| Can one of you anti woke boys explain the problem here? on 18:13 - Dec 14 with 1384 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Can one of you anti woke boys explain the problem here? on 18:10 - Dec 14 by Cotty |
Academic research should only be discredited on academic grounds, not political. Even if the topic is itself political. If she can find evidence to the contrary of the study she should publish it, that’s how it works. |
100% this |  |
|  |
| Can one of you anti woke boys explain the problem here? on 18:16 - Dec 14 with 1370 views | lowhouseblue |
| Can one of you anti woke boys explain the problem here? on 18:10 - Dec 14 by Cotty |
Academic research should only be discredited on academic grounds, not political. Even if the topic is itself political. If she can find evidence to the contrary of the study she should publish it, that’s how it works. |
but debate in the real world doesn't just occur through the exchange of academic articles. non academics, even politicians, are allowed to express views on academic arguments and even criticise them. that's the nature of public debate. |  |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Can one of you anti woke boys explain the problem here? on 18:16 - Dec 14 with 1370 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Can one of you anti woke boys explain the problem here? on 18:08 - Dec 14 by lowhouseblue |
except that we're all concerned now about impact and contributing to public debate and understanding. and indeed the authors were very keen to draw analogies with current questions. are government ministers not allowed to take part in those debates? or do academics get extra marks for impact if senior politicians take part in the debates they have started? |
Have you read the research?
Or are you basing your views on a Mail article full of obviously biased invective? |  | | |
| Can one of you anti woke boys explain the problem here? on 18:18 - Dec 14 with 1365 views | lowhouseblue |
| Can one of you anti woke boys explain the problem here? on 18:10 - Dec 14 by Nthsuffolkblue |
The most worrying thing is that I don't think you are deliberately missing the point. |
again whatever. if you want to discuss the topic i'll engage, but if you want to make snide insults i can't be bothered. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Can one of you anti woke boys explain the problem here? on 18:36 - Dec 14 with 1302 views | leitrimblue |
| Can one of you anti woke boys explain the problem here? on 17:45 - Dec 14 by lowhouseblue |
i always thought the black death was fairly indiscriminate in terms of class. given that in cities and villages there wan't great geographical class separation - having servants etc ruled that out - it swept through households and killed regardless of status. lots of aristocrats and royals died. so deaths weren't strongly associated with economic condition, which seems a flaw in the argument. |
Surely that's the reason for this research though? To analyse 14th C skeleton assemblages to see if differences can be seen between differing populations and whether deaths were associated with economic conditions?
Will have proper look at their full report later. But my first thought is that it's a very small assemblage to be determining to much from. |  | | |
| Can one of you anti woke boys explain the problem here? on 18:37 - Dec 14 with 1283 views | LankHenners |
| Can one of you anti woke boys explain the problem here? on 17:51 - Dec 14 by lowhouseblue |
whatever. |
What were you just saying about engaging with people you disagree with being part of being an adult? |  |
| |
| Can one of you anti woke boys explain the problem here? on 18:37 - Dec 14 with 1278 views | leitrimblue |
| Can one of you anti woke boys explain the problem here? on 17:14 - Dec 14 by Nthsuffolkblue |
You don't know why the Guardian has picked up on it now despite the article saying why - the question was asked of Badenoch in the House of Commons - the first ever use of the term "Woke archaeology" in the house.
The article was published 2 days ago. https://journals.upress.ufl.edu/bioarchaeology/article/view/2403 |
Cool, will have a look at that later, thanks | | | |
| Can one of you anti woke boys explain the problem here? on 18:38 - Dec 14 with 1264 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Can one of you anti woke boys explain the problem here? on 18:08 - Dec 14 by lowhouseblue |
except that we're all concerned now about impact and contributing to public debate and understanding. and indeed the authors were very keen to draw analogies with current questions. are government ministers not allowed to take part in those debates? or do academics get extra marks for impact if senior politicians take part in the debates they have started? |
She can take parts in debates in the relevant political settings. What she's doing here though is putting pressure on the Museum and the researchers to influence the outcomes of their research. It undermines academic freedoms. It would be like the Sec for Culture, Media and Sport (Lucy Frazer) criticising one of our players after a game and then writing to Kieran to pressurise him into dropping them. Quite a preposterous position to be in.
