"There are countless horrible things happening all over the world and horrible people prospering, but we must never allow them to disturb our equanimity or deflect us from our sacred duty to sabotage and annoy them whenever possible." -Auberon Waugh
Tuesday, December 17, 2013
From the Department of People With Too Much Time On Their Hands
I'm no computer scientist, but even I know that a computer cannot accept "true and not true at the same time". That woman is just another over-credentialed ignoramus with daddy issues.
The problem here is, if this is a gag, how the hell will we know? The PoMo LitCrit (Fill in the blank) Studies circus show has so thoroughly beclowned themselves that they cannot be parodies.
If Paco has done a book thread lately I have missed it, but this is the time to recommend Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels With Science. And before anyone sneers "Oh an idiot Bill O'Reilly/Sarah Palin screed," the two authors are themselves political liberals, distressed at postmodernist attempts to impose such bizarre concepts as "feminist algebra" on academia.
Deborah.... How much was the grant that these womyn received for this silliness? Could someone please explain to me what "posthumanist performativity" is? What degree covers that and from where?
Rinardman, that's only one day a month if it is based on peri-menipause.
Take it from the Snack, this is a gag, it is hilarious reading the comments at the link, they all seem to take it seriously !
I mean, variables can't have Y's (Y chromosomes, geddit), no constants except #whitecismaleprivilege which is set to infinity, maybe functions that get executed only if the program really feels like it....
I think it's rather clever and funny at the same time, but mostly I'm incredulous that others could possibly even THINK of taking it seriously. Must we put obligatory ... tags on all such articles ?
Ed: It may look like a gag, but I don't see any evidence of it. And the blogger whom I linked doesn't think it's a gag, either. I hit all the links, looked over the lefty association's web site at which the article was first posted, and I believe the only way this is intentional humor is if the author is a guerrilla satirist who wormed her way into a nest of soft-headed progressives who couldn't see through her (a possibility that I am perfectly prepared to accept, pending real evidence).
It seems like a modern version of Sandra Harding's The Science Question in Feminism (Cornell University Press, 1986) who wrote :
But if we are to believe that mechanistic metaphors metaphors were a fundamental component of the explanations the new science provided, why should we believe that the gender metaphors were not? A consistent analysis would lead to the conclusion that understanding nature as a woman indifferent to or even welcoming rape was equally fundamental to the interpretation of these new conceptions of nature and inquiry. Presumably these metaphors, too, had fruitful pragmatic, methodological, and metaphysical consequences for science. In that case, why is it not as illuminating and honest to refer to Newton's laws as "Newton's rape manual" as it is to call them "Newton's mechanics."
So, if you're running your computer with this feminist programming language....would it lock up one day a month?
ReplyDeleteI'm no computer scientist, but even I know that a computer cannot accept "true and not true at the same time". That woman is just another over-credentialed ignoramus with daddy issues.
ReplyDeleteThe problem here is, if this is a gag, how the hell will we know? The PoMo LitCrit (Fill in the blank) Studies circus show has so thoroughly beclowned themselves that they cannot be parodies.
ReplyDeleteIf Paco has done a book thread lately I have missed it, but this is the time to recommend Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels With Science. And before anyone sneers "Oh an idiot Bill O'Reilly/Sarah Palin screed," the two authors are themselves political liberals, distressed at postmodernist attempts to impose such bizarre concepts as "feminist algebra" on academia.
Deborah.... How much was the grant that these womyn received for this silliness? Could someone please explain to me what "posthumanist performativity" is? What degree covers that and from where?
ReplyDeleteRinardman, that's only one day a month if it is based on peri-menipause.
Take it from the Snack, this is a gag, it is hilarious reading the comments at the link, they all seem to take it seriously !
ReplyDeleteI mean, variables can't have Y's (Y chromosomes, geddit), no constants except #whitecismaleprivilege which is set to infinity, maybe functions that get executed only if the program really feels like it....
I think it's rather clever and funny at the same time, but mostly I'm incredulous that others could possibly even THINK of taking it seriously. Must we put obligatory ... tags on all such articles ?
Ed: It may look like a gag, but I don't see any evidence of it. And the blogger whom I linked doesn't think it's a gag, either. I hit all the links, looked over the lefty association's web site at which the article was first posted, and I believe the only way this is intentional humor is if the author is a guerrilla satirist who wormed her way into a nest of soft-headed progressives who couldn't see through her (a possibility that I am perfectly prepared to accept, pending real evidence).
ReplyDeleteIt seems like a modern version of Sandra Harding's The Science Question in Feminism (Cornell University Press, 1986) who wrote :
ReplyDeleteBut if we are to believe that mechanistic metaphors metaphors were a fundamental component of the explanations the new science provided, why should we believe that the gender metaphors were not? A consistent analysis would lead to the conclusion that understanding nature as a woman indifferent to or even welcoming rape was equally fundamental to the interpretation of these new conceptions of nature and inquiry. Presumably these metaphors, too, had fruitful pragmatic, methodological, and metaphysical consequences for science. In that case, why is it not as illuminating and honest to refer to Newton's laws as "Newton's rape manual" as it is to call them "Newton's mechanics."