# Where does political correctness go wrong

#### DrZoidberg

##### Contributor
I think this is a good topic for this forum.

My old logic professor (who I am now friends with) has gotten into trouble because of the cover of the book he has written. It's the standard logic book used in Swedish universities.

https://www.bokus.com/bok/9789197845045/logic-basics-and-beyond/

On the cover is a white woman (the proffessors wife, who is also the CEO of a major Swedish company) and a black man (the CEO of a major corporation in Botswana) pointing at her back covered in predicate logic terms. He's just a friend of the professor. The colours have been inverted. So his wife looks black, and the man looks white. The thinking behind it is that logic is free from morality and politics. It operates in its own domain. It's clever, but is it apropriate?

But the controversy comes because some teachers in Sweden think that it looks like a white man pointing to a objectified black woman. And they think it's inapropriate in an age of #MeToo and BLM.

I know the guy. He's 100% aspie and wouldn't know social codes if it hit him in the face (which it is doing now). He couldn't be politically correct even if he tried. So there's just no way for him to win this. He just doesn't get what he's done wrong (if anything) and will never get it. He doesn't really care if they stop using his book. It's a very small income for him. Initially he wrote it just because the old one sucked so much and he wanted better teaching material. There's nothing preventing teachers to go back to the old book. It's just harder work, because it's so godawfully written. I've read and used both books. So he's cool either way.

This brings to questions:

1) Is the cover appropriate?
2) Is it fair to demand from aspies to be politically correct? This is the aspie handicap. They'll never get it and isn't it unreasonable to demand it from them?

#### Bomb#20

##### Contributor
The colours have been inverted. So his wife looks black, and the man looks white. The thinking behind it is that logic is free from morality and politics. It operates in its own domain. It's clever, but is it apropriate?

But the controversy comes because some teachers in Sweden think that it looks like a white man pointing to a objectified black woman. ...

1) Is the cover appropriate?
2) Is it fair to demand from aspies to be politically correct? This is the aspie handicap. They'll never get it and isn't it unreasonable to demand it from them?
No, yes and no.

First, photoshopping a white woman deprived an actual black woman of the logic-symbols-on-naked-black-woman role so a white woman could play that role in blackface. (Well, in blackass, but the principle is the same.)

Second, any harm you do to an oppressor is by definition fair and reasonable. Your professor friend is the worst sort of oppressor. Seriously, man, 589 krona? That's like $70 for one friggin' book! Professors writing their own textbooks so their students will pad their salaries is such a racket! And third, the standard criterion for appropriateness, fairness and reasonableness is whether we feel sorry for whoever's lobbying to be ranked higher in the stack. Why would anyone feel sorry for the author when he's got a wife that smokin' hot? #### Torin ##### Super Moderator Staff member 2) Is it fair to demand from aspies to be politically correct? This is the aspie handicap. They'll never get it and isn't it unreasonable to demand it from them? Given the premise that a person with Asperger's can't understand political correctness, yes, it's unreasonable to expect it from them. Ought implies can. I've been reading the extraordinarily controversial book Cynical Theories by Lindsay and Pluckrose. They claim that the Woke movement simultaneously condemns people who view Asperger's as a disability as "ableist," while also constructing an elaborate set of social norms of exactly the sort that people with Asperger's are not good at following, and attaching devastating consequences to deviating from those norms ("cancel culture"). This can put people with Asperger's in some difficult situations. I thought that specific point was interesting. What are your thoughts? #### bigfield ##### the baby-eater "Political correctness" isn't categorically good. Sometimes people make silly accusations. So I reject the idea that anyone, let alone Aspies, should be expected to be politically correct. DrZoidberg said: On the cover is a white woman (the proffessors wife, who is also the CEO of a major Swedish company) and a black man (the CEO of a major corporation in Botswana) pointing at her back covered in predicate logic terms. He's just a friend of the professor. The colours have been inverted. So his wife looks black, and the man looks white. The thinking behind it is that logic is free from morality and politics. It operates in its own domain. It's clever, but is it apropriate? I didn't get any of that symbolism from looking at the cover. It just seems like it's saying that the book promises some insight into human nature, but the colour of the people doesn't seem to have any meaning beyond aesthetics. It seems a bit weird to have naked people on a book cover, but maybe that's because I'm from a more prudish culture. I don't see how the women is being objectified or why it would matter in this context. Seems more like I'm supposed to be looking at a human being studied. It would help if it were clear what changes would need to be made to the design to make it politically correct in the eyes of its critics. #### Keith&Co. ##### Contributor The entire point of creating POLITICAL CORRECTNESS was that people were using words with connotations they were unaware of, and giving unintentional offense. For example, my grandmother insisted black people prefer to be called 'darkies' because when she was a little girl in Florida... ....in the dark ages... ...that was the more polite term. Then she moved to Idaho, and met no black people until my wedding. It's not that PC goes wrong, it's that people said "don't use that word, it'll cause offense when you don't mean to" but what too many heard was "you can't cause offense." And that misunderstanding gives some people power like a mini-homeowner's association, so they can slam someone for giving intentional offense, or not giving a rat's about anyone being offended. So, once again, it's people that go wrong. We are why we cannot have nice things. #### DrZoidberg ##### Contributor Your professor friend is the worst sort of oppressor. Seriously, man, 589 krona? That's like$70 for one friggin' book! Professors writing their own textbooks so their students will pad their salaries is such a racket!

