I think this political cartoon is worth discussing as it is all side that do this

[Metaphor]

Perhaps you do. That is open for debate.

I seriously doubt it could be open for debate. I am confident I know more about American academia than babies and people in persistent vegetative states, even if they're American.

But in this thread, you have claimed that you know more about American academia than...an American academic (unless I misremember laughing dog's profession). And other people who attended multiple American universities and have worked for American Universities.

I am claiming a particular claim about American academia, not that I know more about American academia "in general".

You're the one with the queen, bub.

Good god. Australia is the imperialised, not an imperialiser. The Queen of Australia is an ongoing reminder of our subjugation.

I could be wrong--I am not terribly well versed in the history of this forum but I believe it is using an American product to host.

I don't doubt it. That statement is evidence for my case, not against it.

That would explain why the default is for American spelling. I'm certain that if I were in Australia,

Huh? I am in Australia.

I would be expected to follow Australian conventions in spelling, driving, etc. And if I were using Australian software to type out words, or if I chose Australian English as the convention I wished to follow, I'm certain that I would be prompted to use the Australian spelling.

You needn't follow Australian conventions when publishing on an internationally-available message board.

But I expect you to refrain from imperialist 'jokes' (deliberate insults) about my allegedly incorrect English when you are on an internationally-available message board.

I described a shoe and you decided it was your size. OK.

No, you said I had a stick up my ass. And an internet connection. Only one of those assertions is true.

 

[Rhea]

Metaphor made this claim in post #5

The left denying that critical race theory is the hegemony at American universities springs to my mind of the left's gaslighting.

To prove it, he presented the example of the president of Princeton University, writing a letter 6 months ago, outlining efforts to combat racism.
The implication being, I presume, that in 6 months, Princeton has become suffocatingly suffused with CRT to the point of “hegemony”

THis is the only evidence he has submitted so far for his claim that “critical race theory is the hegemony at American universities”

Hegemony is the political, economic, or military predominance or control of one state over others. In ancient Greece, hegemony denoted the politico-military dominance of a city-state over other city-states. The dominant state is known as the hegemon. Wikipedia

When people argued that a president’s letter certainly seems to display the president’s (newly shared) way of thinking does not reveal how the academics or the experience of the student is ruled and asked for more evidence on why this letter = hegemony, he railed,

I'm done trying to convince you that American academia is in the grip of CRT. If you believe you do not have enough evidence to make that judgment of Princeton, then no evidence that could possibly be produced could convince you.

Indicating that his example of the letter of the Princeton president was his evidence that should convince us that “American Academia is in the grip of CRT”. It’s hard to see why else he would put those two sentences together like that.

He then declares,

I have explained more than once that I did not intend to generalise from Princeton to all of academia, so your repeated insinuation that that's what I wanted to do is dishonest.

Laughing dog points out that in that case, Metaphor has not shown any evidence at all that “American Academia is in the grip of CRT.”


I had asked Metaphor to explain his measurement technique on how he decided “critical race theory is the hegemony at American universities,” How many universities does it have to be in order to be hegemony? How do we know that it is pervasive at any given university, what would be the signs of this?

Metaphor did not choose to engage with those questions, instead offering answers like,

It is not all 5,300, but it is much larger than 1.

So in sum, in aswer to all questions about his claim that
“critical race theory is the hegemony at American universities”
Metaphor’s only example is a letter written less than a year ago by a single university president.

I think it is fair to conclude that:
Yes posts 84 and 86 are contradictory,
Yes Metaphor has failed to present any evidence of the hegemony of CRT in American universities
Yes it would be ridiculous to say that “the left is gaslighting” anyone on this issue (assuming we know who The Left is, in the first place.)


So maybe there are other, more relevant cases of The Left being “just as bad” as the right wrt the cartoon, but they have not yet been presented.

 

[Toni]

I am claiming a particular claim about American academia, not that I know more about American academia "in general".

I cannot understand why you think you are more familiar with any aspect of American academia than most adult Americans or any high schooler applying for college, much less an actual American academic. Because you read an article on the internet?

Good god. Australia is the imperialised, not an imperialiser. The Queen of Australia is an ongoing reminder of our subjugation.

