lfe634
灰體輻射
- 注册
- 2011-10-07
- 消息
- 6,105
- 荣誉分数
- 3,502
- 声望点数
- 373
我覺得這幾年這一波西方大學的政治正確可以拆成兩種人，一種是自身實力不夠，一路被呵護捧著上來，緊抓一陣當代的風向，自認一種弱勢族群的標籤而煽風點火，大吵大鬧，好像全世界都欠他的。說｢社會正義｣還不如說｢利己主義｣。另一種是對世界認識比較單純極端的一些理想主義者，幫著｢弱者｣發聲。這真的是｢社會正義戰士｣。中國的政治正確比較像前者，一些人抓住一些當代的風向，自己不順就仇商仇官仇富，怪境外敵對勢力，向著老外控訴政府邪惡等等。當然空穴也不會來風，這個風向本身也是有些道理的，只是往往被過度放大了，忽視了他個人應負的責任。中國的確是比較缺社會正義戰士。大概是以前政治運動留下來的教訓吧。
中國人的政治正確就是要站對邊，在這裡西方的正常人也是一樣懂得自保，嘴上都很會迎合，再不行就保持沉默。在反對政治正確方面兩邊的確很不同：西方那些特立獨行的人的微博帳號還沒有被封 (只有一個比較不正經的 Milo Yiannopoulos 被封了 twitter)，媒體錄了節目也可以放在網路上播出。中國整個人都消失了。所以中國反政治正確是高級難度，西方反政治正確是簡單難度。
順帶一提，西方的草根左派興起，我想對標榜社會主義的中國應會比較友好。而且雙方都是贊成控制言論自由的
難不成加拿大原住民是收了某國政府的...
最后编辑:
Social justcie是一个极端复杂的问题。不会像视频里说的那么简单。视频礼指出的问题确实存在，但是，没有一定程度的劫富济贫，现代社会也难以维持。度，才是社会正义最难以拿捏的地方。
当今美国平衡中正的道路为什么这么难以实现，为什么极左走到极致。为什么极右有机会露脸。社会真的能重新找到中间道路不偏不倚地进入下一个4年？其实任何中正的社会，都是需要有一个中正的阶级来维持。
美国什么情况？原来的中产阶级力量被推向极致的全球化等左派政策搞得迅速收缩。中产收缩，跌入底层，而且这帮人是带着仇恨跌入底层的（这与穷国的移民不一样，移民多数是来自穷乡。在美国的底层，他们并不带有仇恨。他们没有品尝过美国中产的美味）。 拜全球化和各种科技机遇所赐，少量中产蹿升到巨富阶层。他们又作何想法？当然是维持全球化。萎缩的中产，扩大的带有仇恨的底层，拼力维持全球化的顶层。咱爷们也可以模仿老毛写一部美国阶级分析。（哈哈，玩笑话）。这种社会如何维持中正的体制？
经济结构决定上层建筑。极左忽视社会现实，过度推动过度的政治正确和过度的全球化，犯下的错误，引发了美国中产阶级的萎缩。推动了钟摆向极端摆动。右派反对政治正确，刺激社会竞争，把工作拉回国内，能够解决一些问题，部分恢复中产实力。等待中产阶级真的能重新做大，他们自然会稳定钟摆，因为他们的眼界可以同时看到上下两层。他们才是这个社会最卖力的阶级和最珍惜稳定的阶级。他们才是美国的希望。
因此，我理解，美国方向是对的。极右一定会冒出来，那也是没有办法，谁让左派犯了历史大错。极右能否做大？我不认为有机会。政治正确的基础已经烙印在几代人心里。只要老床能够迅速打破牌坊，实事求是，全力恢复中产阶级。美国的中正的政治环境自然恢复。
中产壮大，4年肯定不够，8年也不够，所以美国国运是否还在，左派既得利益者会否看到长远的社会利益，左派中幼稚的那部分人能否看到政治已经做的太离谱而回头脚踏实地，这都尚未可知。只能拭目以待。SocialJustce必须掌握在中产手里，否则就是还是海市蜃楼。
当今美国平衡中正的道路为什么这么难以实现，为什么极左走到极致。为什么极右有机会露脸。社会真的能重新找到中间道路不偏不倚地进入下一个4年？其实任何中正的社会，都是需要有一个中正的阶级来维持。
美国什么情况？原来的中产阶级力量被推向极致的全球化等左派政策搞得迅速收缩。中产收缩，跌入底层，而且这帮人是带着仇恨跌入底层的（这与穷国的移民不一样，移民多数是来自穷乡。在美国的底层，他们并不带有仇恨。他们没有品尝过美国中产的美味）。 拜全球化和各种科技机遇所赐，少量中产蹿升到巨富阶层。他们又作何想法？当然是维持全球化。萎缩的中产，扩大的带有仇恨的底层，拼力维持全球化的顶层。咱爷们也可以模仿老毛写一部美国阶级分析。（哈哈，玩笑话）。这种社会如何维持中正的体制？
经济结构决定上层建筑。极左忽视社会现实，过度推动过度的政治正确和过度的全球化，犯下的错误，引发了美国中产阶级的萎缩。推动了钟摆向极端摆动。右派反对政治正确，刺激社会竞争，把工作拉回国内，能够解决一些问题，部分恢复中产实力。等待中产阶级真的能重新做大，他们自然会稳定钟摆，因为他们的眼界可以同时看到上下两层。他们才是这个社会最卖力的阶级和最珍惜稳定的阶级。他们才是美国的希望。
因此，我理解，美国方向是对的。极右一定会冒出来，那也是没有办法，谁让左派犯了历史大错。极右能否做大？我不认为有机会。政治正确的基础已经烙印在几代人心里。只要老床能够迅速打破牌坊，实事求是，全力恢复中产阶级。美国的中正的政治环境自然恢复。
中产壮大，4年肯定不够，8年也不够，所以美国国运是否还在，左派既得利益者会否看到长远的社会利益，左派中幼稚的那部分人能否看到政治已经做的太离谱而回头脚踏实地，这都尚未可知。只能拭目以待。SocialJustce必须掌握在中产手里，否则就是还是海市蜃楼。
lfe634
灰體輻射
- 注册
- 2011-10-07
- 消息
- 6,105
- 荣誉分数
- 3,502
- 声望点数
- 373
看樣子情況比我想的要嚴重。華人子弟的大學之路也許要受到擠壓。
https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/op...aced-equality-of-opportunity/article36825364/
OPINION
Equal outcomes have replaced equality of opportunity