I think gauging students is standard all over the world. An evil evil practice. But he barely makes any money from it anyway. It's the publisher (and thereby university) who gets most of it.

#### DrZoidberg

##### Contributor
I thought that specific point was interesting. What are your thoughts?

I think woke and cancel culture is rediculous. I don't like book burning, no matter who does it. I'm also against giving people with mental handicaps a free pass. Mental problems is an explanation, not an excuse. He should know better.

That said, I do applaud any attempt towards inclusivity and sensitivity to those of colour and those of alternative mental setups.

What I am against is that wokeness has now become mandatory and if it isn't respected people risks their jobs. While I think Jordan Peterson is a massive clown, he is correct in this. The woke has become a kind of neo-fascist movement reminiscent of Maoism.

At this point sexists and racists is becoming our last defenders of free speech... and that's just plain sad. Because free speech and free expression is sacred to me.

The latest news anyway is that he backed down instantly and the next issue will have a boring cover. He had no interest in fighting for this. He's an aspie and a logician... he personally couldn't give less of a shit what's on the cover. Which is why the original cover looked like that to begin with. I think it was a spur of the moment thing because they needed a cover.

#### DrZoidberg

##### Contributor
"Political correctness" isn't categorically good. Sometimes people make silly accusations. So I reject the idea that anyone, let alone Aspies, should be expected to be politically correct.

DrZoidberg said:
On the cover is a white woman (the proffessors wife, who is also the CEO of a major Swedish company) and a black man (the CEO of a major corporation in Botswana) pointing at her back covered in predicate logic terms. He's just a friend of the professor. The colours have been inverted. So his wife looks black, and the man looks white. The thinking behind it is that logic is free from morality and politics. It operates in its own domain. It's clever, but is it apropriate?

I didn't get any of that symbolism from looking at the cover. It just seems like it's saying that the book promises some insight into human nature, but the colour of the people doesn't seem to have any meaning beyond aesthetics. It seems a bit weird to have naked people on a book cover, but maybe that's because I'm from a more prudish culture. I don't see how the women is being objectified or why it would matter in this context. Seems more like I'm supposed to be looking at a human being studied.

It would help if it were clear what changes would need to be made to the design to make it politically correct in the eyes of its critics.

Well... she is being objectified. It's logic. The whole point of logic is to break down each element to an object and define the relations between them. Black people and white people are categories. Also objects. Is she being sexually objectified.... I don't think so. But she is slightly bent forward pushing her ass out.

