Science must be abolished according to UCT students as it is Racist.

[timb]

Example:
Innocent children's cartoon, where complaint(s) were about some moving visuals where they claimed it was religious/sacred writings. Despite the author(s) or similar, saying it was just random text. They were forced to pull the entire program.

http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/controversy-erupts-over-fireman-sam-scene-where-characters-trips-quran-881440811

Huh. I didn't know Dave created children's television shows too... Where does he find the time?M

Fireman Sam creator David Jones has previously found himself under fire after he was held for questioning for asking why a veiled woman was allowed through airport security without being checked.

Dave has had quite a career:

Singer/Pop Icon (People say he monkeys around...)
TV Show Creator/Producer
Electronics Engineer
Writer
Internet Dating Expert
and Closet Racist!

When I read through your post, I could NOT understand it. I assumed I had messed up, or you were joking or something.

I actually read through that part, and did NOT notice he was called "David Jones", wow!
I was reading very quickly, I guess.

Except that "Jones" is a very common surname in the UK (especial Wales I believe).

Well spotted!
You had me fooled for a while. I thought you were mixed up and thought I was talking about an EEVblog video 

 

XD

Yes, David Jones seems to be quite a common name. I see it all over the place!

(Hence my list above, combining Davy Jones from the 1960's band The Monkees, David Jones the "racist, Fireman Sam" creator and our David L. Jones, Engineer/Internet Dating Expert!)

[MK14]

XD

Yes, David Jones seems to be quite a common name. I see it all over the place!

(Hence my list above, combining Davy Jones from the 1960's band The Monkees, David Jones the "racist, Fireman Sam" creator and our David L. Jones, Engineer/Internet Dating Expert!)

If I remember correctly, "our" "David Jones", was/is an Internet Dating Expert!.
So you fooled me again 

Because I thought most of the list was valid (Internet dating expert, Engineer, TV Show Creator/Producer (A possible exaggeration of his YouTube success's), and Writer (I have read or seen some of the thing(s) he has written on the Internet, e.g. A PCB guide) ).
I can't 100% accurately remember my thoughts, but this paragraph is roughly right. But my thoughts were probably a bit different in practice. The basic gist is at least somewhat right/correct, anyway.

tl;dr
I thought most of the list was valid, so assumed the missing bits were either something I did not know about our "David Jones", or you were mixing in things from the guy caught at the airport and who did the fireman cartoons.

Final excuse: I had not heard of the "David Jones" from the 1960's (I actually like the monkeys music, so double  ) 

Anyway I'll stop digging my own hole (it's already big enough to hide in), otherwise one of the other "David Jones's", will join this forum, just to mock my ignorance and foolishness, in my last couple of posts in this thread.

[Rick Law]

Of course they have universities in Africa.

Seems like, your sarcasm detector is broken.
I read scientific papers, so far none of which I can remember came from africa. Also, when I'm thinking about Cape town, I'm thinking about highest murder rates, not "hmm... I wonder what universities they have there". So they have some PR to do. This video is surely not helping that.

Probably so!  My apologies.

I am rather disappointed with how most universities are behaving these days.  My mind was clogged.

[kxenos]

Oh, nice. I'll tell you who the hypocrite is here. You attack me instead of the argument you

Spare me you were condescending and elitist in your reply.

What do you mean when you say we brought them here? Are you 400 years old? I never brought anyone here, people who lived here 3-400 years ago did, I didn’t.

Yes I place a monetary value on it, grow up everything is about money it’s how you feed and clothe yourself. Money is also what the people who are screaming racism and discrimination also want.

Did you also read in the article that slavery crossed all races and that in fact the Africans were doing it amongst themselves? Did you also read that it was the west that eventually took a stand against slavery? You do also know slavery still goes on, in Africa especially?

