Forums / Discussion / Serious Debate

Fans of Sargon of Akkad frequently assert that feminists never want to debate him. Social scientist Dr. Winters has stepped up to the plate. It's a bit long, but I do believe it's worthwhile.

The motion is: "Is feminism good for the world?"

no here is going to sit through an hour and a half of debate like this… we need someone to summarize this and make highlights…

The comments are (somewhat) helpful in that respect. Of course there's plenty of platitudes brimming with bias from both sides, but there's also a fair number of comments with seemingly insightful remarks, to some degree at least.

I haven't seen it, and don't plan too, but apparently he thinks he could've done much better.

On the other hand, this is what Winters was doing shortly after the debate.

I'd describe it as two people having two different debates cut together into the same video.

Sargon talked about 3rd wave, tumblr psycho feminism, Kristi talked about "1st wave stop the honor killings and FGM" feminism. Kristi seemed (or acted) ignorant of Sargon's version of feminism's existance and thought (or acted like) Sargon was disparaging the good work of her version of feminism unreasonably.

It was not exactly the easiest thing to sit through 30 minutes of, I can only imagine the brain numbing those that watched the entire thing felt.

Watched some of it, Sargon interrupted constantly and seemed to be reading from a script (it's extremely obvious at 25:55) for a much of what I saw. I mean, kudos for Sargon for trying but he's as bad of a debater as thunderf00t and the fact that he never attended any of the universities that he insists have gone "SJW and feminist" really comes through when he's put on the spot.

Also, I think that the video boils down to 29:46-31:00 quite nicely. Sargon's argument is "there are some mean people on tumblr and therefore feminism is flawed". Honestly it's kind of sad that Winters dignified Sargon with a debate. Surely somebody more coherent could fill his place.

@rikameme
You are aware that professional debating frequently involves "reading from a script", right?

Not verbatim. Reading from a script was reasonable but depending on one isn't quite the same, particularly not when those scripts are moralizing rants. Nothing that I watched indicated that Sargon was able to adequately address Winter's points, which means that it was less a debate and more a series of pre-scripted talking points.

Yes, verbatim. I've seen with my own eyes how people prepare for debates. It involves writing out a lot of what you're going to say. That way you can get it out very quickly- in certain forms of debate, so fast that you have to train to be able to keep up enough to take notes.

Ah yes, the classic "feminist and non-feminist don't bother listening to eachother's points" scenario. The scenario that's convinced me that the "No True Scotsman" fallacy isn't always untrue. You have two people talking about clearly different entities, yet I've seen so many people (mind you, these are YouTube commenters I'm referring to, so of course they're brainless fuckasses) insist that they're the same because "lol no tru scotsmyn" as if distinguishing between the two would somehow result in said person's dog being run over with a steamroller.

This whole issue regarding "SJWs" and "Anti-SJWs" would go away if we did away with that bullshit generalization.

The post debate sets a grim light at how the two view the debate.

Sargon released a video about self reflection, self criticism, and what he could have done better. Whether you agree with him or not, the man at least has the where withal to be able to self-reflect, and try to improve.

Dr. Winters, on the other hand went on twitter and linked a video of Sargon being equated to a racist Bill O Reilly to the millennials.

Must not take much to be a doctor if someone so petty can become one.

7-10 years of post-graduate education isn't "much"? It's about effort, it isn't supposed to be a glowing endorsement of personality and insinuating otherwise is actually rather insulting to the concept of education. I'm not defending anybody who publicly broadcasts their Youtube likes but doctorates aren't always paragons of humility and kindness and that's never been the case. Much of what is taught in any PhD program is how to research scientifically, and part of that challenge is removing bias (and I don't just mean political bias, but inherent human bias in how we form ideas and hypothesis) from research questions. For example, one can believe that climate change is real and still research it objectively, or be a capitalist and research inequality objectively.

That said, I'm still not trying to defend the move but is Sargon really any better? Keep in mind that this is the guy who insists in his hour-long videos that people like Winters are decadents destroying the West. That's a bit more… extreme than even the nature of the video that she liked. Even if he had an okay reflection video, it doesn't erase his dozens of other videos that directly insult academics from existence. This is the problem with Rational and Polite e-pundits like Sargon, they regard attacks on them as out-of-bounds even when the attacks that they make in their videos are extremely vile. Then again, I intend to pursue an 'SJW' PhD so perhaps I'm biased.

It brings to mind the time Sargon tweeted that animated music video that likened feminism to militiant Islamism. Had a straw feminist and Muslim singing about how alike they are, and ended with the straw feminist begging him to rape her, because it's okay when Muslims do it.

Richard Dawkins subsequently retweeted it.

The debate was pretty terrible. It was basically, as Greyblades put it, " two people having two different debates cut together into the same video". Dr. Winters just talked about the accomplishments of women's rights activists while Carl just ranted about radical feminists on the Internet and college campuses with neither willing to address each other's points. I learned positively nothing from this 'debate'.