Yeah... Swedes are incredibly relaxed about nudity. In the right context. Nude girls trying to look sexy, we're incredibly prudish about. But if she just looks relaxed and going about her day, nobody would react. Her having clothes on or not is pretty irrelevant. We care more about the sexualisation than just naked skin. We don't see a naked body automatically as sexiness. A dressed woman trying to look sexy would get a Swede just as much up in arms.

#### Lion IRC

##### Veteran Member
In Private Truths, Public Lies: The Social Consequences of Preference Falsification, Timur Kuran explains why it’s less than ideal to have situations where there is widespread preference falsification—where people don’t say what they really think out of fear. First, widely disliked social structures may be preserved because no one is brave enough to say publicly that they, too, do not agree. Secondly, social structures which are predicated on false preferences are prone to sudden collapse once the majority realizes that no one else likes or believes in the particular thing which is being upheld. Finally, preference falsification distorts public opinion, public discourse, and human knowledge. If people cannot openly discuss their views, then certain views will not be explored or discussed, and the sum of human knowledge will be diminished.
From lawyer/author Katy Barnett
https://quillette.com/2018/07/28/inducing-peoples-employers-to-fire-them-should-be-a-civil-wrong/
http5://quillette.com/2018/07/28/inducing-peoples-employers-to-fire-them-should-be-a-civil-wrong/

#### skepticalbip

##### Contributor
First, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the cover of that text. Anyone who is offended by it is looking to be offended. If they claim to be offended for the sake of some 'oppressed' group they are only virtue signaling. Such people are 'offended' no matter what so should be ignored.

But I don't think the cover is what is being claimed about it. It appears to be exactly what it looks like, the back of a black woman and the arm of a white man, not a negative image of a white woman and the arm of a black man. Otherwise, a negative image of the cover should look like what is being claimed and it doesn't.

#### DrZoidberg

##### Contributor
In Private Truths, Public Lies: The Social Consequences of Preference Falsification, Timur Kuran explains why it’s less than ideal to have situations where there is widespread preference falsification—where people don’t say what they really think out of fear. First, widely disliked social structures may be preserved because no one is brave enough to say publicly that they, too, do not agree. Secondly, social structures which are predicated on false preferences are prone to sudden collapse once the majority realizes that no one else likes or believes in the particular thing which is being upheld. Finally, preference falsification distorts public opinion, public discourse, and human knowledge. If people cannot openly discuss their views, then certain views will not be explored or discussed, and the sum of human knowledge will be diminished.
From lawyer/author Katy Barnett
https://quillette.com/2018/07/28/inducing-peoples-employers-to-fire-them-should-be-a-civil-wrong/
http5://quillette.com/2018/07/28/inducing-peoples-employers-to-fire-them-should-be-a-civil-wrong/

View attachment 29168

Interesting. I think I'll read it. Yeah, people watching their language not to say certain hurty words is newspeak. Today, racists are trying hard not to say racist words and manage to delude themselves into thinking they're not racists = no social progress. While progressives caught on camera saying a bad word out of context is crucified as a racist. It's an upside down world right now. I can't see how the worlds we have now is progress.

#### DrZoidberg

##### Contributor
First, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the cover of that text. Anyone who is offended by it is looking to be offended. If they claim to be offended for the sake of some 'oppressed' group they are only virtue signaling. Such people are 'offended' no matter what so should be ignored.

But I don't think the cover is what is being claimed about it. It appears to be exactly what it looks like, the back of a black woman and the arm of a white man, not a negative image of a white woman and the arm of a black man. Otherwise, a negative image of the cover should look like what is being claimed and it doesn't.

View attachment 29170

I know his wife. She's white. It's her. I have not met the guy though.

#### Jokodo

##### Veteran Member
First, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the cover of that text. Anyone who is offended by it is looking to be offended. If they claim to be offended for the sake of some 'oppressed' group they are only virtue signaling. Such people are 'offended' no matter what so should be ignored.