Oh come on, the "Hope that cleared that up for you" epilogue wasn't elitist! It was a sarcastic comment about myself writing a full paragraph of text without saying actually nothing. It's like I'm saying "I know my post didn't contribute anything to the discussion and that's because these subjects are too difficult for me." Is it better now?
Well, I'm not interested in the monetary value of these things. And it's not elitist's or rich persons view. It's who I am, really. If something is right according to my version of ethics, it's right. And if it's wrong it's wrong. How much money will I earn or pay, or how much prison time I will serve is not relevant in my deciding about the moral value of an action. But of course the benefit or the pay should also be just according to the good or the bad thing I did.
Somehow, even if I'm not 400y.o and I don't feel I've done something wrong, I feel morally obligated to take some responsibility about my father's wrong doings. Just because I'm the closest relative - descendant he has. But you know what? If I could decide about the issue of African-Americans, I wouldn't give them money. I would give them firstly an apology (costs nothing), then good schools and the best teachers and equal opportunities in succeeding (what danny says, mockingly, but without actually contributing anything, as always) and sign (as a state) with them a new contract.

Finally, when you say that the west took a stand against slavery, let me ask, do you somehow subcutaneously take a small pleasure out of this fact because you feel yourself as a member of this culture? And if you do, does it strike you, that you subconsciously put your self in a group (western culture) that did something right without you being there with the same ease you exclude yourself from a subgroup (northern americans) that did something wrong? Just a question.

[kxenos]

Deep down, your suspension is incorrect and reflect your way of thinking. Finish your wine and go to sleep as I will.

[tszaboo]

What I never understood, there is equality, right? Every color is equal.

Legally there is equality, yes. That's about it. But when you look around there, you see every kind of job, or region has a fixed color. (Except for the little initiatives to create equality in practice.)

Today standard is: You need a certain education to get a certain job. Unless the person had that education, I dont expect them to have a certain job. Now, when I went to university, there was a total number of 0 from the african european, the muslim and 1 from the country's largest minority. There were several from the far east. Learning EE or CS. There is no basketball education, or nitiatives to create equality. Why would there be?
Next time we will see that work is racist, because you need a degree for something, rigth?

[Jeff_Birt]

I think many of you have allowed yourselves to fall into a trap. A very common tactic of those seeking power and/or your money is to create a problem and get everyone whipped up into a furor over said made up problem. Of course the same people who fabricated the problem also have a solution to sell you. Stating that 'western' science is racist is the fabricated problem, arguing over the sins of our fathers is a distraction.

Science is about understanding the world about us, it is universal. The color of your skin, your nationality or your religion are irrelevant. Our modern understanding of science draws from sources all over the world throughout all of human history. And, given that all of humanity's ancestors immigrated out of Africa pre-historic times you could say that all of science if African in origin (yes I'm being silly there).

Don't get distracted with the racism and slavery furor, it is a trap. All of us can trace our family tress and find ancestors who were oppressed and ancestors who were oppressors.

[Cerebus]

I think many of you have allowed yourselves to fall into a trap. A very common tactic of those seeking power and/or your money is to create a problem and get everyone whipped up into a furor over said made up problem. Of course the same people who fabricated the problem also have a solution to sell you. Stating that 'western' science is racist is the fabricated problem, arguing over the sins of our fathers is a distraction.

I'm sure that there is some truth in that but I suspect it only accounts for a fraction of the people involved in this. More likely motivations are the usual ones in politics - "something needs to be done", "I'd like to shag that man/woman who's speaking", simple tribalism (note that's a small 't'), herd mentality etc. etc.

Like all political lies there is a grain of truth at the core of this. Remember that this started at protests aimed at removing a statue of Cecil Rhodes. I can quite understand why people would want to remove a statue that honours someone that is now, with more than a little justification, regarded as an oppressor. You aren't going to find many statues in public places of Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, etc. etc.

It's a short, but familiar, step from "this is a statue of a bad man" to "the people who put this statue up are bad",  to "anybody like the people who put this statue up are bad", to "all our problems are caused by people who are like the people who put this statue up - kill them all". There's no rationality in that progress of events but it will catch up many, many people who ought to know better. Once you've abandoned rationality to take that first step it's easier to sidestep rationality when you're further down the path. Before you know it you've got a great big pile of bodies, half your infrastructure in flames and you've still got the problems you started out with which weren't anyway caused by a statue of a man.

What I think is notable is that not one of the 'movers' in the video that sparked this discussion would have been born in 1994. Why 1994? Because that's the year that the first universal (i.e. majority rule) elections in South Africa were held. So none of the loud voices being heard there are of people who actually suffered under apartheid. Also I strongly suspect that none of the loud voices being heard here belong to the children of the poor, i.e. those making the noise are already part of a relatively privileged minority.

