Thanks John, but u suck now get out!

[westbranch]

Learning about the past... after the fact.

If monuments do not garner interest for the past, they wouldn't be targets. Monuments to some by name or statue may be readily passed by. To each his/her own. To others, they represent a grand view of valuable history.

There was some event that led to some group of progressives tearing down a statue back in the 1700s. Wish I could tell you more about it but statue is no longer standing so all related history is lost to the sands of time. Maybe those guys should have had a little more respect for their history.

The Statue of George III - Journal of the American Revolution

On the southern tip of Manhattan Island is a small oval area called Bowling Green. On this site on March 21, 1770 a statue, sculpted by Joseph Wilton, of King George III was erected. It was commissioned on June 23, 1766 by the New York General Assembly because of “the innumerable and singular...

allthingsliberty.com

 

[Sytes]

Your reflection of my comment may be good for a few cheers, though conjuring the premise I stated history disappeared due to... is a far fetched debate of the topic.

 

[Hilljackoutlaw]

For example: @Hammsolo My wife had to read the research paper talked about below for her one class and it was 100% taken seriously by the professor as she stated it's one of the best things she has read in a long time as my wife bitched about the ridiculousness of the paper and the waste of federal funds it was. The professor was about as unimpressed with my wife as a human being can be with another human being. Why is a student's time being wasted on something so ridiculous? Furthermore why is it taken seriously and my wife ridiculed for speaking out against it?


What does gender theory have to do with climate change and the depiction of glaciers in popular culture? You can decide for yourself by reading what must be the least essential paper ever written: "Glaciers, Gender, and Science—A feminist glaciology framework for global environmental climate change."
The recently published, utterly incomprehensible paper was co-authored by a team of historians at the University of Oregon, and funded via a grant from the National Science Foundation. I hope American taxpayers feel like they got their money's worth. From the abstract:

Glaciers are key icons of climate change and global environmental change. However, the relationships among gender, science, and glaciers – particularly related to epistemological questions about the production of glaciological knowledge – remain understudied. This paper thus proposes a feminist glaciology framework with four key components: 1) knowledge producers; (2) gendered science and knowledge; (3) systems of scientific domination; and (4) alternative representations of glaciers. Merging feminist postcolonial science studies and feminist political ecology, the feminist glaciology framework generates robust analysis of gender, power, and epistemologies in dynamic social-ecological systems, thereby leading to more just and equitable science and human-ice interactions.

You are probably wondering whether I am trolling you. You might be checking the date to make sure this isn't an April Fool's joke. Surely a satirist who set out to write a deliberate parody of left-wing papers using the jargon of the earnest social justice warrior could not have done a better job than a paper on "just and equitable human-ice interactions."
But the paper is real—very real. The University of Oregon, in fact, put out a glowing press release touting its existence.
"What I'm trying to do in my research is provide more of a human story about how shrinking glaciers, warming temperatures, changing precipitation, how that plays out for different people," said lead author Mark Carey, an associate dean of Oregon's history department, in a interview accompanying the press release.
I'm sure Carey is well-intentioned, but if his goal was to put a human face on climate change, he failed. The paper is simply impossible to read with a straight face. It employs liberal buzzwords—colonialism, marginalization, masculinist discourses, etc.—with such frequency that the entire thing comes off like a joke. Just try to follow along with this paragraph:

Feminist and postcolonial theories enrich and complement each other by showing how gender and colonialism are co-constituted, as well as how both women and indigenous peoples have been marginalized historically (Schnabel, 2014). Feminist glaciology builds from feminist postcolonial science studies, analyzing not only gender dynamics and situated knowledges, but also alternative knowledges and folk glaciologies that are generally marginalized through colonialism, imperialism, inequality, unequal power relations, patriarchy, and the domination of Western science (Harding, 2009).