But I don't think the cover is what is being claimed about it. It appears to be exactly what it looks like, the back of a black woman and the arm of a white man, not a negative image of a white woman and the arm of a black man. Otherwise, a negative image of the cover should look like what is being claimed and it doesn't.

View attachment 29170

I know his wife. She's white. It's her. I have not met the guy though.

He has a point. It doesn't look like a negative image of a light-skinned person, but a positive image of a dark-skinned person. Just look at the shades and reflections.

#### Jokodo

##### Veteran Member
1) Is the cover appropriate?

Not really.

2) Is it fair to demand from aspies to be politically correct?

It is not fair to expect them to get it right at first. It is however fair to expect them to listen when they're told by others with a better talent of reading social cues that it might be inappropriate.

#### DrZoidberg

##### Contributor
1) Is the cover appropriate?

Not really.

2) Is it fair to demand from aspies to be politically correct?

It is not fair to expect them to get it right at first. It is however fair to expect them to listen when they're told by others with a better talent of reading social cues that it might be inappropriate.

He is a logic professor. The only people he's ever likely to have any contact with are likely to be other aspies. Or people on the spectrum. As goes for anybody responsible for publishing the book. It was published in 2010, and it's been used by all Swedish logic students since then. It's not until now anybody reacted. He's in an environment where nobody will get it.

The woman who reacted was a logic lecturer. So she has enough social skills to react. Which is cool and challenges my preconceptions about people who teach logic.

#### ruby sparks

##### Contributor
It doesn't look like a negative image of a light-skinned person, but a positive image of a dark-skinned person.

Yeah. It looks like that to me.

#### DrZoidberg

##### Contributor
It doesn't look like a negative image of a light-skinned person, but a positive image of a dark-skinned person.

Yeah. It looks like that to me.

Perhaps Photoshop skillz have been involved?

#### Lion IRC

##### Veteran Member
...But the controversy comes because some teachers in Sweden think that it looks like a white man pointing to a objectified black woman. And they think it's inappropriate in an age of #MeToo and BLM.

Also, I agree - photoshopped. Or stunt double. (Its not a negative.)

The colours have been inverted.

Yeah, sort of.

##### Veteran Member
Regardless of the race of the woman, why is a naked woman on the cover of a logic textbook??

#### Angra Mainyu

##### Veteran Member
Regardless of the race of the woman, why is a naked woman on the cover of a logic textbook??

That's one of the first things that came to my mind too. It's not wrong of course. But I find it very odd.

##### Veteran Member
Regardless of the race of the woman, why is a naked woman on the cover of a logic textbook??

That's one of the first things that came to my mind too. It's not wrong of course. But I find it very odd.

It would seem to be there purely as an eye-catcher. An exploitation of the female form to sell more products, as is common in advertising.

#### Angra Mainyu

##### Veteran Member
Regardless of the race of the woman, why is a naked woman on the cover of a logic textbook??

That's one of the first things that came to my mind too. It's not wrong of course. But I find it very odd.

It would seem to be there purely as an eye-catcher. An exploitation of the female form to sell more products, as is common in advertising.

It does look like an eye-catcher, but I do not agree that a form - rather than a person - can be exploited in the negative sense of the term 'exploit'.

#### DrZoidberg

##### Contributor
Regardless of the race of the woman, why is a naked woman on the cover of a logic textbook??

What he said is that it's supposed to show that logic is free from morality and politics. It operates in its own domain.

#### DrZoidberg

##### Contributor
Regardless of the race of the woman, why is a naked woman on the cover of a logic textbook??

That's one of the first things that came to my mind too. It's not wrong of course. But I find it very odd.

It would seem to be there purely as an eye-catcher. An exploitation of the female form to sell more products, as is common in advertising.