The turning point, as always, is going from the reasonable, to the small lie to the big lie. I suspect somehow that the speaker has no disbelief in the laws of Gravity, as espoused by Newton or otherwise.

Note that I think there is no difference here between the people who are leading this saying "It's all the White's fault" and the people in other places (and also, but not necessarily, other times)  who say that is it all the fault of the immigrants/Jews/blacks/Moslems/intellectuals/commies/liberals/SJWs. As long as there is an easily identifiable group to blame you don't have to take responsibility for your own shortfalls or inability to actually get on and do something about the substantive problems. If the 'other' isn't sufficiently identifiable you can make them wear yellow stars or pink triangles. If they don't actually exist, that's OK, just make them up - (Communists in the State Department). The followers, as opposed to the leaders, are the same as they've always been - bamboozled.

Why is this all worrying? One word: Zimbabwe.

[Cerebus]

Note that I think there is no difference here between the people who are leading this saying "It's all the White's fault" and the people in other places (and also, but not necessarily, other times)  who say that is it all the fault of the immigrants/Jews/blacks/Moslems/intellectuals/commies/liberals/SJWs. As long as there is an easily identifiable group to blame you don't have to take responsibility for your own shortfalls or inability to actually get on and do something about the substantive problems.

At what point do these identifiable groups then have to "own their own shit"
You can point at 1950's America and say there was enough cultural white racism to deny common rights to blacks,
just as we can point to Islamic countries and peoples for aiding or passively supporting ISIS and the jihadist mentality, or #BLM for ignoring black on black violence.

I'm not quite sure what your point is? It would appear that you are saying that the groups that get picked as scapegoats are at least partly culpable. That is not the dynamic of what happens here. They can be every shade of culpable for their own failings (from blameless to steeped in sin as black as a lawyer's heart) and it is irrelevant, because they are being used as scapegoats.

[Cerebus]

I'm not quite sure what your point is? It would appear that you are saying that the groups that get picked as scapegoats are at least partly culpable. That is not the dynamic of what happens here. They can be every shade of culpable for their own failings (from blameless to steeped in sin as black as a lawyer's heart) and it is irrelevant, because they are being used as scapegoats.

Which group is using which as a scrape goat?
did people miss their flight because all white people are racist or that #BLM thought it would be useful to their  culturally blind agenda to close down an airport.
When is it legitimate to say my reaction to your action is legitimate.

I don't think you're quite following this. It's an attempt to do some reasoned thinking about why these people (specifically these South African students) are acting like this, not a attempt to provide you with a hook on which to hang on your, what appears rather confused, thoughts about who is to blame. To blame, apparently, for missing a flight, which I can't see has anything to do with a bunch of South African students making outrageous claims about 'white' science for apparently political reasons. Your train of thought is a little, how can I put it, divergent, or as someone once described it to me "knight's move thinking" - it shoots off at right angles.

[XynxNet]

I wonder why this students sits in an environment created entirely by science, if she wants to abolish it so bad.
It's not as if you couldn't live more or less native if you really wanted to. There are still some people doing that on our planet.

[Rick Law]

About 1.5 minutes into the video, the lady in white lectured another student citing the rules of their "Progressive Space".  I take it to be their version of "safe space".  I think safe space is rather unsafe for the future of education.  Universities are too busy doing irrelevant things to create this "feel good" environment.  In do so, they failed their real job - which is to create knowledge and to create thinking minds.  Unfortunately, brain-dead academia is not just at UCT, it is world wide. 

Quote from National Post (Canada):
Brock University students attending this year’s campus Halloween party are being encouraged to check a website to make sure their costumes are not “prohibited.”

According to a “costume protocol” developed by the student union at the St. Catharines, Ont., university, traditional or religious headdresses, such as feathered bonnets and turbans, are off-limits. So, too, are thobes — ankle-length robes worn by Arab men; makeup depicting Japanese geishas; outfits containing the Confederate flag; and costumes that depict Caitlyn Jenner, the transgender celebrity.

