Post: #1

Post: #2

Brain dead losers who can't last 2 seconds in Dawkins' world want tenure too.

Post: #3

God save us from state sponsored intellectuals.

Post: #4

I've only got time to watch the first 50 seconds, but that has brought me immense enlightenment.

Newton's Principia = Rape Manual.
Bang Iceland = Rape Manual.

Roosh V = Isaac Newton.

Post: #5

Good clip. Sokal's book (which Dawkins references) is a gem, if you've had the misfortune to spend time with a certain type of academic.

@TheMan, I'll point you to this thread on posting otherwise good threads with ambiguous titles.

Post: #6

(04-12-2013 12:12 PM)Kitsune Wrote:  I've only got time to watch the first 50 seconds, but that has brought me immense enlightenment.

Newton's Principia = Rape Manual.
Bang Iceland = Rape Manual.

Roosh V = Isaac Newton.

haha Newton's mechanics are not correct, you know....

Personally I think people -- men and women -- need to shut the fuck up and do the work if they want to get ahead in academia, same as everyone else. There are people getting degrees (humanities mainly) with theses as dumb and unreasonable as the Irigaray writings that Dawkins quotes here.

Obligatory: Dawkins is a boss.

Post: #7

Dawkins is very red-pill (politically incorrect I should say) on his twitter. I think he is too dogmatic with his atheism quite a lot of the time and he should let certain people be, but at least he isn't afraid of calling a spade a spade.

He's also one of the few people who mocks Islam with the same vigor as he does Christianity. That's something that has always irked me about Western liberal comedians actually, Ricky Gervais for example, they constantly make fun of Christianity, but don't dare touch Islam. Dawkins doesn't discriminate in his criticism of desert myths.

Anyway, I'm going way off topic...regarding the OP video: We shouldn't be surprised, we knew feminism was bat-shit insane!

Post: #8

(04-12-2013 12:43 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  Good clip. Sokal's book (which Dawkins references) is a gem, if you've had the misfortune to spend time with a certain type of academic.

@TheMan, I'll point you to this thread on posting otherwise good threads with ambiguous titles.

Soz Tuth, will do

Post: #9

The Sokal affair was very funny. And the book on it is excellent. For those who like this sort of thing - you should know that somebody ceated a random generator which will spit out pretentious (yet plausible) pseudo philosophical essays at the click of the button. Really clever stuff...

http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/

Now - I am a big fan of Richard Dawkins. His books on evolution are the best scientific writing I have come across. Yet - I find his criticisms of religion to be a little facile (even though I am an atheist myself). It seems as if he is making a religion out of his atheism. And to me that is dumb.

Anyway - I too am sceptical of alot of the feminist deconstructions of science. Yet - there are exceptions. I remember being given the following essay to read as part of a History of Science course. After seeing the title - I nearly didn't bother reading it. Since it seemed like some dumb feminist shit. I wasn't in the habit of attending lectures much back then. So - I very nearly didn't bother reading it.

Yet, luckily I did...

It turns out there is some interesting shit here. It seems that alot of hidden (and subconscious) stereotyping has gone into the scientific (and cultural) portrayals of how a sperm penetrates an egg in the biology of human reproduction.

It is really interesting stuff. And can be basically filed under - everything you think you know about the egg and the sperm is wrong.

Due to cultural stereotypes of male/female behaviour.

It is fascinating to see how science (which is supposed to be objective) can be led astray by such stereotypes.

http://www.math.jussieu.fr/~daubin/cours...gSperm.pdf