I highly doubt that thought crossed his mind. His mind just doesn't think like that. I remember when he asked me what luxury watch he should buy. I told him Rolex. He gave me a long ranty spiel about how it's really a massproduced shit watch. I told him that Rolex impresses ladies more. Is his goal to impress middle-aged bitter old men with their heads up their asses or hot young women. He accepted my logic and bought a Rolex. And ugly limitted edition Rolex with unique features. Yeah... his brain is special.

#### J842P

##### Veteran Member
Regardless of the race of the woman, why is a naked woman on the cover of a logic textbook??

That's one of the first things that came to my mind too. It's not wrong of course. But I find it very odd.

It would seem to be there purely as an eye-catcher. An exploitation of the female form to sell more products, as is common in advertising.

#### DrZoidberg

##### Contributor
It would seem to be there purely as an eye-catcher. An exploitation of the female form to sell more products, as is common in advertising.

Its also a book only bought by students when it's compulsory reading material for the course. It is true that is selected by the lecturers who teach. But I think they're professional enough to focus on the content. But nobody off the street will buy it

I think it's fair to say that the cover is irrelevant. He did say that the cover they have now was just something they did just to have a cover. I strongly suspect it was his wife's idea, and he didn't have any opinion. And that he just went along with it.

#### bigfield

##### the baby-eater
I highly doubt that thought crossed his mind. His mind just doesn't think like that. I remember when he asked me what luxury watch he should buy. I told him Rolex. He gave me a long ranty spiel about how it's really a massproduced shit watch. I told him that Rolex impresses ladies more. Is his goal to impress middle-aged bitter old men with their heads up their asses or hot young women. He accepted my logic and bought a Rolex. And ugly limitted edition Rolex with unique features. Yeah... his brain is special.

Shit, maybe I am on the spectrum after all, because from my perspective, buying an ugly overpriced watch you don't like is a bitch move.

#### DrZoidberg

##### Contributor
I highly doubt that thought crossed his mind. His mind just doesn't think like that. I remember when he asked me what luxury watch he should buy. I told him Rolex. He gave me a long ranty spiel about how it's really a massproduced shit watch. I told him that Rolex impresses ladies more. Is his goal to impress middle-aged bitter old men with their heads up their asses or hot young women. He accepted my logic and bought a Rolex. And ugly limitted edition Rolex with unique features. Yeah... his brain is special.

Shit, maybe I am on the spectrum after all, because from my perspective, buying an ugly overpriced watch you don't like is a bitch move.

He is rich though. While being a simple man with simple needs. All he really needs in life is a couch to lie on and books to read. He doesn't care about fine dining or luxury. No expensive hobbies. So he can blow big money on utter bullshit he doesn't need, because, why not.

He doesn't wear the Rolex to work or when he's around fancy people. He's got some thing about Seiko being the world's best watches. So that's what he wears most of the time. The Rolex is just when he's out with the lads. I think he likes that it is grotesque in every way. He has no respect for Rolexes and I know he has no respect for people who wear Rolexes, (because he's told me) which just makes it all the more fun when he wears it. He can laugh at himself. He's quite a hoot.

##### Veteran Member
It would seem to be there purely as an eye-catcher. An exploitation of the female form to sell more products, as is common in advertising.

Is there a better reason?

I guess someone has to explain how a naked woman’s back implies “logic is free from morality and politics”. Why not just the letters themselves? Why not a naked man’s back?

Someone made a conscious decision to have that on the cover and do a photo shoot where they asked a woman to get naked.

#### Angra Mainyu

##### Veteran Member
It would seem to be there purely as an eye-catcher. An exploitation of the female form to sell more products, as is common in advertising.

Its also a book only bought by students when it's compulsory reading material for the course. It is true that is selected by the lecturers who teach. But I think they're professional enough to focus on the content. But nobody off the street will buy it

I think it's fair to say that the cover is irrelevant. He did say that the cover they have now was just something they did just to have a cover. I strongly suspect it was his wife's idea, and he didn't have any opinion. And that he just went along with it.