Full article: http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/universities-crack-down-on-offensive-halloween-costumes-at-campus-parties

On the bright side, there is at least a little push back starting.  U of Chicago's Dean send incoming freshman (this year) a letter on U of Chicago's position on safe space and so called "trigger warnings":

"Our commitment to academic freedom means that we do not support so-called 'trigger warnings,' we do not cancel invited speakers because their topics might prove controversial, and we do not condone the creation of intellectual 'safe spaces' where individuals can retreat from ideas and perspectives at odds with their own, ..."

full artcile: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-university-of-chicago-safe-spaces-letter-met-20160825-story.html

Now it would be interesting to see what Tsinghua University's position, or Peking (Beijing) University's position, or India Institute of Technology's position on "safe space".  They are in a country that is making real progress rather than just being "progressive".  China had not be colonized by the west but certainly had been "man handled" by the west late 1800 to WWII era.  India was a British Colony.  Both India and China are making real progress.  I don't know for sure where they stand, but it would surprise me if you found "safe space" or "progressive space" in any of these three institutions.

[retrolefty]

What I never understood, there is equality, right? Every color is equal.

Legally there is equality, yes. That's about it. But when you look around there, you see every kind of job, or region has a fixed color. (Except for the little initiatives to create equality in practice.)

when you go beyond legal equality you quickly move towards a "equality of outcome" vs.  "equality of opportunity"

 That IMHO is the most insightful comment in this whole thread. Equal outcomes among people cannot be designed or implemented by individuals nor governments. Once legal equality is obtained the rest is up to individuals to succeed or fail on their own over time and over multi generations in some cases. The bus to utopia has yet to leave it's station.

[Cerebus]

I don't think you're quite following this. It's an attempt to do some reasoned thinking about why these people (specifically these South African students) are acting like this, not a attempt to provide you with a hook on which to hang on your, what appears rather confused, thoughts about who is to blame. To blame, apparently, for missing a flight, which I can't see has anything to do with a bunch of South African students making outrageous claims about 'white' science for apparently political reasons. Your train of thought is a little, how can I put it, divergent, or as someone once described it to me "knight's move thinking" - it shoots off at right angles.

Well there's clarifying a debate point and there's being a pompous dick about it,
thanks for clearing that up for me.

Look, you're just not making any sense. Insulting me doesn't help clarify what you're saying or move the argument forward.

Frankly, I don't know where you're coming from or where you're trying to go. At the moment my suspicions are either that you're drunk, or that you're trying to bend the argument to some vaguely anti-somebody agenda, probably racially related, or that you've got mental health issues. If it's the either of the former then you don't really want a debate, if it's the latter then we probably don't have a clue how to help you.

[Cerebus]

U of Chicago's Dean send incoming freshman (this year) a letter on U of Chicago's position on safe space and so called "trigger warnings":

"Our commitment to academic freedom means that we do not support so-called 'trigger warnings,' we do not cancel invited speakers because their topics might prove controversial, and we do not condone the creation of intellectual 'safe spaces' where individuals can retreat from ideas and perspectives at odds with their own, ..."

When I originally encountered the idea of "safe space" in academic argument the idea was one of an environment where one could express any idea without fear of censure for exploring unpopular or "unthinkable" ideas. That is the exact opposite of what the idea seems to have evolved into which would appear to be some form or pre-censure of unpopular or "unthinkable" ideas. Academia ought to present you with ideas that you fear, dislike or are opposed to in an environment that fosters civil, polite discussion of those ideas. I find this being turned on its head perverse.

[doobedoobedo]

That is the exact opposite of what the idea seems to have evolved into which would appear to be some form or pre-censure of unpopular or "unthinkable" ideas.

I think what you meant to say was that you got a different set of bigots taking advantage to the ones you were expecting.

[Cerebus]

That is the exact opposite of what the idea seems to have evolved into which would appear to be some form or pre-censure of unpopular or "unthinkable" ideas.

I think what you meant to say was that you got a different set of bigots taking advantage to the ones you were expecting.

No, it goes beyond that. It appears that the modern "safe space" is a complete inversion of the old, not merely a change of who gets to speak there.

The old was a "safe space" to say anything, the new is a "safe space" to not hear anything you don't like. The inherent risk of the old "safe space" is that bigots would take advantage of it but the promise was that something useful might get heard that would otherwise not be said. The modern just seems to be a way of getting an echo chamber that only repeats what you want to hear which, if everybody's sensibilities are taken into account, can logically only result in silence.

The old was about ensuring the airing of ideas - which has some obvious utility. The new seems to be about actively avoiding new ideas which seems futile.