I believe that Australia chose to remain part part of the British monarchy. (Royal Styles and Titles Act in 1953 and more recently, a national referendum in 1999 in which the majority of Australians reaffirmed the Queen of England as also their head of state.) So, Australia owns that, and all that it includes.

I could be wrong--I am not terribly well versed in the history of this forum but I believe it is using an American product to host.

I don't doubt it. That statement is evidence for my case, not against it.

And this is evidence of your anti-American prejudice.

That would explain why the default is for American spelling. I'm certain that if I were in Australia,

Huh? I am in Australia.

I forgot: you don't seem able to see past your own nose or to recognize when someone is attempting to show a different aspect of an issue.

I would be expected to follow Australian conventions in spelling, driving, etc. And if I were using Australian software to type out words, or if I chose Australian English as the convention I wished to follow, I'm certain that I would be prompted to use the Australian spelling.

You needn't follow Australian conventions when publishing on an internationally-available message board.

Thank you for permission to continue what I was doing.

But I expect you to refrain from imperialist 'jokes' (deliberate insults) about my allegedly incorrect English when you are on an internationally-available message board.

I was making a small joke about your spelling, not your English and it was intended in a friendly manner. Unlike your continued deliberate insults and provocations.

I described a shoe and you decided it was your size. OK.

No, you said I had a stick up my ass. And an internet connection. Only one of those assertions is true.

No: I was speaking in generalities. YOU decided it applied to you.

 

[Metaphor]

Metaphor made this claim in post #5

To prove it, he presented the example of the president of Princeton University,

No, I did not present Princeton to prove my claim. The claim is that the left gaslights everyone else by denying that CRT is hegemony at American universities. I did not try to prove that CRT is hegemony at American universities by claiming it was hegemony at Princeton, and therefore it was hegemony across all academia. I simply did not do it. I asked if Princeton counted as a place where CRT is hegemonic. I don't know if you ever answered.

writing a letter 6 months ago, outlining efforts to combat racism.
The implication being, I presume, that in 6 months, Princeton has become suffocatingly suffused with CRT to the point of “hegemony”

No, the CRT rot set in long before 2020.

THis is the only evidence he has submitted so far for his claim that “critical race theory is the hegemony at American universities”

Rhea, please stop. I did not submit Princeton as evidence that CRT is hegemony at American universities. STOP LYING ABOUT WHAT I DID.

When people argued that a president’s letter certainly seems to display the president’s (newly shared) way of thinking does not reveal how the academics or the experience of the student is ruled and asked for more evidence on why this letter = hegemony, he railed,

I'm done trying to convince you that American academia is in the grip of CRT. If you believe you do not have enough evidence to make that judgment of Princeton, then no evidence that could possibly be produced could convince you.

Indicating that his example of the letter of the Princeton president was his evidence that should convince us that “American Academia is in the grip of CRT”.

STOP IT. My example of the Princeton letter was not and was never to try to prove “American Academia is in the grip of CRT”. It was to prove Princeton is in the grip of CRT and the letter is sufficient evidence to justify that belief. You would know this if you read and processed the statement I made about Princeton the very first time I mentioned Princeton and every time thereafter.

It’s hard to see why else he would put those two sentences together like that.

Go back to the first post where I mentioned Princeton. Try and be honest in your arguments about what I did.

Laughing dog points out that in that case, Metaphor has not shown any evidence at all that “American Academia is in the grip of CRT.”

Gospa moja: I said multiple times that if somebody were not convinced that, with the evidence presented, CRT was not hegemony at Princeton, then no evidence I can produce can convince them of the broader claim that CRT is hegemony at American universities.

My opinion--that CRT is hegemony in American academia--would not be my opinion if I did not believe it to be true of Princeton, because Princeton is one of the most obvious examples of CRT hegemony. If you don't believe that CRT is hegemony at Princeton, I do not have any evidence that you would accept that CRT is hegemony in academia.

Imagine I made the claim that US Senators were obscenely wealthy and you expressed skepticism. I then said "well, do you think Mitt Romney is obscenely wealthy?" and you said "no, he's rich but I wouldn't call him obscenely wealthy".

That kills the possibility that I could ever hope to prove that US Senators are obscenely wealthy. If you already don't think the wealthiest senator counts, how much the less could would the US Senate as a whole count?