You mean the cover with her was her idea, or the new cover just to have a cover?

#### Bomb#20

##### Contributor
Regardless of the race of the woman, why is a naked woman on the cover of a logic textbook??
Seems like a shrewd choice -- that cover makes it feasible for a student to read a textbook on logic in full public view without being instantly pegged as a royal geek.

#### DrZoidberg

##### Contributor
Its also a book only bought by students when it's compulsory reading material for the course. It is true that is selected by the lecturers who teach. But I think they're professional enough to focus on the content. But nobody off the street will buy it

I think it's fair to say that the cover is irrelevant. He did say that the cover they have now was just something they did just to have a cover. I strongly suspect it was his wife's idea, and he didn't have any opinion. And that he just went along with it.

You mean the cover with her was her idea, or the new cover just to have a cover?

I was just guessing. I don't know how the idea for that cover came about. All I know is that it was a spur of the moment thing. It was something they did in an afternoon with the people who was staying with him that day. I'm sure they'd come up with something better if they'd put some thought into it, or hired a proffessional.

#### DrZoidberg

##### Contributor

It's only within the university. It has not made it's way to media, or the Internet. I brought it up because it's interesting to discuss. Not because of it's news value or impact.

But I'm I'm sure the gender studies department are foaming at the mouth. Granted, only an assumption. They tend to foam easily.

#### Jokodo

##### Veteran Member

It's only within the university. It has not made it's way to media, or the Internet. I brought it up because it's interesting to discuss. Not because of it's news value or impact.

But I'm I'm sure the gender studies department are foaming at the mouth. Granted, only an assumption. They tend to foam easily.

With all due respect, your making too many assumptions is one of the weak spots in many of your posts/threads

#### ruby sparks

##### Contributor

It's only within the university. It has not made it's way to media, or the Internet. I brought it up because it's interesting to discuss. Not because of it's news value or impact.

But I'm I'm sure the gender studies department are foaming at the mouth. Granted, only an assumption. They tend to foam easily.

In the OP you said it was coming from some teachers in Sweden, because the book was a standard text in Swedish universities.

#### DrZoidberg

##### Contributor

It's only within the university. It has not made it's way to media, or the Internet. I brought it up because it's interesting to discuss. Not because of it's news value or impact.

But I'm I'm sure the gender studies department are foaming at the mouth. Granted, only an assumption. They tend to foam easily.

In the OP you said it was coming from some teachers in Sweden, because the book was a standard text in Swedish universities.

Yes. Teachers at the university. It started with one logic teacher (called a lecturer at her position) and then spread to other lecturers. But since the author of the book backed down immediately and gave the protesters what they wanted, it never blew up. But when I posted the OP he hadn't yet responded and there was no way I could know whether it would become a big thing or not.

edit: It could easily have blown up. The social justice warriors are today just a lynchmob constantly looking for new slightly less then perfect woke people that they can rip apart. He could have been the next victim of that mob.

#### Jokodo

##### Veteran Member
In the OP you said it was coming from some teachers in Sweden, because the book was a standard text in Swedish universities.

Yes. Teachers at the university. It started with one logic teacher (called a lecturer at her position) and then spread to other lecturers. But since the author of the book backed down immediately and gave the protesters what they wanted, it never blew up. But when I posted the OP he hadn't yet responded and there was no way I could know whether it would become a big thing or not.

edit: It could easily have blown up. The social justice warriors are today just a lynchmob constantly looking for new slightly less then perfect woke people that they can rip apart. He could have been the next victim of that mob.

Let's stick with reality, shall we?

#### DrZoidberg

##### Contributor
In the OP you said it was coming from some teachers in Sweden, because the book was a standard text in Swedish universities.

Yes. Teachers at the university. It started with one logic teacher (called a lecturer at her position) and then spread to other lecturers. But since the author of the book backed down immediately and gave the protesters what they wanted, it never blew up. But when I posted the OP he hadn't yet responded and there was no way I could know whether it would become a big thing or not.

edit: It could easily have blown up. The social justice warriors are today just a lynchmob constantly looking for new slightly less then perfect woke people that they can rip apart. He could have been the next victim of that mob.

