Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 31 May '17 23:10 / 1 edit
    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/448102/quantum-physics-oppressive-marginalized-people

    Just when you thought the left could not get any loonier as they beg for someone to blow up the White House and take pictures of people standing with Donald Trumps severed head in their bloody hands, they do.

    According to Feminists, Newtonian physics is oppressive.

    Never underestimate the crazed mind of a left winger.
  2. 31 May '17 23:12
    Netownian? Googled it. No idea
  3. 31 May '17 23:14 / 1 edit
    A feminist scholar has published a paper claiming that Newtonian physics is oppressive and that we must use “quantum feminisms” to make the science more intersectional. In a paper for The Minnesota Review, culture and gender-studies researcher Whitney Stark argues that Newton’s understanding of physics is oppressive because it has “separated beings” based on their “binary and absolute differences” — a structure that she calls “hierarchical and exploitative” — and the same kind of system is “embedded in many structures of classification,” making it “part of the apparatus that enables oppression.” Stark explains: This structural thinking of individualized separatism with binary and absolute differences as the basis for how the universe works seeped into/poured over/ is embedded in many structures of classification, which understand similarity and difference in the world, imposed in many hierarchical and exploitative organizational structures, whether through gender, life/nonlife, national borders, and so on. According to Stark, the tendency to categorize in this way particularly hurts marginalized people because it can cause the activist efforts of minority groups to be “overshadowed” by the efforts of dominant groups. “For instance, in many ‘official’ feminist histories of the United States, black/African American women’s organizing and writing are completely unaccounted for before the 1973 creation of the middle-class, professional National Black Feminist Organization,” Stark writes.–– ADVERTISEMENT –– (function($){ var swapArticleBodyPullAd = function() { if ($('body'.hasClass('node-type-articles') { var $pullAd = $('.story-container .pullad'.addClass('mobile-position'; if (window.matchMedia("(min-width: 640px)".matches) { if ($pullAd.hasClass('mobile-position') { $pullAd .addClass('desktop-position' .insertBefore('.article-ad-desktop-position'; } } else { if ($pullAd.hasClass('mobile-position') { $pullAd .addClass('mobile-position' .insertBefore('.article-ad-mobile-position'; } } } }; $(window).on('resize', function(){ swapArticleBodyPullAd(); }).resize(); })(jQuery); “Part of this absence is the frequent subsuming of intersectional identities under supposedly encompassing meta-identities more readily recognized by/as hegemonicized groupings,” she continues. “For instance, black women subsumed under ‘black,’ equated with male, or ‘feminist’ equated with white women.” ‘Combining intersectionality and quantum physics can provide for differing perspectives on organizing practices long used by marginalized people.’ Thankfully, Stark has a solution to this very clearly serious problem: “quantum feminisms” and “intersectionality.” “By taking a critical look at the noncentralized and multiple movements of quantum physics, and by dehierarchizing the necessity of linear bodies through time, it becomes possible to reconfigure structures of value, longevity, and subjectivity in ways explicitly aligned with anti-oppression practices and identity politics,” she writes. “Combining intersectionality and quantum physics can provide for differing perspectives on organizing practices long used by marginalized people, for enabling apparatuses that allow for new possibilities of safer spaces.” Honestly, all of this makes perfect sense. Personally, whenever I think about oppression, the very first thing that comes to my mind is: “Damn it Isaac Newton! This is all your fault!” I’m just glad someone is finally writing about it. Maybe someday we can take it a step further, and replace all lessons on Newton in our schools with lessons on quantum feminisms. Ah, yes. Then, and only then, will our nation be truly great. This story was initially covered by the College Fix. – Katherine Timpf is a reporter for National Review Online.
  4. 31 May '17 23:15
    Originally posted by Blood On The Tracks
    Netownian? Googled it. No idea
    I'm sure they will refer to Marx for all of their physics.
  5. 31 May '17 23:41 / 2 edits
    https://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/05/31/liberal-scholar-creates-new-theory-of-quantum-physics-because-newton-was-oppressive/

    "A progressive scholar has invented a new theory of quantum physics because the methods developed by Isaac Newton were just too “oppressive.”

    The new theory is being presented by Whitney Stark, a culture and gender studies researcher
    with ties to the University of Arizona’s Institute for LGBT Studies. She is also on staff at
    Utrecht University in the Netherlands as a researcher in culture and gender studies.

    Stark argued in a paper for The Minnesota Review that “combining intersectionality and
    quantum physics” will help in understanding “marginalized people” and create “safer spaces”
    for them. Thus, she created “intersectional quantum physics.”

    Intersectionality explores the interconnectedness of categories like race, sex, class,
    and sexual orientation. Intersectional feminist theory is centered on understanding the
    various levels of discrimination women face in each of those categorizations."

    "In order to overcome the oppression, Stark suggested combining intersectional feminist theory and quantum physics."

    Intersectionality (which a 'White Feminist' like Suzianne cannot comprehend or accept)
    should be an important part of feminist theory and is needed to help analyze racism.
    But intersectionality should *not* be mixed with quantum physics.

    "It should be noted that Stark doesn’t appear to detail how exactly the actual study of
    physics might change as a result of her criticism."

    I doubt that Whitney Stark has much comprehension of physics at all.

    "Stark argued that the struggles of black feminists were absorbed into the broader
    category of feminism, which, in her mind, denied legitimacy to them as a separate group
    because established binaries favor white women over minority women."

    True. And Asian women are more marginalized than black women in the USA today.

