Powerline brings you to the cutting edge of rabbit science:
Glaciers, Gender, and Science: A FEMINIST GLACIOLOGY: framework for global environmental change research
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…
Acknowledging that climate change is a common concern of humankind, Parties should, when taking action to address climate change, respect, promote and consider their respective obligations on human rights, the right to health, the rights of indigenous peoples, local communities, migrants, children, persons with disabilities and people in vulnerable situations and the right to development, as well as gender equality, empowerment of women and intergenerational equity.
You can’t make these things up. Note the differences between r and K. K is practical. It produces things which you take, and use to make everything better. r is all about socially advancing yourself by any means necessary – usually using guile. One is about embracing reality and changing it, and one is about creating fantasy and making everyone else believe it. A K-strategist studies glaciers, and r-strategist ignores the glaciers and instead focuses on the social milieu around them.
Where wolves invent, produce, and generate advancements, rabbits use social manipulation to convince everyone else they should be in charge. Eugene Stoner produced the M16, while a guy like Bill Clinton convinces everyone he should be President, and is lifted to leadership on a vague perception which he generates in others that he is brilliant, trustworthy, and moral.
r works great, so long as nobody will die. Once death enters the picture you either produce success, or you are culled.
Clearly sooner or later, the feminists will not be long for this world.
[…] By Anonymous Conservative […]
Key word: guile.
Talentless narcissists with the will to power over other human beings, and using guile to achieve social success/dominance, since they have and will have no tangible achievements that are of value to their fellow human beings.
Oh gawd. That sort of stuff goes on every day in ol’ academe and those who kowtow to it are rewarded. You can be sure that when this ridiculous bit of “scholarship” went viral, the feminist profs who wrote this crap huddled and whined while claiming to be victimized by ignorant white male rubes on the Internet.
Theirs is a part of the switch, in ethics, from an anthropocentric to a non anthropocentric way of looking at the world, one that gives moral standing to things, such as trees and water, rather than people. They call this way of looking at the world “biocentric” which boils down to finger pointing at those with whom they disagree. After all, who decides what biocentric means? Not you. Not me. Just them.
Reminds me of McIntyre’s famous book entitled, Whose Justice, Which Rationality? It’s theirs, of course. Not ours.
Think Tom Regan and animal rights, Peter Singer and the animal liberation movement, anything by Aldo Leopold … the list goes on. They aren’t even thought of as radical anymore in academe. The shock factor has been so exploited that weirdness is the new normal. And so, the only writing that gets attention is thinking that “pushes back” against anything and anyone who they deem normal. Normal, here, is socially acceptable. A broad range, but not broad enough for them. Only the unacceptable, the shocking and the perverse have “creds” in their academic universe.
Ecofeminism isn’t new, but it is frequently taught in academe as if it was. It is usually paired with “deep ecology, which is neither deep nor ecological, but very, very lefty-political. Often, teachings on deep ecology are paired with discussions of civil disobedience, revolution, ecoterrorism, etc. I think ecofeminism started with Rosemary Reuther — remember her? — who weirdly associated women’s liberation with both male and ecological domination. Since males dominate nature, so they dominate women, in Reuther’s twisted mind: women have to have an ethic that combats both! Thus, ecofeminism. Unfortunately for feminists, deep ecology was thought up by cucked white men like Bill Devall, George Sessions and Arne Naess (who is too dense to read).
They write crap like this: “All things in the biosphere have an equal right to live and blossom and to reach their own individual forms of unfolding and self-realization within the larger Self-Realization. This basic intuition is that all organism and entities in the ecosphere, as parts of the interrelated whole, are equal in intrinsic worth.”
Got that? To them, you are no more than a snail darter. Equal. Some weird Hegel-like metaphyics, without the brilliance of Hegel, puts you into the zone of Self-Realization.
Total BS. But, so is most of the stuff that goes on in academe, today.
Sorry for the rant.
Is this real life?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txqiwrbYGrs
Hello,
Thanks for your excellent book & blog, which I have been avidly following for several months now.
An idea presented itself to me that I would be interested to hear your views on. I wondered whether some insight into the “cuckservative” / “no enemies to the left” psychology may be gained from the fact that left-liberal psychologies occupy a near contiguous range of IQ values, whereas right wing opinions appeal to a split range of values at the lower and higher ends.
I’m sure you will know the literature on incompatibilities and discrimination that arise from large divergences in IQ much better than I do (a layman) Particularly with individuals above 150IQ, who are structurally disadvantaged in the professions as I understand it & are routinely labelled and dismissed as lacking in normal human emotional insights and social understanding.
It seems likely to me from following your ideas that the lack of “common sense” seen among leftist intellectuals may be an artifact of their highly coddled, extreme r optimised worldviews. They rarely experience serious threat band have the resources to be able to delegate real world problems requiring logical or methodical solutions, such as fixing a window or changing a car radiator
The lower average IQ commoners develop narrower K strategies from broader exposure to resource restriction, violent competition & the need to tackle real world problems methodically.
Right wing intellects however, especially in the higher IQ ranges, tend not to be so afflicted – being those rare beasts capable of both structured methodical exclusionary reasoning as well as broadscale integrational rationalisation. Even so, they are easy sport for the leftist eggheads to stigmatise as lacking compassion, empathy, emotion, social grace, etc when they threaten to expose the paucity of thought behind some of their ideas.
My speculative theory is that this arises because there is a continuum of “virtue” stretching from the moderate forces of the moderate r intellects who are able to demonstrate the benefits of reduced violent competition, the moderate K strategists who demonstrate investment to in-group loyalty with their contributions to the caring professions, but who are inured to the r optimal approach to free redistribution of their resources, right the way up to the slogan chanting, logic denying professor of the humanities.
Further, the intelligence in that midrange presumably has a shared culture of sorts, developing as it does in that relatively comfortable zone absent frequent threat whereby ACC function may be nurtured, to the advantage of being able to integrate complex data & ideas as well as rationalise away (or defer) threats.
Therefore when, on rare occasions, a polymathic and/or highly charismatic right wing leader emerges who is both able to out think them and successfully defeat their rationalisations, the leftist midwits employ divide and conquer tactics to simultaneously portray them as stupid/simple/crazy due to their associations with views normally held by those with lower IQ, and also as dangerous psychopathic geniuses, by pointing to their social disconnect with other high minded elites. (Heaven forbid they might lower themselves to tackle their views rationally…)
This disconnect is likely further exacerbated by the fact that the few fortunates who manage to elevate themselves from the predations of the lower strata through a combination of hard work and natural intelligence are more often than not unable or unwilling to carry the time and reputational costs required to expound unpopular ideas.
This also explains why genuine grassroots political movements tend to be based around right wing K selected ideas, whilst leftist imitations are usually driven by highly orchestrated factions of professional agitators.
Your publisher, Vox Day illustrates this quite nicely on his blog which he structures as a dark overlord and hordes of vile faceless minions.