If on the other hand, you said "yeah, Mitt Romney counts as obscenely wealthy", then there's somewhere to go. Then there's statements I can make and evidence I can adduce. But if you dismiss the quintessential obscene wealth example as not actually being an example, then there's nowhere to go.

I had asked Metaphor to explain his measurement technique on how he decided “critical race theory is the hegemony at American universities,” How many universities does it have to be in order to be hegemony? How do we know that it is pervasive at any given university, what would be the signs of this?

Metaphor did not choose to engage with those questions, instead offering answers like,

Huh? That is engaging with them.

So in sum, in aswer to all questions about his claim that
“critical race theory is the hegemony at American universities”
Metaphor’s only example is a letter written less than a year ago by a single university president.

No, that was not evidence of the claim and you have repeated that falsehood umpteen times.

EDITED TO ADD: I presume the part of the claim that the left denies CRT is hegemony in American academia is not under dispute. Certainly both Rhea and laughing dog have been denying it. They would say they are denying it because they don't believe it to actually be hegemony. I would say they are denying it as a gaslighting tactic.

 

[Metaphor]

I cannot understand why you think you are more familiar with any aspect of American academia than most adult Americans or any high schooler applying for college, much less an actual American academic. Because you read an article on the internet?

An article? If by "an article" you mean hundreds of articles, news reports, opinion pieces, etc, over decades?

Also, I've been to a number of campuses in Australia, have two degrees, and was a casual academic for a number of years. Not in America, true, but I am familiar with academia.

I believe that Australia chose to remain part part of the British monarchy. (Royal Styles and Titles Act in 1953 and more recently, a national referendum in 1999 in which the majority of Australians reaffirmed the Queen of England as also their head of state.) So, Australia owns that, and all that it includes.

I voted in the 1999 referendum to leave and I'm terribly saddened republicans couldn't get it over the line. But since the UK monarchy looks like it is on the verge of self-destruction we might yet discard the training wheels in my lifetime.

And this is evidence of your anti-American prejudice.

My goodness it's exquisite when a blatantly imperialist American accuses others of prejudice.

Thank you for permission to continue what I was doing.

It wasn't permission.

I was making a small joke about your spelling, not your English and it was intended in a friendly manner. Unlike your continued deliberate insults and provocations.

I can hardly believe it was intended in a friendly manner.

 

[Rhea]

STOP IT. My example of the Princeton letter was not and was never to try to prove “American Academia is in the grip of CRT”. It was to prove Princeton is in the grip of CRT and the letter is sufficient evidence to justify that belief. You would know this if you read and processed the statement I made about Princeton the very first time I mentioned Princeton and every time thereafter.

My opinion--that CRT is hegemony in American academia--would not be my opinion if I did not believe it to be true of Princeton, because Princeton is one of the most obvious examples of CRT hegemony. If you don't believe that CRT is hegemony at Princeton, I do not have any evidence that you would accept that CRT is hegemony in academia.

So it seems like you’re saying that if a university president writes a letter that asks the university to look at CRT, that is your proof that it is hegemon at that university?

That’s it?

It doesn’t matter if all the faculty disagree, or if 1/2 do, or 1/3, it doesn’t matter if it is absent from course content, or only shows up in history courses?

All it takes is a president writing a letter and, instant hegemony?

Because that’s all the evidence you’ve supplied for your wide-eyed shock that I’m not convinced.

Imagine I made the claim that US Senators were obscenely wealthy and you expressed skepticism. I then said "well, do you think Mitt Romney is obscenely wealthy?" and you said "no, he's rich but I wouldn't call him obscenely wealthy".

That kills the possibility that I could ever hope to prove that US Senators are obscenely wealthy. If you already don't think the wealthiest senator counts, how much the less could would the US Senate as a whole count?

No. IMagine if you said Dan Sullivan is obscenely wealthy, but you gave no information about how you know he is obscenely wealthy, or how I would know. But you assumed your claim proved facts not in evidence.

I’d say, “how did you measure that? How did you know? How would I know?
And you said, “he uses the same banker as Warren Buffet?

I’d say, “um, Metaphor, you haven’t demonstrated anything. I can’t say.”

EDITED TO ADD: I presume the part of the claim that the left denies CRT is hegemony in American academia is not under dispute. Certainly both Rhea and laughing dog have been denying it. They would say they are denying it because they don't believe it to actually be hegemony. I would say they are denying it as a gaslighting tactic.