Unsurprisingly, the conversation between the two afterwards devolved into this:

"It’s about effort, it isn’t supposed to be a glowing endorsement of personality and insinuating otherwise is actually rather insulting to the concept of education. "

And here I thought it was about scholarly work, you know, add to the growing body of knowledge, with facts.

"Much of what is taught in any PhD program is how to research scientifically, and part of that challenge is removing bias (and I don’t just mean political bias, but inherent human bias in how we form ideas and hypothesis) from research questions."

Which is the argument that Sargon of Akkad, and many others are making towards sociology, specifically, the sociology that has focused on social justice. It doesn't take a lot of scholarly work to find the problems within this field of research. It doesn't take much in data-gathering to disprove the extent, and even sometimes, the very body of research that goes into this. The fact is, social justice and sociology has become biased, has become increasingly baseless. Hell, a large body of psychological work, which is part of this sociology, has been found to not hold up to scientific scrutiny.

"Keep in mind that this is the guy who insists in his hour-long videos that people like Winters are decadents destroying the West." I've never heard the term "Decadents" specifically. I have heard him laying out the accusation that this is destroying the west…and arguably he is right. When you have a large body of sociologists in Universities promoting ideals, and philosophy that is against the core fundamentals that our modern Western society is based on, he's right. When you attack, liberalism, when you attack individual liberty, when you attack meritocracy and all the benefits that come from that, and boil down everything in the world into a simple oppressor vs oppressed viewpoint, yeah, you're being very anti-Western. Especially when you continually embrace far-right Muslim beliefs because you feel that they are a group that is oppressed, therefore, they can't be wrong.

"Even if he had an okay reflection video, it doesn’t erase his dozens of other videos that directly insult academics from existence." Why should [these] academics be above criticism? Why shouldn't they be subject to scrutiny by the public at large?

"Then again, I intend to pursue an ‘SJW’ PhD so perhaps I’m biased."

Yes you are. Which is funny, because you defined getting a PhD is something that should be objective, and not biased. But the reality is, you are biased from everything I've read on these forums. You view criticism as insults, you've implied that academia should be on a platform that is above reproach.

You've implied that effort is more meaningful on whether or not they are right. And that's what Sargon continues to argue, that those people pursuing degrees like yours are just doing it because it's easy. And if you view it from the point that it ought to be just effort shown, then yeah, it's pretty effin easy.

She must not have studied very well, because you stated straight up that part of PHD studying is removing bias.

Likening someone to Bill O' Reily I don't think counts as being unbiased.

No, I'm not saying Sargon is without criticism. The difference is that he isn't a doctor with a degree, we're supposed to hold those people up to higher standards. If she can't hold herself to a higher standard than some guy on the internet, I'm going to have some problems with her.

And here I thought it was about scholarly work, you know, add to the growing body of knowledge, with facts.

Don't whatabout me, that was a response to the notion that PhDs must not be substantial.

Which is the argument that Sargon of Akkad, and many others are making towards sociology, specifically, the sociology that has focused on social justice. It doesn’t take a lot of scholarly work to find the problems within this field of research. It doesn’t take much in data-gathering to disprove the extent, and even sometimes, the very body of research that goes into this. The fact is, social justice and sociology has become biased, has become increasingly baseless. Hell, a large body of psychological work, which is part of this sociology, has been found to not hold up to scientific scrutiny.

Okay. Go ahead, disprove sociology. I mean, I'm not sure what evidence you can provide to show that it's become increasingly baseless. There was a time when sociology was soft and that was long ago. Departments went through a period of deep introspection in the 1990s and are not exactly soft. Before anybody asks for evidence, I encourage them to go check out the first five articles of the newest American Sociological Review. All five contain mathematical or models with researched statistics, are well-cited and are very far from being the ramblings that Sargon seems to think they are.

When you have a large body of sociologists in Universities promoting ideals, and philosophy that is against the core fundamentals that our modern Western society is based on, he’s right. When you attack, liberalism, when you attack individual liberty, when you attack meritocracy and all the benefits that come from that, and boil down everything in the world into a simple oppressor vs oppressed viewpoint, yeah, you’re being very anti-Western.

Core fundamentals of western society are not so simple that they can be boiled down to vague notions of "individual liberty" and, on that note, "meritocracy" is not a core western value. Maybe if you only read Locke, but Toqueville would disagree. Other core western values include justice and freedom (in a social sense), and those aren't alien concepts to sociologists any more than liberty or meritocracy are. To say that sociologists "attack" anything is wrong. How are sociologists attacking any idea other than perhaps the notion that society cannot or should not be studied?

Especially when you continually embrace far-right Muslim beliefs because you feel that they are a group that is oppressed, therefore, they can’t be wrong.

You lost me. What are you talking about? Leave the weird tangent rants to Sargon, please.

Why should [these] academics be above criticism? Why shouldn’t they be subject to scrutiny by the public at large?
I never said that they should be above criticism and that is an obvious strawman. However, if attacks count as criticism then the criticism goes both ways. Winters is criticizing Sargon and Sargon is criticizing Winters. Now, I'd say that they were attacking each others character, but we can leave the semantics for later. How did you come to concluding that, by saying "Sargon is no better" I somehow am calling for Winters to be immune from criticism?