MARGARET WENTE
3 DAYS AGONOVEMBER 4, 2017
How do Canada's universities stack up against the world's best? The answer is: Meh. Maybe a handful rank among the global top 100. How many Nobel winners have we produced lately? Better not to ask.
But excellence is not the point of universities these days. Diversity is the point – not diversity of thought or intellect, but diversity of race, gender, ethnicity and sexual orientation. To achieve this goal, our universities have announced a major new initiative to collect and publish detailed demographic data on faculty, staff and students. The idea is to ensure that women, Indigenous people, academics with disabilities, and other underrepresented groups achieve equality of numbers.
This is a new goal. The old goal was academic excellence. And the old goal of equity programs was to make sure that everybody got an equal opportunity. Now the goal has switched to equal outcomes. Success has been redefined from hiring the best person for the job to making sure your demographics mirror the demographics of the general population.
"This university needs to have the best faculty possible to maintain its international position," one senior university person told me. As a veteran of more hiring committees than she can count, she has made great efforts to recruit students and faculty from visible minorities, often with considerable success. But now, she says, "The pendulum is swinging way too far."
The unexamined notion behind the diversity craze is that there is never any conflict between diversity and excellence. On the contrary, it's widely assumed that the more diverse the team or institution, the better the performance. In fact, there is no real evidence for this. Another fallacy is the assumption that skills, desires, preferences and motivation are evenly spread across all groups in society. If this is the case, then unequal outcomes must be due to systemic discrimination. Systemic discrimination is the legacy of our long history of colonization, white privilege, and unconscious bias against 'The Other.' And it's systemic discrimination – rather than preferences, skills, differences in family background, cultural differences, and so on – that overwhelmingly explain the shortage of female math professors, the scarcity of Indigenous medical students, the underrepresentation of "racialized" lawyers in the top ranks of big-city law firms and the poor marks of certain groups of students in the school system.