You presume wrong. I am saying “you have not shown any evidence that allows me to decide that it is, and my experience directly with US universities, including 2 children currently attending universities, does not support your claim. Do you have anything else?” That’s what I’m saying.


And yes, the only evidence you have presented for your initial claim is princeton, which is not well supported. So… I’m not going to fabricate actions so I can accuse them of something. I’m just wait and see. But so far my experience in the environment does not comport with your claim.

 

[Metaphor]

So it seems like you’re saying that if a university president writes a letter that asks the university to look at CRT, that is your proof that it is hegemon at that university?

You open without any acknowledgment of your continual misrepresentation about my arguments? Really?

That’s it?

It doesn’t matter if all the faculty disagree, or if 1/2 do, or 1/3, it doesn’t matter if it is absent from course content, or only shows up in history courses?

All it takes is a president writing a letter and, instant hegemony?

When you misrepresent other people's arguments, do you have to apply effort or does it come easily to you?

Rhea, earlier when you said 'one person writes a letter', do you have any shame about how badly that misrepresents what I was talking about at Princeton?

The identity of the person who wrote the letter counts. The President of a university is the boss. The boss sets the strategic direction of a university. The board of trustees would not have selected a boss that was counter to their own values, unless Eisgruber conned the entire board and was a secret CRT true believer while presenting a public face that he was not one.

And consider a counterfactual: do you think Eisgruber could have presented an open letter making the exact opposite claims that he made in his actual letter? That Princeton had not been historically racist and that it is not currently racist? Do you think Eisgruber could have presented such a letter without swift, career-ending repercussions for him?

Because that’s all the evidence you’ve supplied for your wide-eyed shock that I’m not convinced.

That isn't all the evidence I presented.

No. IMagine if you said Dan Sullivan is obscenely wealthy, but you gave no information about how you know he is obscenely wealthy, or how I would know. But you assumed your claim proved facts not in evidence.

I’d say, “how did you measure that? How did you know? How would I know?
And you said, “he uses the same banker as Warren Buffet?

I’d say, “um, Metaphor, you haven’t demonstrated anything. I can’t say.”

I think Eisgruber's letter is evidence that CRT is hegemony at Princeton. That is the kind of thing I mean when I talk about what the hegemony of a value-set would look like in academia. If you don't think that letter is sufficient to prove hegemony, then that's where the conversation ends.

You presume wrong. I am saying “you have not shown any evidence that allows me to decide that it is, and my experience directly with US universities, including 2 children currently attending universities, does not support your claim. Do you have anything else?” That’s what I’m saying.

Huh? I've been saying quite plainly if you don't believe CRT is hegemony at Princeton based on what is publically available about Princeton, then no, I do not have anything more, and I've been saying it for ten pages.

And yes, the only evidence you have presented for your initial claim is princeton,

Just stop lying. Please. I never presented Princeton as evidence that CRT is hegemony in American academia. Just stop.

 

[ZiprHead]

The claim is that the left gaslights everyone else by denying that CRT is hegemony at American universities.

I think it's pretty obvious it is you trying to gaslight the rest of us by claiming that CRT is hegemony at American universities without providing evidence.

 

[Metaphor]

The claim is that the left gaslights everyone else by denying that CRT is hegemony at American universities.

I think it's pretty obvious it is you trying to gaslight the rest of us by claiming that CRT is hegemony at American universities without providing evidence.

Saying I have a certain belief gaslights nobody.

 

[ZiprHead]

The claim is that the left gaslights everyone else by denying that CRT is hegemony at American universities.

I think it's pretty obvious it is you trying to gaslight the rest of us by claiming that CRT is hegemony at American universities without providing evidence.

Saying I have a certain belief gaslights nobody.

By that standard, the left isn't gaslighting anyone too.

 

[Metaphor]

Saying I have a certain belief gaslights nobody.

By that standard, the left isn't gaslighting anyone too.

No, it is not the same situation.

A says: I believe CRT is hegemony in American academia
B says: You've got no reason to believe that, CRT is a fringe theory and isn't hegemony

B is making a direct statement about the validity of A's beliefs. A can't gaslight anybody with his statement.

 

[Toni]

Saying I have a certain belief gaslights nobody.