Yes you are. Which is funny, because you defined getting a PhD is something that should be objective, and not biased. But the reality is, you are biased from everything I’ve read on these forums. You view criticism as insults, you’ve implied that academia should be on a platform that is above reproach.

Way to try to make this personal but no, that isn't what I was saying. Every person is biased. Nobody looks at any problem the exact same way, nobody construes information the exact same way, nobody formulates inquiries the exact same way. The purpose of a PhD is to teach a person how to do so justifiably and in a manner that most closely helps them understand the world and convey it truthfully. That is what science is. That anybody has a political opinion is no more consequential than anybody having a favorite color.

Academia should not be above reproach, one of the core tenants of science is that everything should be reproached, especially by the claim-maker themself. However, if one wants to criticize academic methods then they're rather silly if they don't understand academia to begin with, and Sargon does not. There are good criticisms of academia – broadly or departmentalized – out there and you don't generally find them in conspiracy videos filled with skulls and metal music and uploaded on Youtube.

You’ve implied that effort is more meaningful on whether or not they are right. And that’s what Sargon continues to argue, that those people pursuing degrees like yours are just doing it because it’s easy. And if you view it from the point that it ought to be just effort shown, then yeah, it’s pretty effin easy.

No, I didn't. I'm sorry that you choose to construe my post that way but it's clear nonsense but hey, if you want to follow pissbaby splatpants and call anybody who tries to know anything at all a corrupt shill then be my guest, I don't have time to argue bullshit in the bit of free time that I find in my easy 70-hour week academic cycle :')

Likening someone to Bill O’ Reily I don’t think counts as being unbiased.

You're confusing bias with opinion and professional demeanor, if you think that's what a PhD boils down to then, well, you don't understand what the problem of bias actually is.

I am at a loss of words right here.
I don't know if I should submit this to r/BoOC or not, as it's not possible to misunderstand so hard sociology, personal biases, using the common fallacy about muslims while still defending Sargon and everything. Not once in this reply is there a hint of self-awareness on why, maybe, some of Western societies' core components are faulty, why meritocracy is flawed unless deeply reworked, why liberalism has flaws as well, why sociology is not a threat to individual liberty (on the contrary, it's made to improve it). What is missing is a "damn commies get off my lawn!" moment.

Yes you are. Which is funny, because you defined getting a PhD is something that should be objective, and not biased. But the reality is, you are biased from everything I’ve read on these forums. You view criticism as insults, you’ve implied that academia should be on a platform that is above reproach.

She must not have studied very well, because you stated straight up that part of PHD studying is removing bias.

Likening someone to Bill O’ Reily I don’t think counts as being unbiased.

Did she liken someone to Bill O' Reily in their debate (or whatever that was)?

You guys do realize there is a difference between having unbiased work and being biased in your personal life right? People with PhDs are humans and are allowed to have opinions, bias and be as misguided as they want to be regardless if they are wrong or right in their personal lives…

I am specifically talking about the brand of sociology obsessed with social justice, using Marxist criticism, and identity politics. There is no hint of self-awareness because I am not here to debate whether or not those core elements of western society are flawless, they aren't. And no where did I imply that they were flawless. However, there is criticism of what those core elements, and there is outright demanding they be removed.

When you're creating "safe places" on campus, when you attack free-speech, when you categorize everyone into little groups that you can then assign a hierarchy of oppression, and when you attack personal liberties in the name of social justice, yeah, you are attacking individual liberty. Are you utterly devoid of seeing what's happening around the campuses in the US and the UK, is happening? Where you have teachers and faculty demanding that students shouldn't be able to film what's happening? When you time, and time again, showing hissy fits thrown when the person that is suppose to give a talk at the University has some, oh god forbid, opposing viewpoints that they viewed?

"What is missing is a “damn commies get off my lawn!" Are you calling them commies? Because I certainly didn't.

@Tomberry
Okay, I suppose I could go over this entire post, but for once I'd like to not spend a half hour plus writing one of these. Besides, the entire thing can be summed up as "haha, you don't even agree with all my opinions you big dummy!" as if that's somehow an argument. So instead I'll focus in on this little number.
"why meritocracy is flawed unless deeply reworked"
What do people mean when they talk about meritocracy? The answer is extremely simple- the principle that the person who can best do something should be put in the position where they'll be doing it. The concept of "reworking" this makes about as much sense as "reworking" the integers. They are essentially irreducible, and also absolutely fundamental to their respective areas of interest. Where the complexity comes in is their application. The study of Diophantine equations has produced theorems that took centuries to prove, but this does not mean that there is something wrong with the integers themselves. In a similar way, the debate over what are generally the best methods for determining who has the most "merit" in relation to a certain position will never end, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the fundamental premise of meritocracy being challenged.
Honestly, I don't see how this is going to convince anyone that there isn't something wrong with sociology. It's a pretty damn baffling statement.

"Don’t whatabout me, that was a response to the notion that PhDs must not be substantial."