Despite substantial progress, decades of affirmative action have not entirely fixed these historic imbalances in outcomes. To get around this problem, more and more institutions have decided to fast-track the process by dropping the pretense that people from dominant groups are welcome to apply. The mathematics school at the University of Melbourne in Australia is currently advertising for females only. The University of Manitoba's bachelor of education program has set quotas for its new students as follows: Indigenous, Métis or Inuit (15 per cent), persons with disabilities (7.5 per cent), LGBTQ (7.5 per cent), racialized minorities (7.5 per cent) and "socially disadvantaged" (7.5 per cent). The University of Saskatchewan is advertising a tenure-track position in the faculty of arts and science – in any rank or any field, so long as the candidate is Indigenous.
These days, hardly anyone argues that the current disparities in certain fields are caused by overt acts of sexism and racism. Instead, the problems are said to be systemic. They are invisible, pervasive and impossible to resolve until the ruling classes admit their hidden biases and privilege.
That is the tenor of an exhaustive new report issued by Ontario's law society, which has attracted a fair amount of controversy because it demands that lawyers swear a personal commitment to diversity. The report begins by asserting that systemic racism runs rampant in the legal profession. This racism can only be overcome by a massive program of re-education, statistics-keeping and a commitment to equality of outcomes in every aspect of the law. (Never mind that the number of "racialized" lawyers in Ontario rose from 9 per cent in 2001 to nearly 20 per cent in 2014).
The report explains that systemic racism is rooted in the traditional supremacy of white men, who unwittingly hold back everybody else. As Janet Leiper, the co-chair of the working group that issued the report, told the CBC, "It's about saying, look, we live in a culture that was settled by white settlers."
No one would argue that discrimination has magically ceased to exist, or that we have reached a perfectly fair and just society. We never will. But the argument that equal outcomes are the one true measure of equality is corrosive. It means we're doomed to see people through the prism of race and gender instead of talent and achievement. It means that people who refuse to reverse discriminate will be perceived as racist. It means that some people will have to go to the back of the bus because, for whatever reasons, their ancestors were at the front of the bus.
Maybe you think it's fine to rectify past injustices with fresh ones. Maybe you think diversity matters more than excellence. In that case, you're going to make a very fine university administrator. Because that's their job these days.
https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/op...aced-equality-of-opportunity/article36825364/
OPINION
Equal outcomes have replaced equality of opportunity
MARGARET WENTE
3 DAYS AGONOVEMBER 4, 2017
How do Canada's universities stack up against the world's best? The answer is: Meh. Maybe a handful rank among the global top 100. How many Nobel winners have we produced lately? Better not to ask.
But excellence is not the point of universities these days. Diversity is the point – not diversity of thought or intellect, but diversity of race, gender, ethnicity and sexual orientation. To achieve this goal, our universities have announced a major new initiative to collect and publish detailed demographic data on faculty, staff and students. The idea is to ensure that women, Indigenous people, academics with disabilities, and other underrepresented groups achieve equality of numbers.
This is a new goal. The old goal was academic excellence. And the old goal of equity programs was to make sure that everybody got an equal opportunity. Now the goal has switched to equal outcomes. Success has been redefined from hiring the best person for the job to making sure your demographics mirror the demographics of the general population.
"This university needs to have the best faculty possible to maintain its international position," one senior university person told me. As a veteran of more hiring committees than she can count, she has made great efforts to recruit students and faculty from visible minorities, often with considerable success. But now, she says, "The pendulum is swinging way too far."
The unexamined notion behind the diversity craze is that there is never any conflict between diversity and excellence. On the contrary, it's widely assumed that the more diverse the team or institution, the better the performance. In fact, there is no real evidence for this. Another fallacy is the assumption that skills, desires, preferences and motivation are evenly spread across all groups in society. If this is the case, then unequal outcomes must be due to systemic discrimination. Systemic discrimination is the legacy of our long history of colonization, white privilege, and unconscious bias against 'The Other.' And it's systemic discrimination – rather than preferences, skills, differences in family background, cultural differences, and so on – that overwhelmingly explain the shortage of female math professors, the scarcity of Indigenous medical students, the underrepresentation of "racialized" lawyers in the top ranks of big-city law firms and the poor marks of certain groups of students in the school system.