Remember, this is a paper about how to feminize a giant hunk of ice.
In his write-up of the study, Powerline's Steven Hayward quips, "This is why you get Trump." He's not wrong. Disaffected college students are rebelling against the hegemonies of leftist dogma and political correctness that rule their campuses—and "Trump!" is, sadly, their rallying cry. In a country where working class people are being forced to fund research on the postcolonial gender theory of melting ice caps, is it any wonder some of them are rooting for a charismatic demagogue who promises to bully their tormentors?

 

[Deleted member 28227]

For example: @Hammsolo My wife had to read the research paper talked about below for her one class and it was 100% taken seriously by the professor as she stated it's one of the best things she has read in a long time as my wife bitched about the ridiculousness of the paper and the waste of federal funds it was. The professor was about as unimpressed with my wife as a human being can be with another human being. Why is a student's time being wasted on something so ridiculous? Furthermore why is it taken seriously and my wife ridiculed for speaking out against it?


What does gender theory have to do with climate change and the depiction of glaciers in popular culture? You can decide for yourself by reading what must be the least essential paper ever written: "Glaciers, Gender, and Science—A feminist glaciology framework for global environmental climate change."
The recently published, utterly incomprehensible paper was co-authored by a team of historians at the University of Oregon, and funded via a grant from the National Science Foundation. I hope American taxpayers feel like they got their money's worth. From the abstract:

You are probably wondering whether I am trolling you. You might be checking the date to make sure this isn't an April Fool's joke. Surely a satirist who set out to write a deliberate parody of left-wing papers using the jargon of the earnest social justice warrior could not have done a better job than a paper on "just and equitable human-ice interactions."
But the paper is real—very real. The University of Oregon, in fact, put out a glowing press release touting its existence.
"What I'm trying to do in my research is provide more of a human story about how shrinking glaciers, warming temperatures, changing precipitation, how that plays out for different people," said lead author Mark Carey, an associate dean of Oregon's history department, in a interview accompanying the press release.
I'm sure Carey is well-intentioned, but if his goal was to put a human face on climate change, he failed. The paper is simply impossible to read with a straight face. It employs liberal buzzwords—colonialism, marginalization, masculinist discourses, etc.—with such frequency that the entire thing comes off like a joke. Just try to follow along with this paragraph:

Remember, this is a paper about how to feminize a giant hunk of ice.
In his write-up of the study, Powerline's Steven Hayward quips, "This is why you get Trump." He's not wrong. Disaffected college students are rebelling against the hegemonies of leftist dogma and political correctness that rule their campuses—and "Trump!" is, sadly, their rallying cry. In a country where working class people are being forced to fund research on the postcolonial gender theory of melting ice caps, is it any wonder some of them are rooting for a charismatic demagogue who promises to bully their tormentors?

Cultural geography lol... this is why I did a joint thesis with the history department, I can definitely feel your wife’s pain.

Though to be fair there are some very valid and practical applications of gender studies, my sister has done a lot of public health work on Africa looking at reducing infant mortality, a lot of it requires figuring out where to locate services, which means studying travel pattens of mothers. Colonials located hospitals to be convenient via road infrastructure but most women coming to deliver travel via paths in the bush on foot.

 

[Hammsolo]

I love this forum. People are questioning, challenging, supportive and respectful. I love listening and learning. I don’t feel trolled at all.

This was not my experience in college at any level. It felt like I was reading ye ol’ English again. I had to keep re-reading to figure out a semblance of what they’re trying to say. This is what can divide us. I see this an an example trying to hard. People with egos (I battle my own) trying to polish themselves. My hope is they were trying to be metaphorical. These real issues are tarnished by papers like this. It just makes people laugh, feel stupid, get angry, or at least say WTF.

I’m sorry this has been you and your wife’s experience. I have taught all levels, including college and staff in my school district. At every level one of my goals is the same, to share the information using a variety of strategies that engaging understandable. Sometimes I do create dissonance (confusion) on purpose, but the work is always built to come to a set learning goal. This did not do that from what I can see... I will keep this chilly essay as a reminder to check my ego.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I definitely think there are massive problems with higher ED in the US.