Maybe, just maybe, some PhDs aren't that particularly substantial? Especially ones that you claim only really show effort, rather than actual scholarly additions to the body of work?

"Okay. Go ahead, disprove sociology. I mean, I’m not sure what evidence you can provide to show that it’s become increasingly baseless. There was a time when sociology was soft and that was long ago. Departments went through a period of deep introspection in the 1990s and are not exactly soft. Before anybody asks for evidence, I encourage them to go check out the first five articles of the newest American Sociological Review. All five contain mathematical or models with researched statistics, are well-cited and are very far from being the ramblings that Sargon seems to think they are."

Not all sociology as there are a lot of sub groups to that field of scholarship. I am however specifically talking about sociology that is currently being pushed by academia, privilege theory, identity politics, and criticism of society through Marxist lenses. Sociology itself needs to do a better job at it, and even sociologists themselves agree that they need better methodology. https://orgtheory.wordpress.com/2015/08/11/sociologists-need-to-be-better-at-replication-a-guest-post-by-cristobal-young/ Points out at the problem of providing methodology. And according to a paper done in 2008: Of 100 studies published in top-ranking journals in 2008, 75% of social psychology experiments and half of cognitive studies failed the replication test https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/aug/27/study-delivers-bleak-verdict-on-validity-of-psychology-experiment-results

"Other core western values include justice and freedom (in a social sense), and those aren’t alien concepts to sociologists any more than liberty or meritocracy are. To say that sociologists “attack” anything is wrong. How are sociologists attacking any idea other than perhaps the notion that society cannot or should not be studied?" Dude, are you ignoring all the shit that's happening on US campuses lately? They are attacking fundamental elements of western views on liberalism. They Are attacking freedom of speech, and you can find tons of articles of young students demanding that so-and-so shouldn't be able to speak. They ARE attacking freedom of press, as the infamous video of that teacher demanding someone remove the student filming the protest. There are videos out there of students arguing that white people should kill themselves for social justice!

"You lost me. What are you talking about? Leave the weird tangent rants to Sargon, please." Oh please. How many young far-left students, social justice warriors, and the like call out any criticism of Islam as Islamaphobic. Why do they continually ignore the illiberal views and positions the hard Islamist take? Hell, the left in the UK all but embraced Islamist viewpoints. They are minorities, obviously, being oppressed by the evil western whites, right?

"I never said that they should be above criticism and that is an obvious strawman. However, if attacks count as criticism then the criticism goes both ways. Winters is criticizing Sargon and Sargon is criticizing Winters. Now, I’d say that they were attacking each others character, but we can leave the semantics for later. How did you come to concluding that, by saying “Sargon is no better” I somehow am calling for Winters to be immune from criticism?"

Specifically you said "Even if he had an okay reflection video, it doesn’t erase his dozens of other videos that directly insult academics from existence." Most of his videos offer criticism of the academia. How is that insulting? Sociological academia needs to be criticized, and it isn't an insult to do so.

"However, if one wants to criticize academic methods then they’re rather silly if they don’t understand academia to begin with, and Sargon does not. There are good criticisms of academia – broadly or departmentalized – out there and you don’t generally find them in conspiracy videos filled with skulls and metal music and uploaded on Youtube." Ahh I see, so you should only criticize academia if you, yourself are also in academia, or you have to understand that particular academia? Sargon may not have the academic credentials you prefer, but that doesn't invalidate his criticisms, especially if those criticisms are in fact based on something that is academic. I point out two papers by academics that have levied criticism on the methodology and the problem with replicating results. I am not from academia, should my criticism then be dismissed?

"No, I didn’t. I’m sorry that you choose to construe my post that way but it’s clear nonsense but hey, if you want to follow pissbaby splatpants and call anybody who tries to know anything at all a corrupt shill then be my guest, I don’t have time to argue bullshit in the bit of free time that I find in my easy 70-hour week academic cycle :’)"

Ah no, "Anybody who tries to know anything", is not at all what I said or implied. I am being critical of a particular branch of sociology that pushes forward an agenda that is based on questionable conclusions. I find it funny that you interpret that as me attacking anybody who tries to know anything, yes, way to lump yourself and your particular branch of scholarship as akin to every other. Hint: it's not. I am not being critical of mathematicians, nor am I being critical of historians, or physicists, or other scholars. Each one of them has their own internal problems, and are different in their pursuits of knowledge.

Maybe, just maybe, some PhDs aren’t that particularly substantial?

Sounds like a flimsy rejection of anything not personally understood to me. How will you decide which PhDs aren’t substantial, who is going to make that call and what really makes you think that your own impression of an entire field is more meaningful than, well, an entire academic field? It sounds like something a know-it-all teenager would claim.

Especially ones that you claim only really show effort, rather than actual scholarly additions to the body of work?

This is about the fourth time I’ve explained this, I never said this. I took the previous instances as honest misunderstanding but now I think you’re being intentionally disingenuous.

