet. Does that mean that every statement it makes testifies to this awareness? Definitely not.
Lastly, I'm skeptical that a flyer for a community of conservative psychologists would generate that much resistance at all. If it was "males only," yeah, sure, probably... but then, conferences on gender and women's studies aren't "women only," and you will find plenty of men at those conferences.
Dak
mentat
Which he did in Europe by asking questions about the mind as a non-European. Seems like a unsuccessful enterprise if he were correct.
I'm just trying to evenly apply the rules of public criticism of certain words. A "Male Conservative Psychologist" conference might not attract all that much public attention, depending on how it were advertised. However, I can assure you that the odds of one occurring in the current sociopolitical environment are low due to career concerns and the relative paucity of numbers.
http://www.apa.org/gradpsych/2011/01/cover-men.aspx
The APA notes the disparity:
......but then the writeup closes with:
I couldn't write better satire.
rms
Active Member
Similar threads