By that standard, the left isn't gaslighting anyone too.

No, it is not the same situation.

A says: I believe CRT is hegemony in American academia
B says: You've got no reason to believe that, CRT is a fringe theory and isn't hegemony

B is making a direct statement about the validity of A's beliefs. A can't gaslight anybody with his statement.

Your opening post in this thread was to assert gaslighting while becoming combative and insulting anytime you are asked to clarify, provide evidence or your assertions are in anyway challenged.

I would say that indeed you are very familiar with gaslighting.

 

[Metaphor]

Your opening post in this thread was to assert gaslighting while becoming combative and insulting anytime you are asked to clarify, provide evidence or your assertions are in anyway challenged.

I would say that indeed you are very familiar with gaslighting.

Toni, if anybody would be well qualified to recognise gaslighting, you certainly would be. You re-cast 'defending against myself from repeated lies' as 'combative' and then you claimed this comment, from you, in a post aimed at me, was not you actually saying I had a stick up my arse, but if I interpreted it that way, that's on me.

Your gaslighting would make Gregory Anton blush.

Originally Posted by Toni

Yes, it is very, very foolish to prefer informed sources rather than someone with a stick up their arse and an internet connection.

 

[Toni]

Your opening post in this thread was to assert gaslighting while becoming combative and insulting anytime you are asked to clarify, provide evidence or your assertions are in anyway challenged.

I would say that indeed you are very familiar with gaslighting.

Toni, if anybody would be well qualified to recognise gaslighting, you certainly would be. You re-cast 'defending against myself from repeated lies' as 'combative' and then you claimed this comment, from you, in a post aimed at me, was not you actually saying I had a stick up my arse, but if I interpreted it that way, that's on me.

Your gaslighting would make Gregory Anton blush.

Originally Posted by Toni

Yes, it is very, very foolish to prefer informed sources rather than someone with a stick up their arse and an internet connection.

I agree that I can recognize gaslighting when I see it.

 

[Swammerdami]

No, I did not present Princeton to prove my claim. The claim is that the left gaslights everyone else by denying that CRT is hegemony at American universities. I did not try to prove that CRT is hegemony at American universities by claiming it was hegemony at Princeton, and therefore it was hegemony across all academia. I simply did not do it. I asked if Princeton counted as a place where CRT is hegemonic. I don't know if you ever answered.



No, the CRT rot set in long before 2020.

THis is the only evidence he has submitted so far for his claim that “critical race theory is the hegemony at American universities”

Rhea, please stop. I did not submit Princeton as evidence that CRT is hegemony at American universities. STOP LYING ABOUT WHAT I DID.

When people argued that a president’s letter certainly seems to display the president’s (newly shared) way of thinking does not reveal how the academics or the experience of the student is ruled and asked for more evidence on why this letter = hegemony, he railed,

I'm done trying to convince you that American academia is in the grip of CRT. If you believe you do not have enough evidence to make that judgment of Princeton, then no evidence that could possibly be produced could convince you.

Indicating that his example of the letter of the Princeton president was his evidence that should convince us that “American Academia is in the grip of CRT”.

STOP IT. My example of the Princeton letter was not and was never to try to prove “American Academia is in the grip of CRT”. It was to prove Princeton is in the grip of CRT and the letter is sufficient evidence to justify that belief. You would know this if you read and processed the statement I made about Princeton the very first time I mentioned Princeton and every time thereafter.

It’s hard to see why else he would put those two sentences together like that.

Go back to the first post where I mentioned Princeton. Try and be honest in your arguments about what I did.

Laughing dog points out that in that case, Metaphor has not shown any evidence at all that “American Academia is in the grip of CRT.”

...

EDITED TO ADD: I presume the part of the claim that the left denies CRT is hegemony in American academia is not under dispute. Certainly both Rhea and laughing dog have been denying it. They would say they are denying it because they don't believe it to actually be hegemony. I would say they are denying it as a gaslighting tactic.

Having "gone the extra click" just to read this post, I herewith announce that Mr. Metaphor wins this round, on the matter of what he did or did not write; it is the opposition he quotes who have mischaracterized, or rather extrapolated from, what he actually wrote.

As to whether his detractors are "gaslighting," I'll plead ignorance. Does gaslighting need to be deliberate? Detractors likely leapt to conclusions (whose putative utterance by Metaphor would have pleased them) due to unreflective haste (eagerness!) rather than deliberate misconstruction.