Not all sociology as there are a lot of sub groups to that field of scholarship. I am however specifically talking about sociology that is currently being pushed by academia

Okay, so all academic sociology. Disprove it, or perhaps explain how my example from a popular sociology journal using the five most recent publications is somehow irrelevant. The Young metastudy was interesting but they’re a sociology academic, so clearly you don’t want to throw out all academic sociology. Again, that is a reasonable criticism of sociology but you’re calling to throw the baby out with the bathwater, and I don’t think that Young would agree with the conclusions that you draw nor are the actual problems with sociology the cause of “privilege theory” or “identity politics”. Those are important concepts in sociology and the fact that they are included in the much broader set of ideas floated around by sociologists does not mean that they are either universally-held, more notable than other theories or the cause of any problems a given research program.

privilege theory, identity politics, and criticism of society through Marxist lenses.

“Cultural Marxism! Virtue signaling! Cucks!”

Sorry, those are ideas in sociology but only three among many more. What do you object to, that they are the foundations of sociology (which they aren’t) or that they are taught (which sounds SJWish to me but whatever).

Dude, are you ignoring all the shit that’s happening on US campuses lately?

You mean the occasional protest, misguided and later-reversed campus policy and that one professor who was fired? I’ve been at several campuses recently and none of them have the problems that the media reports. You’re being caught in a media sensation, it has no bearing on broad and long-run trends, which matter a lot more than a few idiots who receive their 15 minutes of fame.

• They are attacking fundamental elements of western views on liberalism.*

Academic institutions seem to me to be more a pillar of Western culture. Funny how that and cleanly-shaven faces were the two elements of western culture that Peter the Great adopted when modernizing Russia. I’d say that’s about the opposite of shouty, Rational Youtubers who pretend they can read.

You can find tons of articles of young students demanding that so-and-so shouldn’t be able to speak. They ARE attacking freedom of press, as the infamous video of that teacher demanding someone remove the student filming the protest.

Oh, so we are talking about the occasional protest and that one professor who was fired? I didn’t want to be right on that one, honestly. I’m so sorry.

There are videos out there of students arguing that white people should kill themselves for social justice!

Well that’s silly. I can’t imagine that there are many of them, I know people pursuing advanced SJW degrees, I’m white, many of them aren’t and nobody has ever even commented on my race, much less told me I could die. I’d ask for a source but I don’t want a Breitbart link.

Oh please. How many young far-left students, social justice warriors, and the like call out any criticism of Islam as Islamaphobic. Why do they continually ignore the illiberal views and positions the hard Islamist take? Hell, the left in the UK all but embraced Islamist viewpoints

Holy shit calm down I said leave the conspiracy tangents for Sargon NotLikeThis

They are minorities, obviously, being oppressed by the evil western whites, right?

I’ve never met or read about or seen writing from a student, liberal or social justice advocate who had any warm feelings toward Islamic extremists. This sounds more like a tortured strawman of the classic structuralist economics argument if I didn’t know any better, and it has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

Specifically you said “Even if he had an okay reflection video, it doesn’t erase his dozens of other videos that directly insult academics from existence.” Most of his videos offer criticism of the academia. How is that insulting? Sociological academia needs to be criticized, and it isn’t an insult to do so.

This criticism never goes beyond “they are SJW and contrary to (my) unresearched interpretation of Western values. Now, I’m going to make this analogy very carefully but the mere fact that a person conjures up “criticism” has zero bearing on if that criticism is correct or an attack on somebody. Sorry for the Godwin but a Nazi could call Protocols “criticism” and that wouldn’t somehow protect it from further criticism in return, or from an attack or anything else. Sargon insists that an undesirable group is destroying Western culture, that’s a very heavy claim and it deserves both the scrutiny and denigration that it gets.

However, none of that matters! At best he’s compared people like Winters to pestilence or whatever other analogies that he dregged up in the past, when he takes a combative position it doesn’t take very long for him to do something at least as bad as liking an insulting Youtube video.

Ahh I see, so you should only criticize academia if you, yourself are also in academia, or you have to understand that particular academia?

Well, no. It certainly helps but it is possible to study it externally. However, at some point one needs to have a background that prepares them to understand systems and critique them properly. I’d think that a high school diploma is a nice prerequisite, at any rate Sargon certainly isn’t up for it.

Sargon may not have the academic credentials you prefer, but that doesn’t invalidate his criticisms, especially if those criticisms are in fact based on something that is academic.

Do you think that epistemology is foreign to academics? Really? Whatever, Sargon’s problem isn’t that lack of a piece of paper, it’s his lack of a coherent methodology to analyze and critique the systems that he talks about. Inexperience is a valid criticism, “academic credentials” aside.

I point out two papers by academics that have levied criticism on the methodology and the problem with replicating results. I am not from academia, should my criticism then be dismissed?

Of course not, and I obviously can’t fault you for not being from academia or any bullshit like that, but you’re making the same error of Sargon. You’re making vague, inaccurate and occasionally inconsistent claims about Sociology, pointing to internally-recognized problems in the field and deciding that they are connected without any justification. What academic educations are made to do is help a person not make that kind of mistake, so there’s a level of irony in the criticism that anti-academics try to present.