Let's stick with reality, shall we?

I don't understand what you are commenting on?

Last weekend in Malmö (Sweden) there was a riot after a group of (let's call them nationalists) decided to burn some Korans on a public space. A Danish politician was stopped on the border and banned from entering Sweden for two years because of "incitement to violence". The violence was only on the part of the people against the Koran burning. The Swedish society all came in defence of the rioters, and the Koran burning was condemned by anybody in power. It's now going to court as an act of terrorism and as a racist attack on an ethnic group.

That is nuts. The whole point of this Koran burning was to demonstrate what happens when Korans are burned. It got the expected result. Instead of seeing this as an attack on free speech and an attempt to sneak in anti-blasphemy laws, the Swedish society completely failed to connect the dots.

It's got to be ok to burn a Koran. As long as it's a Koran they bought with their own money.

Why am I bringing this up in this thread? Because these two things are connected. The Woke world has become violent and dangerous. It's now openly anti-democratic and anti-enlightenment. The discussion on the logic book is interesting, because IMHO it was a situation where the Woke side actually had a point. But that doesn't make the Woke-movement any less dangerous and a threat to modern secular values.

#### Jokodo

##### Veteran Member
Let's stick with reality, shall we?

I don't understand what you are commenting on?

You wrote a whole paragraph on what could have been as if things that only exist in your head have some relevance to the real world.

#### DrZoidberg

##### Contributor
Let's stick with reality, shall we?

I don't understand what you are commenting on?

You wrote a whole paragraph on what could have been as if things that only exist in your head have some relevance to the real world.

That makes even less sense.

#### ruby sparks

##### Contributor
In the OP you said it was coming from some teachers in Sweden, because the book was a standard text in Swedish universities.

Yes. Teachers at the university.

So, saying it was from some teachers in Sweden, it being a standard text in Swedish universities, was a bit misleading.

#### DrZoidberg

##### Contributor
In the OP you said it was coming from some teachers in Sweden, because the book was a standard text in Swedish universities.

Yes. Teachers at the university.

So, saying it was from some teachers in Sweden, it being a standard text in Swedish universities, was a bit misleading.

Both statements are correct.

#### ruby sparks

##### Contributor
So, saying it was from some teachers in Sweden, it being a standard text in Swedish universities, was a bit misleading.

Both statements are correct.

#### ruby sparks

##### Contributor
This is the aspie handicap. They'll never get it and isn't it unreasonable to demand it from them?

Mental problems is an explanation, not an excuse. He should know better.

Also, you're against woke culture, which you say has become violent and dangerous, and obviously, you don't agree with those complaining here, but you also say that in this case they have a point.

Quite honestly I think you're all over the place. And it doesn't help that no one can tell what is your personal take on things and what has actually happened (including the origin and nature of the book cover) because you haven't provided any independent citations and are speculating a lot.

Last edited:

#### J842P

##### Veteran Member
It would seem to be there purely as an eye-catcher. An exploitation of the female form to sell more products, as is common in advertising.

Is there a better reason?

I guess someone has to explain how a naked woman’s back implies “logic is free from morality and politics”. Why not just the letters themselves? Why not a naked man’s back?

Someone made a conscious decision to have that on the cover and do a photo shoot where they asked a woman to get naked.

Because it is some academics idea of being artsy and symbolic. "Sex sells" is not a reason at all, it's an academic textbook where most people who buy it are forced to buy it to take some class.

#### ruby sparks

##### Contributor
To me, the intent of the person who made the cover is only one consideration. The cover could be deemed iffy regardless (just as someone else thinking it ok to use a naked child's body would not make it necessarily ok, even if the creator didn't realise or intend anything iffy).