Honestly you shouldn’t IMHO you shouldn't be allowed in a PhD program unless you have a specific question you want to answer, and a PhD should not be seen as a job prerequisite outside of academia. Petroleum geologists with PhDs are ridiculous.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I definitely think there are massive problems with higher ED in the US.

Honestly you shouldn’t IMHO you shouldn't be allowed in a PhD program unless you have a specific question you want to answer, and a PhD should not be seen as a job prerequisite outside of academia. Petroleum geologists with PhDs are ridiculous.

Sorry in advance for the offense, but PhDs should be reserved for mathematics and the "hard sciences". For everything else, a masters will do. And pointing close to home, I HATE when lawyers say that they too are "doctors" because a JD is a "juris doctorate". "B" as in "B", "S" as in "S" (and I am not referring to the degree). Some say the US spends way to much on medical care, heck I think one of our biggest waste areas are advanced degrees and associated literature that have no actual need - how is humanity helped by my brother in law's PhD in french poetry that cost $150,000.

 

[noharleyyet]

I love this forum. People are questioning, challenging, supportive and respectful. I love listening and learning. I don’t feel trolled at all.

This was not my experience in college at any level. It felt like I was reading ye ol’ English again. I had to keep re-reading to figure out a semblance of what they’re trying to say. This is what can divide us. I see this an an example trying to hard. People with egos (I battle my own) trying to polish themselves. My hope is they were trying to be metaphorical. These real issues are tarnished by papers like this. It just makes people laugh, feel stupid, get angry, or at least say WTF.

I’m sorry this has been you and your wife’s experience. I have taught all levels, including college and staff in my school district. At every level one of my goals is the same, to share the information using a variety of strategies that engaging understandable. Sometimes I do create dissonance (confusion) on purpose, but the work is always built to come to a set learning goal. This did not do that from what I can see... I will keep this chilly essay as a reminder to check my ego.

Good post, made me think of Freshman English Literature. The instructor was a middle aged English lady with a perfect accent...every word bell clear with perfect syntax. I had been a horrible high school student, barely getting by to stay eligible for sports, especially in English. This professor's ability to speak and teach took the whole class thru Beowulf like a showing at the Omni theatre. Changed my academic life forever...and changed my minor degree plan to English.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Sorry in advance for the offense, but PhDs should be reserved for mathematics and the "hard sciences". For everything else, a masters will do. And pointing close to home, I HATE when lawyers say that they too are "doctors" because a JD is a "juris doctorate". "B" as in "B", "S" as in "S" (and I am not referring to the degree). Some say the US spends way to much on medical care, heck I think one of our biggest waste areas are advanced degrees and associated literature than have no actual need - how is humanity helped by my brother in law's PhD in french poetry that cost $150,000.

I enjoyed reading Camus and Dumas in English.

 

[Cheesehead]

Had to fire him, kept formatting excel tables incorrectly.

^^
This guy’s a gangster? His real name’s Clarence.
j/k
-Cheddar Bob

 

[VikingsGuy]

I enjoyed reading Camus and Dumas in English.

Doesn't take a PhD to entertain you

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Doesn't take a PhD to entertain you

I dk someone a while back mistranslated “virgin” and shit really went off the rails.

 

[Hammsolo]

Virgins... never understood that one. I don’t like them at all. You know... Who wants a virgin margarita???

 

[Shangobango]

.... um...

did you read their statement, that's exactly what they did and said

They kind of lost me when they said
and I am paraphrasing “ We are restructuring our leadership to be majority people of color”.

I need more info on that.

Does replacing more qualified people for the sake of being able to say we are making our leadership majority minority?

If two people are equally qualified are they going to choose the minority based on the color of their skin?

How about choosing leadership roles based on the merits of the individuals vying for those roles and leave race completely out of it?

If they are just adding leadership roles that are going to be filled only by minorities I guess that is somewhat different.

Still sometimes I feel like I am living in bizarro world. The vast majority of the population at that time were probably racist. Are they all going to be held to this standard?

 

[BrentD]

Hornady is going down here. And there is good reason, but not to the point of erasing what he did for bison and the conservation of other species. I don't get it, I know that, but I still don't believe I'm a bad guy. It has been an ugly week here in FlyOver.