I am being critical of a particular branch of sociology that pushes forward an agenda that is based on questionable conclusions. I find it funny that you interpret that as me attacking anybody who tries to know anything, yes, way to lump yourself and your particular branch of scholarship as akin to every other. Hint: it’s not. I am not being critical of mathematicians, nor am I being critical of historians, or physicists, or other scholars. Each one of them has their own internal problems, and are different in their pursuits of knowledge.

I have to wonder what components of sociology you think isn’t “push(ing) forward an agenda that is based on questionable conclusions (???)”. What is acceptable sociology to you? At this point I’ll just pray that it isn’t race realism.

Actually it's more of diminishing the value of your PhD, to be honest. From what I interpreted you said you equate the value of all PhDs the same, you've at least treated it as such, and you dismiss my diminishing the value of your PhD as me dismissing academia. On top of that, you hold that PhDs matter a hell of a lot more than character, and that it should be about effort. I don't disagree with the notion that a PhD shouldn't be predicated on character. However character is also what defines how you are perceived. However this is the perception you are creating and reinforcing; you, and many public sociologists (yes I am generalizing here) sit in your ivory tower universities, theorizing about the various groups and systems that you conveniently place people into. You sit there looking down on the plebeians without their special little papers, and define and redefine things to suit your own arguments and beliefs. What is the result? What has been the application of your efforts? An entire generation of students convinced of their own slights, convinced that the world owes them, should listen to them, and provide for them because of some perceived oppression. What is your brand of sociology contributed to society outside of just being a continual circle jerk of reaffirming your own discipline? Your public sociology demands and critiques the world today against what you view the world could be, or how it could have been.

It is riddled with left- to far left bias, and yes, since a good chunk of you decide to apply your sociology to politics, a great triumph according to many in the ASA. And precisely, what is that agenda I keep hammering about? ASA President Michael Burawoy, who devoted the theme of the Association's 2004 meeting to public sociologies, public sociology is a sociology that "defines, promotes and informs public debate about class and racial inequalities, new gender regimes, environmental degradation, multiculturalism, technological revolutions, market fundamentalism, and state and non-state violence." You've taken it upon yourselves to give criticism to social dysfunction, you've turned your discipline into a debate about morality, and morality is not a science.

"Sorry, those are ideas in sociology but only three among many more. What do you object to, that they are the foundations of sociology (which they aren’t) or that they are taught (which sounds SJWish to me but whatever)." I object to the value placed in Marx since 1960s, the radical application of your discipline to political activism. Activism based on a man who's economic theories have been adopted by some of the most brutal and violent states in the 20th century.

"At best he’s compared people like Winters to pestilence or whatever other analogies that he dregged up in the past, when he takes a combative position it doesn’t take very long for him to do something at least as bad as liking an insulting Youtube video."

Except in this case he didn't. Instead he made a self critique of his own debate. He's equated a lot of these sociology professors as dogmatic, alluded to them being almost fermenting personality cults – sure enough. But we are talking about his debate with Winters, and how the two behaved after the debate. Winters, like you, perpetuate the notion that all you sociologists do is sit there looking down with disdain at what you perceive as social dysfunction, created by these plebs.

"What academic educations are made to do is help a person not make that kind of mistake, so there’s a level of irony in the criticism that anti-academics try to present."

Except that in this activist sociology doesn't help a person avoid these mistakes. It fuels them to continue applying them.

Students advocating white genocide: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RC-Cqkq6zWc

"Sounds like a flimsy rejection of anything not personally understood to me. How will you decide which PhDs aren’t substantial, who is going to make that call and what really makes you think that your own impression of an entire field is more meaningful than, well, an entire academic field? It sounds like something a know-it-all teenager would claim."

Scientists, mathematicians, physcists, chemists, and the like contribute directly to the world, they produce new materials, new ways of improving our technologies and understanding of the world around us and the universe.

Historians, archaeologists, paleontologists and the like attempt to give a glimpse into our past, how it defines us today, and how the world around us evolved.

Artists, designers, engineers, and the like go about creating products that are not just visually appealing but have applications that have revolutionized the way humans conduct business, how we interact with one another, etc.

You, sit in your ivory towers pointing out social dysfunction.

As I said before. You seem to treat all PhDs as equal in value. I don't. And in the hierarchy of value, it seems to me – and a large body of people – that your particular PhD in what you consider SJW related fields is valued far less on the totem pole.
Again. What has your sociological activism produced: a resurgence of censorship, blocking any debate, protecting feelings over actual beliefs. Is it no wonder then that so many people look down at sociology as any kind of legitimate science? Is it no wonder then that someone like Sargon can make a petition now nearing 64,000 people who want to suspend social justice courses?

You, sit in your ivory towers pointing out social dysfunction.
As I said before. You seem to treat all PhDs as equal in value. I don’t. And in the hierarchy of value, it seems to me – and a large body of people – that your particular PhD in what you consider SJW related fields is valued far less on the totem pole.
Again. What has your sociological activism produced: a resurgence of censorship, blocking any debate, protecting feelings over actual beliefs. Is it no wonder then that so many people look down at sociology as any kind of legitimate science? Is it no wonder then that someone like Sargon can make a petition now nearing 64,000 people who want to suspend social justice courses?