Academics do get brownie points for actual impact, but this wouldn't qualify. There'd need to be a policy change with a tangible and measurable impact on people's lives. I can't see Badenoch introducing policies that address inequality any time soon! | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Can one of you anti woke boys explain the problem here? on 18:40 - Dec 14 with 1254 views | lowhouseblue |
| Can one of you anti woke boys explain the problem here? on 18:38 - Dec 14 by Swansea_Blue |
She can take parts in debates in the relevant political settings. What she's doing here though is putting pressure on the Museum and the researchers to influence the outcomes of their research. It undermines academic freedoms. It would be like the Sec for Culture, Media and Sport (Lucy Frazer) criticising one of our players after a game and then writing to Kieran to pressurise him into dropping them. Quite a preposterous position to be in.
Academics do get brownie points for actual impact, but this wouldn't qualify. There'd need to be a policy change with a tangible and measurable impact on people's lives. I can't see Badenoch introducing policies that address inequality any time soon! |
it doesn't undermine academic freedom. that's nonsense. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Can one of you anti woke boys explain the problem here? on 18:40 - Dec 14 with 1249 views | StokieBlue |
| Can one of you anti woke boys explain the problem here? on 18:16 - Dec 14 by lowhouseblue |
but debate in the real world doesn't just occur through the exchange of academic articles. non academics, even politicians, are allowed to express views on academic arguments and even criticise them. that's the nature of public debate. |
Whilst anyone can express an opinion that opinion doesn't carry equal weight if the person stating it cannot provide evidence to backup their statements.
Just saying "it's a public debate" doesn't negate the responsibility to provide evidence for opinions when requested.
In this case she was even incorrect about the research stating it was based on "phrenology" which isn't true. She's trying to shutdown research because it doesn't tally with her own views - that shouldn't go unchallenged.
SB |  | | |
| Can one of you anti woke boys explain the problem here? on 18:41 - Dec 14 with 1250 views | bluelagos |
Not sure why people are worrying tbh. Badenoch isn't genuinely getting involved in telling a researcher what they can/can't research.
She is just making a noise in the culture wars to position herself for the upcoming Tory leadership contest (Whenever that may be)
No more, no less. |  |
| |
| Can one of you anti woke boys explain the problem here? on 18:42 - Dec 14 with 1233 views | Trequartista |
| Can one of you anti woke boys explain the problem here? on 18:03 - Dec 14 by Nthsuffolkblue |
Is it a good time to point out that the term "Woke" means to be awake to social injustice.
This Government want that to be used as an insult.
Let that sink in. |
That's the original (egalitarian) meaning. It has another (authoritarian) meaning. It's unfortunate and confusing that the same word means different things. |  |
| |
| Can one of you anti woke boys explain the problem here? on 18:44 - Dec 14 with 1206 views | Herbivore |
| Can one of you anti woke boys explain the problem here? on 18:37 - Dec 14 by LankHenners |
What were you just saying about engaging with people you disagree with being part of being an adult? |
Their rules of engagement are rarely adhered to by themselves. |  |
| |
| Can one of you anti woke boys explain the problem here? on 18:50 - Dec 14 with 1166 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Can one of you anti woke boys explain the problem here? on 18:40 - Dec 14 by lowhouseblue |
it doesn't undermine academic freedom. that's nonsense. |
Of course it does if she's writing to the head of the Museum asking for them to not produce this kind of work. Privately the museum will be telling her to stick it, so I doubt it'll have an impact. But the intent is there to influence what the Museum researches.