[Marco]

The new seems to be about actively avoiding new ideas which seems futile.

No, it's about avoiding non social justice ideas. Most all ideas are old after all.

Although I must grant the social justice types that they are quite apt at coming up with new ideas, it's far easier when they don't have to make sense.

[EEVblog]

Passed it up to a mod, not willing to engage with someone like you

Seriously people 
You don't report things because it's something you don't like and you want it removed so you aren't tempted to reply.
Just don't reply!

As for this thread, either keep it civil and on topic or it gets locked.

[Tinkerer]

I think this all boils down to a lack of understanding of exactly what science is and a failure of schooling.

At its basis, science is come up with an idea, test said idea out, and if idea proves to be false or not entirely correct, revise or come up with new idea and repeat. You arnt going to find anyone to argue against this logic but perhaps they might try arguing against the word science itself. Yea, that still doesnt make any sense, but I think if we have a catastrophe of some sort these sorts of people probably wont last too long.

[EEVblog]

When I originally encountered the idea of "safe space" in academic argument the idea was one of an environment where one could express any idea without fear of censure for exploring unpopular or "unthinkable" ideas. That is the exact opposite of what the idea seems to have evolved into which would appear to be some form or pre-censure of unpopular or "unthinkable" ideas. Academia ought to present you with ideas that you fear, dislike or are opposed to in an environment that fosters civil, polite discussion of those ideas. I find this being turned on its head perverse.

Safe spaces are the most ridiculous social concept in a long time.
They are so stupid and counterproductive to the advancement of society and education I just can't see the concept surviving, it is destined to enter a death spiral and implode under it's own weight of stupidity.
But maybe its the idea we had to have in order to inoculate us against it in the future.

[Macbeth]

Passed it up to a mod, not willing to engage with someone like you

Seriously people 
You don't report things because it's something you don't like and you want it removed so you aren't tempted to reply.
Just don't reply!

As for this thread, either keep it civil and on topic or it gets locked.

Ahem, if I may so bold as to suggest that you create a "Safe Space" forum. Let anyone and everyone post in it. Just don't tell them that as soon as their post count in there goes above 2 their access to other forums mysteriously drops. No new posts to read. A kind of "reverse shadow ban" if you will  Leave them to their own devices. This may seem cruel but really it is what they ask for, a kind of circlejerk echo chamber. 

[EEVblog]

I think this all boils down to a lack of understanding of exactly what science is and a failure of schooling.

It is. That woman should not have "respected" and apologised to, she should have been laughed out of the room.
But I suspect the whole event was setup in order to give her a platform 
Sam harris nails it:
https://youtu.be/pmPtH4IDFNQ?t=2m29s

[MK14]

but I think if we have a catastrophe of some sort these sorts of people probably wont last too long.

Don't underestimate the huge protective powers of the Black Magic Voodoo, Witch Doctors. After you have given them a few hundred dollars.


An arguably rogue Doctor, once published an article/paper, stating that some vaccines cause young children to become autistic. It is widely/unanimously believed to be false/nonsense paper(s), with no scientific basis.

But sadly, as a result, some mothers refuse for their young children to get vaccinated. Sometimes with dreadful/bad outcomes.

Some non-Scientific information, can actually be dangerous to people, such as the (very likely to be false) claims about the dangers of the vaccine.

So it is a worry, when some people are significantly unscientific.

E.g. In the US, an apparently dangerous person, going round with a gun. Refusing to listen to Police, to put the gun down. Gets shot dead, and sometimes a YouTube video, shows what happened. But the video can be missing important early stages of what happened and be a bit blurry/shaky. Some people jump to incorrect conclusions, and ...

Then more people are killed, during the rioting that occurs the next day. Even though the police had to defend themselves against an armed gunman, who refused to put the gun down.

[bitslice]

Just don't reply!

wtf,
you warned me not to kick off if someone was being a cunt, so I haven't.

Noted that sarky patronising comments about "divergent thinking", accusations of drunkness, racism and mental health issues are now OK.

Look at my initial posts, I did not deserve this response, and presumably I'll now get the shitty end of the stick.

Although I must grant the social justice types that they are quite apt at coming up with new ideas, it's far easier when they don't have to make sense.

To be fair, some ideas of equality are always going to be resisted, because the status quo suits the majority and for the most part we are oblivious to its implications for minorities.