Pierre Bourdieu, Nicole-Claude Mathieu and Simone de Beauvoir are rolling in their graves.
Hear, hear the sound of the best psychatrists and sociologists of our time slapping their faces in amazement.

@Tomberry
I love how you slipped psychiatry in there even though it has absolutely nothing to do with what he was talking about. It's almost like you felt your "rebuttal" was flimsy, and thus "puffed it up" with the first thing that popped into your head. Yeah, sorry, but licensed medical doctors with knowledge of neurology and pharmacology don't fit the bill here. In fact, even speaking of the entire field of sociology is too broad to match the point he was making. Note the phrase "sociological activism".

And on a more general note, for people asking for specifics, here you go:

Actually it’s more of diminishing the value of your PhD, to be honest. From what I interpreted you said you equate the value of all PhDs the same, you’ve at least treated it as such, and you dismiss my diminishing the value of your PhD as me dismissing academia.

I… don’t have a PhD? You don’t even know what I study, wanna take bets on if you’

On top of that, you hold that PhDs matter a hell of a lot more than character,

Weasel phrasing. I said nothing like that, and it doesn’t even mean anything. Matter for what? For who one would rather stand next to? For who is able to evaluate a claim using the paradigms of the research program with-which they are acquainted? It sounds like you have a bone to pick with academics, for whatever reason.

and that it should be about effort.

This is the fourth time that I have explicitly told you that I never said this, at this point I can’t tell if you’re just too blinded by an agenda to see that or if you really that adamant about being disingenuous.

I don’t disagree with the notion that a PhD shouldn’t be predicated on character. However character is also what defines how you are perceived. However this is the perception you are creating and reinforcing; you, and many public sociologists (yes I am generalizing here) sit in your ivory tower universities, theorizing about the various groups and systems that you conveniently place people into.

without their special little papers, and define and redefine things to suit your own arguments and beliefs. What is the result? What has been the application of your efforts? An entire generation of students convinced of their own slights, convinced that the world owes them, should listen to them, and provide for them because of some perceived oppression. What is your brand of sociology contributed to society outside of just being a continual circle jerk of reaffirming your own discipline? Your public sociology demands and critiques the world today against what you view the world could be, or how it could have been.

Holy fuck dude I’m not a sociologist I’m just a planning student living in a closet please don’t hurt me

You sit there looking down on the plebeians

What

It is riddled with left- to far left bias, and yes, since a good chunk of you decide to apply your sociology to politics, a great triumph according to many in the ASA. And precisely, what is that agenda I keep hammering about? ASA President Michael Burawoy, who devoted the theme of the Association’s 2004 meeting to public sociologies, public sociology is a sociology that “defines, promotes and informs public debate about class and racial inequalities, new gender regimes, environmental degradation, multiculturalism, technological revolutions, market fundamentalism, and state and non-state violence.” You’ve taken it upon yourselves to give criticism to social dysfunction,

Okay, I’ll bite. What should sociologists research? It doesn’t sound like you’re willing to leave very much left for them. Are gender, environmental degradation and technological revolutions that nobody should research academically?

you’ve turned your discipline into a debate about morality, and morality is not a science.

Now you really don’t understand academia. Look up the phrase “honest broker”, normative claims don’t flow from scientific research. There’s a line between debating morality and debating processes while entertaining different possible value systems.

I object to the value placed in Marx since 1960s, the radical application of your discipline to political activism. Activism based on a man who’s economic theories have been adopted by some of the most brutal and violent states in the 20th century.

Marx wrote quite a bit and was influential on many important writers across a variety of fields. How some used his work is irrelevant to the influence that he had. In fact, now YOU are the one making a moral judgement about how academics should work. I hope you can see the irony in that.

Except in this case he didn’t.

Nah they were just a click away in any of the 8 videos a viewer could find in Youtube’s sidebar. So what?

Students advocating white genocide: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RC-Cqkq6zWc

Is… is that it? An 18 year old having a meltdown in a debate? That’s your “students in universities everywhere are advocating white genocide”?

Scientists, mathematicians, physcists, chemists, and the like contribute directly to the world, they produce new materials, new ways of improving our technologies and understanding of the world around us and the universe.
Historians, archaeologists, paleontologists and the like attempt to give a glimpse into our past, how it defines us today, and how the world around us evolved.
Artists, designers, engineers, and the like go about creating products that are not just visually appealing but have applications that have revolutionized the way humans conduct business, how we interact with one another, etc.

Oh, you’re one of those. I’m glad that you have a list of studies that earned your seal of approval. I’d argue that sociologists fall into the second category.

You, sit in your ivory towers pointing out social dysfunction.

I wish I had an ivory tower, planners don’t make money so I spend all of my time in the box where we run the hot water pipes. Also I do geospatial modeling, sorry if I point out any dysfunctions in the process?

As I said before. You seem to treat all PhDs as equal in value.

No, I’m not so cynical that I reduce PhDs to ‘value’.