Lagos is ultimately right though - this is classic Kemi. She loves a culture war. And this either positions her favourably with those on the right of the party who have been further questioning the PM this week, or if she fails with a leadership bid she'll be primed for a spot on GBNews. | |
| |
| Can one of you anti woke boys explain the problem here? on 18:55 - Dec 14 with 1139 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Can one of you anti woke boys explain the problem here? on 18:42 - Dec 14 by Trequartista |
That's the original (egalitarian) meaning. It has another (authoritarian) meaning. It's unfortunate and confusing that the same word means different things. |
True, although it's rather telling that the authoritarian meaning game very much second from people who are opposed to the concept of the original meaning.
I don't think I'd want to be associated with the authoritarian meaning of it. | |
| |
| Can one of you anti woke boys explain the problem here? on 18:56 - Dec 14 with 1128 views | bluelagos |
| Can one of you anti woke boys explain the problem here? on 18:50 - Dec 14 by Swansea_Blue |
Of course it does if she's writing to the head of the Museum asking for them to not produce this kind of work. Privately the museum will be telling her to stick it, so I doubt it'll have an impact. But the intent is there to influence what the Museum researches.
Lagos is ultimately right though - this is classic Kemi. She loves a culture war. And this either positions her favourably with those on the right of the party who have been further questioning the PM this week, or if she fails with a leadership bid she'll be primed for a spot on GBNews. |
The idea that a politician can dictate to an independent organisation what their staff do is for the birds.
If I were in receipt of any such letter I'd frame it and put in the bog tbh. Like any other rent a gob who thinks they can influence what an educational establishment can teach.
Anyone heard from Mr Hunt on this topic? | |
| |
| Can one of you anti woke boys explain the problem here? on 19:02 - Dec 14 with 1102 views | lowhouseblue |
| Can one of you anti woke boys explain the problem here? on 18:50 - Dec 14 by Swansea_Blue |
Of course it does if she's writing to the head of the Museum asking for them to not produce this kind of work. Privately the museum will be telling her to stick it, so I doubt it'll have an impact. But the intent is there to influence what the Museum researches.
Lagos is ultimately right though - this is classic Kemi. She loves a culture war. And this either positions her favourably with those on the right of the party who have been further questioning the PM this week, or if she fails with a leadership bid she'll be primed for a spot on GBNews. |
she doesn't have any influence over what research is done. the idea that social science academics are cowed into submission by fear of disapproval form the tories is near satirical. she's allowed to debate and criticise what academics argue. what will determine what the museum does going forward is only the academic response to the article.
framing all discussion such as this as one side fighting a culture war is just a way of avoiding any engagement in the underlying topic. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Can one of you anti woke boys explain the problem here? on 19:04 - Dec 14 with 1073 views | lowhouseblue |
| Can one of you anti woke boys explain the problem here? on 18:44 - Dec 14 by Herbivore |
Their rules of engagement are rarely adhered to by themselves. |
it's a two way thing. if people insult you or suggest you can't understand something you're really not obliged to still engage with them. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Can one of you anti woke boys explain the problem here? on 19:07 - Dec 14 with 1053 views | J2BLUE |
Badenoch said the research into 14th-century London risked damaging trust in modern health services
 |  |
| |
| Can one of you anti woke boys explain the problem here? on 19:08 - Dec 14 with 1025 views | DanTheMan |
| Can one of you anti woke boys explain the problem here? on 19:02 - Dec 14 by lowhouseblue |
she doesn't have any influence over what research is done. the idea that social science academics are cowed into submission by fear of disapproval form the tories is near satirical. she's allowed to debate and criticise what academics argue. what will determine what the museum does going forward is only the academic response to the article.
framing all discussion such as this as one side fighting a culture war is just a way of avoiding any engagement in the underlying topic. |
Is calling something woke and framing it as phrenology really a genuine attempt at criticising the work? She doesn't seem to have a background in any related field which would suggest she'd been in a position to discuss it with any real authority.
She should be criticised because she isn't engaging with the work, she's framing it in the worst possible light and publicly shaming it.
She's allowed to do so of course, but she's just doing this as part of culture war nonsense. |  |
| |
| Can one of you anti woke boys explain the problem here? on 19:10 - Dec 14 with 1018 views | lowhouseblue |
| Can one of you anti woke boys explain the problem here? on 18:40 - Dec 14 by StokieBlue |
Whilst anyone can express an opinion that opinion doesn't carry equal weight if the person stating it cannot provide evidence to backup their statements.