    "In addition to her new “intersectional quantum physics,” Stark urged privileged people
    to “deprioritize” themselves in order to establish “safer spaces” for minority people.
    “For instance, I, being white, should not be in all spaces, positions of authority, or meetings,” she wrote,"

    Unlike 'White Feminists', Whitney Stark (a white woman) has her heart in the right place.
    But I cannot say the same about her judgment as applied to physics.

    It's good that Whitney Stark (in contrast to 'White Feminists' like Suzianne) shows readiness
    to listen to and take seriously the concerns of non-white women, even when they criticize
    the racism within (white-dominated) mainstream feminism. But she does not understand physics.
  6. 01 Jun '17 06:28
    Sounds like bollocks to me.

    Still, it's not as dumb as voting for Donald Trump.
  7. Standard member shavixmir
    Guppy poo
    01 Jun '17 07:34
    Damn.
    I feel stupid.
    I literally have no bloody idea what this is about.

    Does it have something to do with women leaving the kitchen? IT BLOODY WELL BETTER NOT BE!!!
  8. Subscriber kmax87
    You've got Kevin
    01 Jun '17 09:14 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by shavixmir
    Damn.
    I feel stupid.
    I literally have no bloody idea what this is about.

    Does it have something to do with women leaving the kitchen? IT BLOODY WELL BETTER NOT BE!!!
    It means that according to Schroedinger and their cat, if you have a feminist responding to a post on RHP, then you may infer from her post that if it's inconclusive in showing her racial inclusivity there is a high probability that she would be a white American, however once that responder is observed and identified as being a white American feminist, the probability that she is still racist may not be as certain as the wave function collapses.
  9. 01 Jun '17 10:16
    Originally posted by whodey
    Never underestimate the crazed mind of a left winger.
    Never under estimate the mind of the craze right winger who:
    1. Fails to understand something they read in an obscure journal.
    2. Sees some 'trigger words' in the article.
    3. Flies off the hook and rights some wild piece blaming it all on 'left wingers'.
    4. Fails to see the irony of categorising people into 'left wing' and 'right wing' while discussing a paper specifically written in the hope of countering such binary divisions.
  10. 01 Jun '17 12:17
    Originally posted by shavixmir
    Damn.
    I feel stupid.
    I literally have no bloody idea what this is about.

    Does it have something to do with women leaving the kitchen? IT BLOODY WELL BETTER NOT BE!!!
    It's simple really.

    Isaac Newton was white and a Christian, so he was full of poo.
  11. 01 Jun '17 12:18
    Originally posted by kmax87
    It means that according to Schroedinger and their cat, if you have a feminist responding to a post on RHP, then you may infer from her post that if it's inconclusive in showing her racial inclusivity there is a high probability that she would be a white American, however once that responder is observed and identified as being a white American feminist, the probability that she is still racist may not be as certain as the wave function collapses.
    Now my head hurts, thanks for that.
  12. 01 Jun '17 14:42
    Originally posted by whodey
    It's simple really.

    Isaac Newton was white and a Christian, so he was full of poo.
    Unlike Erwin Schrödinger, who was a black transgender native American specializing in herbal medicine and Feng Shui.
  13. Subscriber Suzianne
    Misfit Queen
    01 Jun '17 20:27 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    'White Feminists' like Suzianne
    And you often wonder why people object to your often wildly unfair "label-slinging" in this forum.
  14. 01 Jun '17 20:53 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by kmax87 to Shaximir
    It means that according to Schroedinger and their cat, if you have a feminist responding to a post on RHP, then you may infer from her post that if it's inconclusive in showing her racial inclusivity there is a high probability that she would be a white American, however once that responder is observed and identified as being a white American femi ...[text shortened]... , the probability that she is still racist may not be as certain as the wave function collapses.
    Kmax87 apparently shows his misunderstanding of White Feminism (a racist ideology).
    Not all white women feminists are 'White Feminists'. Some white women condemn White Feminism.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_feminism

    "White feminism is a form of feminism that focus on the struggles of well-off white women while
    failing to address the distinct forms of oppression faced by women of colour and women lacking other privileges."

    Given Kmax87's record of insensitivity (at best) to racism, I suspect that Kmax87 would
    (like other racists here) see nothing wrong with the racism within White Feminism.

    And, contrary to Kmax87's apparent insinuations, I made no assumption about any women's racial identities.
    Whitney Stark *explicitly identified herself* as a white woman and admitted that she benefits from racial privilege.
    Whitney Stark's a white woman who's a feminist, but she's not a White Feminist.

    Suzianne has written that she's a white woman. I regard her as a White Feminist because
    of her obstinate disrespect and refusal to listen to critics (even white women) of White Feminism.
    I criticize Suzianne's apparent privileging of middle-class white women over more disadvantaged women.
  15. 01 Jun '17 21:04 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by Suzianne
    And you often wonder why people object to your often wildly unfair "label-slinging" in this forum.
    A disingenuous defensive reaction by Suzianne, who fails to consider what's behind the label.
    The 'White Feminist' label fits Suzianne's record of posts about women and feminism

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_feminism

    "White feminism is a form of feminism that focus on the struggles of well-off white women while failing to
    address the distinct forms of oppression faced by women of colour and women lacking other privileges."

    Based on her record of posts, particularly her obstinate refusal to listen to any criticism
    (even by other white women) of White Feminism, I regard Suzianne as a White Feminist.
    Suzianne's a middle-class white woman who fails to comprehend that many other women
    experience different forms of oppression, which are influenced by their race and/or class.

    Has Suzianne ever wondered why some of the most overtly racist or sexist men in this forum
    hastened apparently to support her position that there's nothing wrong or racist with White Feminism?
    These men may hate all kinds of feminism, but a racist kind of feminism could be useful to them.