 

[Toni]

I dunno. In post #7, he responded to an inquiry about who had defined a term with some rather nasty insults before asking which term was meant in post #6. Instead of simply asking which term.

It goes downhill from there. Very consistently.

Your post will be highly praised.


I will again be called nasty names.

 

[laughing dog]

It is no more a falsehood than when you say I "tacitly" admit to "pulling things out of my ass".

I provided an argument to support my claim. Your response is just another unsupported accusation which is either very sloppy thinking or another example of a claim pulled right out of your ass.

My premise is not false. You said you had "no idea" if CRT was hegemony at Princeton, despite my having linked the very evidence that convinced me it was hegemony at Princeton. If the evidence I produced was not enough for you to awaken from your epistemological slumber, then no evidence possibly could.

Providing an example is defining what you mean by hegemony in this context - something you had not done. So, your premise is false. Furthermore, since I did indicate what it "in the grip of" meant to me, then clearly there was possible evidence, so your conclusion was either the result of sloppy thinking or pulled right out of your ass.

I disagree with what you think 'pulled out of one's ass' means.

Clearly, otherwise you'd stop pulling claims out of your ass.

Just as I'm sure you disagree with me on what hegemony means.

Since you have not ever defined what hegemony means operationally in this context, no one can agree or disagree with you.

 

[laughing dog]

EDITED TO ADD: I presume the part of the claim that the left denies CRT is hegemony in American academia is not under dispute. Certainly both Rhea and laughing dog have been denying it. They would say they are denying it because they don't believe it to actually be hegemony. I would say they are denying it as a gaslighting tactic.

You have not defined "the Left". You have not established what you mean by "CRT is hegemony in America". You have not established that CRT is hegemony in America. To be fair, there is really nothing of substance to deny.

In fact, I have repeatedly asked you to support your claim about hegemony. You responded with babble about Princeton and then denied that was supposed to support your claim.

Hence, it is pretty clear that you pulled your conclusion about gaslighting right out of your ass.

 

[Toni]

EDITED TO ADD: I presume the part of the claim that the left denies CRT is hegemony in American academia is not under dispute. Certainly both Rhea and laughing dog have been denying it. They would say they are denying it because they don't believe it to actually be hegemony. I would say they are denying it as a gaslighting tactic.

You have not defined "the Left". You have not established what you mean by "CRT is hegemony in America". You have not established that CRT is hegemony in America. To be fair, there is really nothing of substance to deny.

In fact, I have repeatedly asked you to support your claim about hegemony. You responded with babble about Princeton and then denied that was supposed to support your claim.

Hence, it is pretty clear that you pulled your conclusion about gaslighting right out of your ass.

Actually, it’s gaslighting.

Metaphor makes an assertion about the prevalence of CRT in American academia, and when asked to clarify, provide evidence or examples, or faced with a contradictory point of view or if someone points out what apppears to be a logical inconsistency in his arguments, he claims that people are attempting to gaslight him. After he’s duly insulted them, of course. He gaslights by claiming others are gaslighting him.

 

[Metaphor]

I provided an argument to support my claim. Your response is just another unsupported accusation which is either very sloppy thinking or another example of a claim pulled right out of your ass.

You didn't do anything like it. You disagreeing with my conclusion does not mean I pulled a claim 'out of my ass'.

Furthermore, since I did indicate what it "in the grip of" meant to me, then clearly there was possible evidence, so your conclusion was either the result of sloppy thinking or pulled right out of your ass.

If the publically available evidence about Princeton is not sufficient for you to form a conclusion about whether CRT is hegemony at Princeton, then no possible evidence I can produce could convince you.

Since you have not ever defined what hegemony means operationally in this context, no one can agree or disagree with you.

I provided an example of what CRT hegemony in academia looks like: Princeton. CRT is the official position that Princeton has on race relations and the prism with which it examines (and forms, frankly speaking, foregone conclusions about) race and race relations historically and presently.

If you can look at Princeton and deny that CRT is hegemony there, or deny that it is 'in the grip of' CRT hegemony, or deny that the publically available evidence is sufficient to form a conclusion about CRT and Princeton, then no evidence I can produce could persuade you.