That’s like saying that modern progressives are against airplanes because they were invented by dead white man. Progressives don’t actually hold it against white men that they are white or men.
It’s easier to think about stuff (such as: How should the world work?) if you are in a position of power. It’s completely reasonable that the Enlightenment consisted mostly of white men, since those were the people with the access to education, the time to think and the ability to publish ideas. Progressives don’t ignore past power-structures. They might not agree with them, but that’s something else entirely.
(I don’t think that single comment is a great example to generalize from.)
That’s like saying that modern progressives are against airplanes because they were invented by dead white man.
There’s probably some progressive at some university (probably in some grievance studies department) writing about how we need a feminist and non-racist theory of aerodynamics.
It’s easier to think about stuff (such as: How should the world work?) if you are in a position of power. It’s completely reasonable that the Enlightenment consisted mostly of white men, since those were the people with the access to education, the time to think and the ability to publish ideas. Progressives don’t ignore past power-structures. They might not agree with them, but that’s something else entirely.
Yes, I agree that’s a reasonable argument, although there’s still the question of why nobody outside Europe developed it. It didn’t stop progressives from removing the western canon from university education on the grounds that it was all “dead white men”.
There’s probably some progressive at some university (probably in some grievance studies department) writing about how we need a feminist and non-racist theory of aerodynamics.
Well, aerodynamics is based on Newtonian mechanics, and Newton’s principa mathematica is a rape manual, and aeroplanes are kinda phallic.
There’s probably some progressive at some university (probably in some grievance studies department) writing about how we need a feminist and non-racist theory of aerodynamics.
Alternatively what’s wrong with rail? Isn’t rail a lot more green if you power it via solar cells? Airplanes are also a core feature of globalism.
Let’s see: it’s slower except for short distances, doesn’t work across continents, and most importantly is less flexible since your limited to pre-built tracks.
That’s like saying that modern progressives are against airplanes because they were invented by dead white man. Progressives don’t actually hold it against white men that they are white or men.
It’s easier to think about stuff (such as: How should the world work?) if you are in a position of power. It’s completely reasonable that the Enlightenment consisted mostly of white men, since those were the people with the access to education, the time to think and the ability to publish ideas. Progressives don’t ignore past power-structures. They might not agree with them, but that’s something else entirely.
(I don’t think that single comment is a great example to generalize from.)
There’s probably some progressive at some university (probably in some grievance studies department) writing about how we need a feminist and non-racist theory of aerodynamics.
Yes, I agree that’s a reasonable argument, although there’s still the question of why nobody outside Europe developed it. It didn’t stop progressives from removing the western canon from university education on the grounds that it was all “dead white men”.
Well, aerodynamics is based on Newtonian mechanics, and Newton’s principa mathematica is a rape manual, and aeroplanes are kinda phallic.
To be fair, the Western cannon doesn’t have a good reputation on LW either.
By “Western cannon” I mean the cultural currents that lead to things like science. What do you mean by it?
I think that he is alluding to your spelling of “canon” as “cannon”
Thanks, fixed.
Alternatively what’s wrong with rail? Isn’t rail a lot more green if you power it via solar cells? Airplanes are also a core feature of globalism.
Let’s see: it’s slower except for short distances, doesn’t work across continents, and most importantly is less flexible since your limited to pre-built tracks.
And that somehow implies the current theory of aerodynamics is false?
I think you might have read an ironic sentence as being more serious than it was.
Sarcasm doesn’t work on the internet.