Just saying "it's a public debate" doesn't negate the responsibility to provide evidence for opinions when requested.
In this case she was even incorrect about the research stating it was based on "phrenology" which isn't true. She's trying to shutdown research because it doesn't tally with her own views - that shouldn't go unchallenged.
SB |
she's not shutting down research, she's disagreeing with it. it all feels rather precious for researchers to clutch their pearls and faint when a politician disagrees with them. and public debate doesn't only occur through the exchange of evidence - all sorts of rhetorical, logical, philosophical and idealogical arguments are just as much a part of any debate. the academics quoted in the mail as critical of the article don't present new evidence, but they are still critical of what it says. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Can one of you anti woke boys explain the problem here? on 19:11 - Dec 14 with 1004 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Can one of you anti woke boys explain the problem here? on 19:02 - Dec 14 by lowhouseblue |
she doesn't have any influence over what research is done. the idea that social science academics are cowed into submission by fear of disapproval form the tories is near satirical. she's allowed to debate and criticise what academics argue. what will determine what the museum does going forward is only the academic response to the article.
framing all discussion such as this as one side fighting a culture war is just a way of avoiding any engagement in the underlying topic. |
We'll disagree on that then. If an MP wrote to us criticising one of our studies, it would be seen as exerting pressure. | |
| |
| Can one of you anti woke boys explain the problem here? on 19:13 - Dec 14 with 993 views | Plums |
| Can one of you anti woke boys explain the problem here? on 18:56 - Dec 14 by bluelagos |
The idea that a politician can dictate to an independent organisation what their staff do is for the birds.
If I were in receipt of any such letter I'd frame it and put in the bog tbh. Like any other rent a gob who thinks they can influence what an educational establishment can teach.
Anyone heard from Mr Hunt on this topic? |
That might be true if she was just a politician. However she is (astonishingly) a government minister so very much has her hand on the levers of power which include funding of academic research and museums.
This is very, very sinister. |  |
| |
| Can one of you anti woke boys explain the problem here? on 19:15 - Dec 14 with 980 views | lowhouseblue |
| Can one of you anti woke boys explain the problem here? on 19:08 - Dec 14 by DanTheMan |
Is calling something woke and framing it as phrenology really a genuine attempt at criticising the work? She doesn't seem to have a background in any related field which would suggest she'd been in a position to discuss it with any real authority.
She should be criticised because she isn't engaging with the work, she's framing it in the worst possible light and publicly shaming it.
She's allowed to do so of course, but she's just doing this as part of culture war nonsense. |
calling it 'phrenology' was a smart arse jibe and i agree that a minister shouldn't enter into that sort of cheap silliness. i just don't believe that a culture war can be one sided. i also take the view that the first to declare anything a culture war, in this case the guardian, is the one fighting the culture war. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Can one of you anti woke boys explain the problem here? on 19:32 - Dec 14 with 913 views | StokieBlue |
| Can one of you anti woke boys explain the problem here? on 19:10 - Dec 14 by lowhouseblue |
she's not shutting down research, she's disagreeing with it. it all feels rather precious for researchers to clutch their pearls and faint when a politician disagrees with them. and public debate doesn't only occur through the exchange of evidence - all sorts of rhetorical, logical, philosophical and idealogical arguments are just as much a part of any debate. the academics quoted in the mail as critical of the article don't present new evidence, but they are still critical of what it says. |
She's certainly trying to undermine the research hence the false statement about phrenology. I'm not sure why you're defending her to be honest, she's literally lied about the study in an attempt to undermine it.
"all sorts of rhetorical, logical, philosophical and idealogical arguments are just as much a part of any debate"
They aren't though, basing a position on ideology when it's clearly is debunked by evidence is not debate. If we take a real-world example your position would be that the position of the Church was equally as valid as that of Galileo even though only one is actually supported by evidence.
SB | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