I don’t. And in the hierarchy of value, it seems to me – and a large body of people – that your particular PhD in what you consider SJW related fields is valued far less on the totem pole.

By “large number of people” do you mean STEM freshman and a high school dropout on Youtube?
Again. What has your sociological activism produced: a resurgence of censorship, blocking any debate, protecting feelings over actual beliefs.

I didn’t realize my sociological activism was so effective!

Is it no wonder then that so many people look down at sociology as any kind of legitimate science? Is it no wonder then that someone like Sargon can make a petition now nearing 64,000 people who want to suspend social justice courses?

Oh yeah that petition, addressed to “universities” and not explaining what an “SJW” course is. I expect that our department will shut down within the week!

"I… don’t have a PhD? You don’t even know what I study, wanna take bets on if you’"

gee, let me see, saying you have a bias because you are pursuing a PhD that would be interpreted as something a SJW would go after? ¯\(ツ)/¯
Fine let me rephrase: I am specifically diminishing the value of sociology PhDs.

"It sounds like you have a bone to pick with academics, for whatever reason." … "Now you really don’t understand academia. Look up the phrase “honest broker”, normative claims don’t flow from scientific research. There’s a line between debating morality and debating processes while entertaining different possible value systems."

You really can't tell the difference between general academics, and sociology activists, can you? I've made it perfectly clear who it is I have a bone to pick with.

"Okay, I’ll bite. What should sociologists research? It doesn’t sound like you’re willing to leave very much left for them. Are gender, environmental degradation and technological revolutions that nobody should research academically?"

there's a difference between studying it, and applying it in one sided political activism.

"Marx wrote quite a bit and was influential on many important writers across a variety of fields. How some used his work is irrelevant to the influence that he had. In fact, now YOU are the one making a moral judgement about how academics should work. I hope you can see the irony in that."

Morality isn't a science. When it comes to the reality that millions, literally millions, have perished because of his ideas, and people who were influenced by his ideas, that's not me making a moral call on the grounds of science. That's me pointing out the facts that are backed up by data and history, past and present.

"Is… is that it? An 18 year old having a meltdown in a debate? That’s your “students in universities everywhere are advocating white genocide”?"

"There are videos out there of students arguing that white people should kill themselves for social justice!" (I fail to see where I wrote, everywhere)

You then " … ask for a source but I don’t want a Breitbart link." And I delivered.

"I wish I had an ivory tower, planners don’t make money so I spend all of my time in the box where we run the hot water pipes. Also I do geospatial modeling, sorry if I point out any dysfunctions in the process?"

Sorry I misinterpreted what you've been studying.

"By “large number of people” do you mean STEM freshman and a high school dropout on Youtube?" I repeat, you're disdain for the plebeians.

"No, I’m not so cynical that I reduce PhDs to ‘value’." I know.

"Oh yeah that petition, addressed to “universities” and not explaining what an “SJW” course is. I expect that our department will shut down within the week!"

You mean like the video that was posted by 0.9999…=1 above me?
Oh okay.

Upon further reflection, and a glass or two of delicious cabarnet, I wanted to add a few things, and clarify some things. As it is way past when I posted previous post I cannot edit it.

I do not have disdain for academia. I have disdain for sociological activism, public sociology, which is more and more predicated on viewing the world against an imagined world of what can be. To quote ASA "public sociologies should challenge the world as we know it, exposing the gap between what is and what could be." Who is to say what that could be? Evidently these very sociologists, who seem to hold the keys to what everyone obviously wants.

This brand of sociology is predicated on politics, and not science. I viewed sociology as a social science, predicated on finding scientific knowledge about social life. To accuratly describe, and explain the social world in some systematic knowledge. It's a political movement, a forum devoid of plural viewpoints, and continues to push a single sided usually far left agenda.

I also have disdain to people in certain academic circles, usually found on social sciences, specifically sociology and humanities, which continually view non-academics with disdain. They continue to obfuscate with impenatrable writing, jargon and disdain for lay people. Winters is proving that point entirely! And, whether you are trying to or not, also seemingly showing disdain for the lay person. Which is why I am getting so aggressive in my responses. Yes, I guess one could say I am triggered :).

I do not know why you think a degree in civic planning would be akin to something a SJW would pursue. I don't think it would ever cross my mind to think that someone attempting that degree is in the same realm as the people that I am being particularly antagonistic towards. I hope you understand then why I assumed you were pursuing a degree in sociology, which is particularly filled with SJWs.

The reason I hold cynical views of PhDs and have a hierarchy of value assigned to them is because i have seen all too many of my friends grown up with the belief that it doesn't matter what you pursue in college or university, it all is the same, and you will be successful because of it. Now we have an entire generation of college grads with thousands of dollars in debt and degrees that are utterly useless. From my point of view, there are degrees which will propel you to better success in life, more financial benefits, and actual, you know, jobs, than pursuing something like a degree in sociology.

It is because I misinterpreted certain things you said and implied, that I may have come off as insulting you. I wasn't trying to aim for that. For that, I appologize, since in the beginning that wasn't my intent.