 

[SAJ-99]

How about choosing leadership roles based on the merits of the individuals vying for those roles and leave race completely out of it?

But what if you live in a society where the opportunity to build that merit is less because of your race? The thought that we live in a meritocracy is wonderful, but untrue at a variety of levels, not just race.

 

[Shangobango]

But what if you live in a society where the opportunity to build that merit is less because of your race? The thought that we live in a meritocracy is wonderful, but untrue at a variety of levels, not just race.

I don't disagree with you on that at all. I just think, no I know actually, that a lot of minorities find the notion that they are achieving a position due to their race as demeaning.

I'll give a very recent example from my own life. I was recently afforded the opportunity to promote two individuals to leadership positions on my crew. This is due to the fact that my position has evolved over the last year to become more administrative. This has taken away from the time that I can spend in the field addressing issues that arise out there and monitoring the overall performance of my crew outside of the metrics that I can get from running reports. One caveat of these two positions, that neither individual will be aware of until the time comes, is that they will be the front runners for me to replace myself with when I am promoted sometime in the near future.

It just so happens that I promoted two black people to fill those positions. I did not do this out of some sort of guilt, or for some sort of accolades as a SJW, or to reinforce my sense of my own color blindness. I did this because they were the best fit for the positions. They have the best work ethic of anyone else on my crew, they show tremendous attention to detail, and they are completely reliable. I trained one of the fellows when he came into the industry 15 years ago and the other I hired from a long list of candidates a few years back. They are both extraordinary people. If either one of them thought that they were receiving the promotion due to the color of their skin instead of their exceptional skills and character they would be devastated and would likely tell me to take this job and shove it.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

They kind of lost me when they said
and I am paraphrasing “ We are restructuring our leadership to be majority people of color”.

I need more info on that.

Does replacing more qualified people for the sake of being able to say we are making our leadership majority minority?

If two people are equally qualified are they going to choose the minority based on the color of their skin?

How about choosing leadership roles based on the merits of the individuals vying for those roles and leave race completely out of it?

If they are just adding leadership roles that are going to be filled only by minorities I guess that is somewhat different.

Still sometimes I feel like I am living in bizarro world. The vast majority of the population at that time were probably racist. Are they all going to be held to this standard?

Devil is in the details, I agree I would like to see more info.

When I read this statement my take away is the SC is acknowledging they are a mostly white org, and this is due largely to the fact that over the decades their leaders have strived to keep minorities out of their group. I think the intent is to bring in new perspectives that will help the org evolve and bring in new members.

Related, have you listened to the most recent Meateater episode with Rue Mapp? Definitely a good listen. Mapp's comments highlighted for me some of my blind spots about conservation/hunter recruitment/etc. She discussed a couple barriers for entry that I wouldn't have even considered.

I've made a couple of comments on hear about how annoyed I get with CPW commissioner Adams and some of the other specific "outdoor leadership" commissioners. Adam's et al. have never hunted and have no idea how our system works, commissioners will be discussing a highly nuanced issue eg limited/OTC archery tags in SW CO and some of the commissioners are like "Wait you have to have a tag to hunt, you can't just run into the woods and murder animals...

What, until recently, I haven't considered is how these individuals bring to the commission the views of other groups that went previously present, and how that perspective might help us widen the base and acceptance of hunting in our community. Adam's may not get a bunch of black hunters on the mountain, but she may get a lot of people outside... and those voters may look at a wildlife ballot issue differently knowing that someone that they trust is on the CPW board.

 

[MarvB]

In my experience, it starts at about age 13 and progressively gets worse until they are 25. Then at 30 they somehow revert and realize how wise you really were. ymmv. I still have 2 of the 3 in the dark window - apparently, I know nothing.

Spot on! My dad used to say (when I hit that early teen age) That “you’ll get older and I’ll get smarter again” yup, he was right!

 

[LuketheDog]

Had to fire him, kept formatting excel tables incorrectly.