Despite substantial progress, decades of affirmative action have not entirely fixed these historic imbalances in outcomes. To get around this problem, more and more institutions have decided to fast-track the process by dropping the pretense that people from dominant groups are welcome to apply. The mathematics school at the University of Melbourne in Australia is currently advertising for females only. The University of Manitoba's bachelor of education program has set quotas for its new students as follows: Indigenous, Métis or Inuit (15 per cent), persons with disabilities (7.5 per cent), LGBTQ (7.5 per cent), racialized minorities (7.5 per cent) and "socially disadvantaged" (7.5 per cent). The University of Saskatchewan is advertising a tenure-track position in the faculty of arts and science – in any rank or any field, so long as the candidate is Indigenous.
These days, hardly anyone argues that the current disparities in certain fields are caused by overt acts of sexism and racism. Instead, the problems are said to be systemic. They are invisible, pervasive and impossible to resolve until the ruling classes admit their hidden biases and privilege.
That is the tenor of an exhaustive new report issued by Ontario's law society, which has attracted a fair amount of controversy because it demands that lawyers swear a personal commitment to diversity. The report begins by asserting that systemic racism runs rampant in the legal profession. This racism can only be overcome by a massive program of re-education, statistics-keeping and a commitment to equality of outcomes in every aspect of the law. (Never mind that the number of "racialized" lawyers in Ontario rose from 9 per cent in 2001 to nearly 20 per cent in 2014).
The report explains that systemic racism is rooted in the traditional supremacy of white men, who unwittingly hold back everybody else. As Janet Leiper, the co-chair of the working group that issued the report, told the CBC, "It's about saying, look, we live in a culture that was settled by white settlers."
No one would argue that discrimination has magically ceased to exist, or that we have reached a perfectly fair and just society. We never will. But the argument that equal outcomes are the one true measure of equality is corrosive. It means we're doomed to see people through the prism of race and gender instead of talent and achievement. It means that people who refuse to reverse discriminate will be perceived as racist. It means that some people will have to go to the back of the bus because, for whatever reasons, their ancestors were at the front of the bus.
Maybe you think it's fine to rectify past injustices with fresh ones. Maybe you think diversity matters more than excellence. In that case, you're going to make a very fine university administrator. Because that's their job these days.
lfe634
灰體輻射
- 注册
- 2011-10-07
- 消息
- 6,105
- 荣誉分数
- 3,502
- 声望点数
- 373
還在整理人生與思想。
lfe634
灰體輻射
- 注册
- 2011-10-07
- 消息
- 6,105
- 荣誉分数
- 3,502
- 声望点数
- 373
嗯這個問題很好，如果能完整回答應該去寫書了...
一流就是大局與小細節的觀察、思路都很清晰，原創吧。二流有一半，三流就是什麼都沒有，喊喊口號。
西方的三流最近看見一個很經典：
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=9874
Prof: 'meritocracy' is a 'whiteness ideology' (選賢舉能是白人的意識形態)
- A Pennsylvania State University-Brandywine professor thinks college faculty need to do more to undermine their students' belief in "meritocracy" and the value of "hard work." (要推翻選賢舉能與努力工作的價值觀)
- The students are "are socialized to believe that we got to where we are…because of our own individual efforts," according to the prof, who wants colleagues to stop "perpetuating and rectifying whiteness."
簡直是義和團式的思想。
最后编辑:
lfe634
灰體輻射
- 注册
- 2011-10-07
- 消息
- 6,105
- 荣誉分数
- 3,502
- 声望点数
- 373
我覺得是這樣：
看你如何理解这幅宣传画，我儿子说，用在小学，给小朋友们洗脑的。这幅画有正面意义，但是过度简化了这个社会，忽略了问题的复杂性。我问问大家，哪里有问题？
1. 這張圖把社會當成｢只要看到球賽｣就算成功，但現實的成就可以一直精益求精，比如這張：
所以箱子對較高個子也是有用的。
2. 觀眾假設三個箱子都是公家的，所以應該讓公家合理分配。事實上常是最高個子家裡帶來一個，加上他自己半夜趕造一個，而其他兩位都在打遊戲。老師準備的箱子給矮的沒關係吧，但把高個子自己的箱子搶走，首先高個子就不同意。現實中大約是從中個子腳下搶走半個箱子去給矮的。高個子的箱子都避稅了。
3. 其實個體可以合作分工。那些講究結果平等的總是陷入零和遊戲、個體獨立的框架。高個子還可以把看見的上層風景告訴中層、下層。
