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.
Let's stick with reality, shall we?
I don't understand what you are commenting on?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
For an academic logic textbook?
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.
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.
Still a bit misleading.
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.
These two statements seem a bit contradictory. Either that or you are initially asking rhetorically when your answer is no.
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.
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.
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.
This is digressing from the thread topic, but there's a different, more plausible explanation for the rise of far-right populists in several Western countries. After all, this is not a phenomenon that's limited to Sweden.
If you look back at the last few decades, there's a pattern in Western politics: countries have tended to elect either centre-right or centre-left governments, which have taken more-or-less the same liberal approach to governing. Where possible, they have privatised services or cut spending on services and projects, while simultaneously reducing their tax revenues. Some countries have also weakened industrial relations (labour) laws. Governments have also been extremely lax about dealing with housing affordability and a lack of employment opportunities. The middle class is shrinking instead of growing.
When you put these things together, they represent a broken promise. Governments have failed to govern for the sake of their people; instead they've governed for the benefit of corporate donors. They've deliberately avoided full employment, deliberately starved the systems that make people's lives easier, and failed to change the way markets operate when those markets no longer deliver value to people. Modern laissez-faire governance is a bad deal for the average worker.
Far right parties have been able to capitalise on the disillusionment of voters by presenting an alternative narrative: life is getting harder because immigrants are taking all of the jobs and burdening the government's welfare system; life is getting harder because the government is preoccupied with identity politics, and they don't care about the problems of straight white men who were born in this country. The rise of anti-intellectualism among populist politicians is calculated to strike a contrast between them and the out-of-touch establishment, whether that be the politicians who govern for the rich or pundits who propose radical legal changes for the benefits of minorities or the environment.
My main problem with your theory is the idea that the far right's surge is caused by woke intolerance and the death of debate. The intolerance you describe is caused by some of the same things that have stimulated right wing populism. That is, a lack of social progress. Jobs and houses are harder to get, and on top of that, racial and gender disadvantage persists. It's understandable that people might choose to take the gloves off in other for fight for their interests and express their discontent, whether that means harassment, boycotts or riots.
Besides, I think the importance of debate is overstated. Before social media, people didn't debate; they were largely passive consumers of mass media. Debate was largely limited to mainstream politicians on TV, or intellectual writing an intellectual audience. Social media has failed to deliver a forum for civilised debate among laypeople, which is a pity, but it's not necessarily a sign of decline. It has, however, produced a new medium on which people can feel victimised because of their expressed views.
Still a bit misleading.
In what way? It says exactly what it is about
Still a bit misleading.
In what way? It says exactly what it is about
Yeah right.
The bolded only applies to USA. Not Europe. We have a far right surge also in Europe. We need a better explanation.
I agree that the rise of far right has deeper causes. But the anti-intellectual woke movement lowers the resilience against the rise of the far right.
In Europe we've had a development since the 1980'ies where robots and computers to an increasing extent is simplifying our lives and removing a lot of non-skilled, administrative and service jobs. The engineering world has only an ever greater shortage of staff. The Corona crisis didn't do a dent in the market for programmers. That's what's happening. The world is richer now than it was in the 1970'ies. And not by a little bit. The difference is extreme, across the board. And this causes social movements.
Socially it's similar to what happened when we went from an agrarian society to an industrial society. All the old rules for employment and living went out the window. All those farm workers were forced into the cities to join the industrial workforce. Last time we all had to switch lifestyles we got Nazism in Germany, fascism in Italy, Communism in Russia, and China as well as a rise in extreme evangelical Christianity. Parellels have been made to what is happening in the Middle-East and their rise in religious extremism.
But there's a major difference between then and now. Unless you're educatable, there is no place for you on the jobs market. Without a university degree, you're fucked today. In USA where universities aren't government funded that means poor people get trapped in poverty. Making this effect more extreme. But even in Europe with our subsidised (or free higher studies) we're still hurting. The country boys and gals have no place in the modern world. These are the people who become alt-right. They can't get jobs, and they can't get laid.
An unemployed single man in some backwater, who sees no hope for himself, sees the newsmedia mostly reporting about rape where the ethnicity is left out and reads about high status men they admire lose their jobs because they flirted with the wrong assistant and hysterical young feminists are applauded for demonstrating about pronouns. No shit that guy feels left out of the party and is frustrated that he can't do anything. Turns to the fascists to do something about all the immigrants raping our women and taking our jobs while living off welfare.
Do you agree with this description of what is going on?
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?
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.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?
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?
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.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?
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?
Since when do authors not have an editorial staff inspecting their cover suggestions? Or was this book self published? Also. the link seems to list more than 1 author. This is a failing of more than one person, it seems to me.