So is the cover iffy? I'd say yes (on potential sexism grounds). I'd at least understand (given what I might call 'the way the world is') if some found it a bit iffy, but, I would only support their right to complain and understand it, I would not support the creator losing their job, and perhaps not even being sanctioned in any way. I accept that the cover may not actually be sexist, either in intent or of itself, but only seem to be to some.

Also, if I was the creator(s), and part of my point was that logic is independent of such things as gender politics, I think I'd have made it a bit more obvious that I was not actually using a naked black woman and the arm of a white man, but the reverse (assuming that's what the cover is). Why? Because otherwise, the reader doesn't get the clever point I am making with the non-obvious inversion (unless I explain my point in the text, ideally early on, which if that's what the creator(s) did, starts to make more sense).

#### DrZoidberg

##### Contributor
So, saying it was from some teachers in Sweden, it being a standard text in Swedish universities, was a bit misleading.

Both statements are correct.

In what way? It says exactly what it is about

#### DrZoidberg

##### Contributor
This is the aspie handicap. They'll never get it and isn't it unreasonable to demand it from them?

Mental problems is an explanation, not an excuse. He should know better.

The first is an open question, the second is a general statement not necessarily applicable to the specifics of this case. This is a discussion on a topic, so statements like this is permissable.

Also, you're against woke culture, which you say has become violent and dangerous, and obviously, you don't agree with those complaining here, but you also say that in this case they have a point.

Quite honestly I think you're all over the place. And it doesn't help that no one can tell what is your personal take on things and what has actually happened (including the origin and nature of the book cover) because you haven't provided any independent citations and are speculating a lot.

I'm for Woke culture. I like woke. It's great if people get Woke. I want more Woke. I'm even a feminist. But I'm against fascistoid mobs demanding everybody agrees with them and submit. This is what Woke increasingly has become. And then I'm not aboard anymore. I'm for tolerance and a multitude of opinion. I want tolerance even for opinions we might find abhorrent. The brain is like any muscle, it needs excercising. So we need opposing views. The more well thought through the better. And that takes practice.

Cancel culture is pure evil. Deplatforming is pure evil. Intersectionalism is pure evil. Race segregation is pure evil (no matter on whose initiative).

I'm from Sweden and in Sweden Woke has spun totally out of control, to a point where normal people don't have discussions. People don't dare speak their minds. If they express an opinion it's the safest mainstream opinion. If anybody would dare express a questionable opinion nobody dares to be their friend or in any way be associated with them. People are getting fired from their jobs for the silliest things. It's a very sick society. I don't want that to spread. I live in Denmark now. The cultures are very similar, except that Woke went nowhere here. In Denmark #MeToo was awesome. In Sweden quite a few high profile men lost their jobs based on nothing but rumours. It became a witch hunt, and led to zero debate. No man dared speak up for fearing for their jobs (well, there's one high profile guy, but he eventually did lose his job Alexander Bard). There's now a class of journalists in Sweden who make their money only from being offended by stuff and having been victims in various ways. Denmark has none of this.

I'm for increased freedoms and personal liberties, for all people, women, brown people, people with strange skin diseases, hookers. Everybody. But also white middle aged men. And that's where Woke often lose my support.

Yes, there's two sides. And I'm on team Woke. But I will not tolerate evil on my side. The aims do not justify the means.

I hope that cleared up matters?

edit: BTW, in Sweden we have the last 10 years had a neo-fascist revival. The fascist party (Sverigedemokraterna) is the second biggest political party now. This is clearly a reaction to the extreme and intolerant form of Wokeness in Sweden. 15 years ago they were seen as a joke party. Extremists. They were founded by ex Swedish volonteers to the Nazi SS in WW2. It's the second biggest party. It's no joke now. The woke intolerance led to a death of debate, which led to anti-intellectualism which led to people being attracted to idiotic right wing rhetoric for stupid reasons. I think the connection between extreme Woke -> neo-fascism is pretty clear. It's easy to connect the dots.

Last edited: