Gorton_Tubster
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 2 Apr 2012
- Messages
- 16,511
- Location
- Riding the blue tidal wave.
- Team supported
- Manchester City
Dont fund them then? You are allowed. Or do you want everyone else to stop paying even though they like it?
BBC licence fee
- Thread starter Fame Monster
- Start date
@BluePhil8
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 4 Jan 2009
- Messages
- 13,425
Yeah, I want everyone else to stop paying it and for the BBC to be self funded. It’s not really a question of like or dislike, it’s a question of whether you think they are partisan or not.
bluethrunthru
Well-Known Member
So if he had been billed as an ordinary Joe - member of the public - is he still not allowed to voice an opinion when asked a question?
bluethrunthru
Well-Known Member
Left leaning national broadcaster has its US election coverage led by..... Andrew Neil? The Andrew Neil who is chairman of press holdings - run by the Barclay Brothers and a publication edited by self confessed Tory Fraser Nelson?
Fucking communists
Fucking communists
Fame Monster
Well-Known Member
In the wake of Kemi Badenoch commenting that schools that teach 'white privilege' as an uncontested fact are breaking the law, it will be interesting to see how the BBC stand legally or in accordance with its own charter in regard to their one-sided reporting on the idea of white privilege. It seems absurd to me that schools can be punished for teaching it but the BBC (in particular BBC Bitesize)- a supposedly neutral organisation - can spew as much toxic, racial politics as they want with impunity.
www.bbc.co.uk
BBC Sounds - No Country For Young Women - What White Women Need to Know About Their Privilege
Exploring the ways being white is a benefit in Western society
What is white privilege?
Find out what white privilege is - and how it can be used in a positive way.
www.bbc.co.uk
ZenHalfTimeCrock
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 18 Apr 2019
- Messages
- 1,439
- Team supported
- Manchester City
Channel 4 also did the same thing recently.
What interests me is what a 'politically impartial' stance might actually look like in the classroom. And also, what an 'uncontested fact' is?
As a former teacher of Philosophy and Religious Studies, up until last year when I retired, I was tasked with looking at equality as an ethical issue as part of the A Level course that I was teaching. This basically entailed exploring the ideas (and sometimes the theology) of advocates of racial and gender equality like, for example, Martin Luther King Jr., Malcolm X (after his conversion to mainstream Islam and Hajj) and the less well-known but no less significant James Cone. With gender equality, it was authors like Simone de Beauvoir and Mary Daly.
I also got my students to look at the furore surrounding an article by the philosopher George Yancy. For more on that see here.
www.chronicle.com
For balance, we then studied the philosopher Harry Frankfurt, who argues that equality itself is not a bedrock notion. He thinks that we need to drill down further, and when we do we find that arguments about economic inequality are really about everyone having enough, while debates about the unequal treatment of minorities are essentially about a more fundamental lack of respect.
And that's as far as I got. If I had stayed in the classroom I might have subsequently included a discussion of the thinking of the economist Amartya Sen, who believes that we are in danger of flattening everything into one dimension when it comes to Identity Politics. Instead we should seek to recognise the plurality of our identities as there is more of a chance of establishing common ground and a more inclusive society that way. I don't think he mentions Whitman but this would entail the application of his famously lyrical remark 'I am large, I contain multitudes' to our everyday interactions.
Okay, I am being long-winded here but this is my question: if I had wanted to look at the claim that white privilege is a myth, or that is a concept that is past its sell-by date, or no longer a helpful one, which I understand is a belief maintained in some circles, who should I have been looking at?
I really don't know where to start but would welcome being pointed in the right direction, preferably to reputable academic writing, as I am still interested in following this up.
There is also something else. If I understand her correctly, Badenoch's insistence on political impartiality might have other implications.
For example, I happen to think that Darwin's theory of evolution is an uncontested fact. But others don't, like creationist Christians, or supporters of intelligent design. So does this mean that space in biology textbooks should be devoted to creationist thinking to achieve greater impartiality in the teaching of science?
Moving back into politics again, on the same course I was teaching students are required to look at a topic called 'Religion and Terror'.
In teaching that topic, should I assume that acts of terror are always and in every situation immoral? Or, for the sake of impartiality should I be exposing sixth formers to justificatory concepts like that of qisas in Salafi-Jihadist theology, or perhaps the ideas of Ted Honderich, a philosopher whose views on free will and determinism are specifically referred to elsewhere in the textbooks and who has also controversially stated that, '..the Palestinians have had a moral right to their terrorism as certain as was the moral right, say, of the African people of South Africa against their white captors and the apartheid state'?
Apologies for taking this thread a little off-topic.
What interests me is what a 'politically impartial' stance might actually look like in the classroom. And also, what an 'uncontested fact' is?
As a former teacher of Philosophy and Religious Studies, up until last year when I retired, I was tasked with looking at equality as an ethical issue as part of the A Level course that I was teaching. This basically entailed exploring the ideas (and sometimes the theology) of advocates of racial and gender equality like, for example, Martin Luther King Jr., Malcolm X (after his conversion to mainstream Islam and Hajj) and the less well-known but no less significant James Cone. With gender equality, it was authors like Simone de Beauvoir and Mary Daly.
I also got my students to look at the furore surrounding an article by the philosopher George Yancy. For more on that see here.
Dear White America
If you are white, and you are reading this letter, I ask that you don’t run to seek shelter from your own racism.
opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com
The Ugly Truth of Being a Black Professor in America
I’ve received hundreds of racist emails, phone messages, and letters. This is what it’s like to be hated.
www.chronicle.com
For balance, we then studied the philosopher Harry Frankfurt, who argues that equality itself is not a bedrock notion. He thinks that we need to drill down further, and when we do we find that arguments about economic inequality are really about everyone having enough, while debates about the unequal treatment of minorities are essentially about a more fundamental lack of respect.
And that's as far as I got. If I had stayed in the classroom I might have subsequently included a discussion of the thinking of the economist Amartya Sen, who believes that we are in danger of flattening everything into one dimension when it comes to Identity Politics. Instead we should seek to recognise the plurality of our identities as there is more of a chance of establishing common ground and a more inclusive society that way. I don't think he mentions Whitman but this would entail the application of his famously lyrical remark 'I am large, I contain multitudes' to our everyday interactions.
Okay, I am being long-winded here but this is my question: if I had wanted to look at the claim that white privilege is a myth, or that is a concept that is past its sell-by date, or no longer a helpful one, which I understand is a belief maintained in some circles, who should I have been looking at?
I really don't know where to start but would welcome being pointed in the right direction, preferably to reputable academic writing, as I am still interested in following this up.
There is also something else. If I understand her correctly, Badenoch's insistence on political impartiality might have other implications.
For example, I happen to think that Darwin's theory of evolution is an uncontested fact. But others don't, like creationist Christians, or supporters of intelligent design. So does this mean that space in biology textbooks should be devoted to creationist thinking to achieve greater impartiality in the teaching of science?
Moving back into politics again, on the same course I was teaching students are required to look at a topic called 'Religion and Terror'.
In teaching that topic, should I assume that acts of terror are always and in every situation immoral? Or, for the sake of impartiality should I be exposing sixth formers to justificatory concepts like that of qisas in Salafi-Jihadist theology, or perhaps the ideas of Ted Honderich, a philosopher whose views on free will and determinism are specifically referred to elsewhere in the textbooks and who has also controversially stated that, '..the Palestinians have had a moral right to their terrorism as certain as was the moral right, say, of the African people of South Africa against their white captors and the apartheid state'?
Apologies for taking this thread a little off-topic.
Last edited:
Fame Monster
Well-Known Member
Channel 4 also did the same thing recently.
What interests me is what a 'politically impartial' stance might actually look like in the classroom. And also, what an 'uncontested fact' is?
As a former teacher of Philosophy and Religious Studies, up until last year when I retired, I was tasked with looking at equality as an ethical issue as part of the A Level course that I was teaching. This basically entailed exploring the ideas (and sometimes the theology) of advocates of racial and gender equality like, for example, Martin Luther King Jr., Malcolm X (after his conversion to mainstream Islam and Hajj) and the less well-known but no less significant James Cone. With gender equality, it was authors like Simone de Beauvoir and Mary Daly.
I also got my students to look at the furore surrounding an article by the philosopher George Yancy. For more on that see here.
Dear White America
If you are white, and you are reading this letter, I ask that you don’t run to seek shelter from your own racism.opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com
The Ugly Truth of Being a Black Professor in America
I’ve received hundreds of racist emails, phone messages, and letters. This is what it’s like to be hated.
For balance, we then studied the philosopher Harry Frankfurt, who argues that equality itself is not a bedrock notion. He thinks that we need to drill down further, and when we do we find that arguments about economic inequality are really about everyone having enough, while debates about the unequal treatment of minorities are essentially about a more fundamental lack of respect.
And that's as far as I got. If I had stayed in the classroom I might have subsequently included a discussion of the thinking of the economist Amartya Sen, who believes that we are in danger of flattening everything into one dimension when it comes to Identity Politics. Instead we should seek to recognise the plurality of our identities as there is more of a chance of establishing common ground and a more inclusive society that way. I don't think he mentions Whitman but this would entail the application of his famously lyrical remark 'I am large, I contain multitudes' to our everyday interactions.
Okay, I am being long-winded here but this is my question: if I had wanted to look at the claim that white privilege is a myth, or that is a concept that is past its sell-by date, or no longer a helpful one, which I understand is a belief maintained in some circles, who should I have been looking at?
I really don't know where to start but would welcome being pointed in the right direction, preferably to reputable academic writing, as I am still interested in following this up.
There is also something else. If I understand her correctly, Badenoch's insistence on political impartiality might have other implications.
For example, I happen to think that Darwin's theory of evolution is an uncontested fact. But others don't, like creationist Christians, or supporters of intelligent design. So does this mean that space in biology textbooks should be devoted to creationist thinking to achieve greater impartiality in the teaching of science?
Moving back into politics again, on the same course I was teaching students are required to look at a topic called 'Religion and Terror'.
In teaching that topic, should I assume that acts of terror are always and in every situation immoral? Or, for the sake of impartiality should I be exposing sixth formers to justificatory concepts like that of qisas in Salafi-Jihadist theology, or perhaps the ideas of Ted Honderich, a philosopher whose views on free will and determinism are specifically referred to elsewhere in the textbooks and who has also controversially stated that, '..the Palestinians have had a moral right to their terrorism as certain as was the moral right, say, of the African people of South Africa against their white captors and the apartheid state'?
Apologies for taking this thread a little off-topic.
Some good questions.
1. I don't think you'd have to go to an academic to dispute the idea of white privilege unless that was for procedural reasons. In fact, I think any academic would likely lose his/her job if they disputed the idea of 'white privilege' with cancel culture being so rampant right now.
Instead, I think you could go to official statistics and ask, if white privilege exists, how come Chinese/Indian people and other minorities outperform them across all these different metrics? Obviously, there's going to be some metrics where that's not the case but you have to ask, what kind of institutionally white supremacist society would allow white people to be outperformed by any and sometimes all ethnic minorities?
2. I think the case for evolution is a lot stronger than the case for white privilege. When you have incredibly strong evidence for something, I think that's when you can teach it as fact. Also, I think there's much stronger competing theories than Creationism (which is obviously a nonsense as I'm sure you'd agree): I remember being taught some of Lamarck's ideas at school.
3. Good question. I think teaching morality and teaching facts are different things. I think, if you were teaching philosophy, you should be able to read Honderich and ask very difficult questions: in fact, I think you'd be obliged to.
Last edited:
ZenHalfTimeCrock
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 18 Apr 2019
- Messages
- 1,439
- Team supported
- Manchester City
Fame Monster,
Thanks for your crystal clear response and taking the time to reply.
There's an interesting connection between points 1 and 3, not in relation to 'white privilege' but in relation to terrorism.
A teacher teaching that terrorism is not always wrong might run the risk of being reported to PREVENT. However, I am with you on this and think that these difficult subjects have to be broached.
Incidentally, Honderich offered the royalties he received on the back of the book in which he initially expressed his controversial viewpoint to Oxfam. They turned him down.
I have so many plates spinning in terms of reading, even in retirement, that I have yet to familiarise myself with the finer details of Honderich's argument. But this is the book I intend to read, eventually:
With the ongoing controversies surrounding BLM, I was thinking of going with this older publication next:
Do have a quick look at the brief Channel 4 video if you haven't already. It's quite a striking sequence.
Ditto the Yancy thing. That kicked off massively over in the US.
Finally, here's something else that I used with my sixth formers on Martin Luther King. It's a bit hard to read but worth the bother.
Thanks for your crystal clear response and taking the time to reply.
There's an interesting connection between points 1 and 3, not in relation to 'white privilege' but in relation to terrorism.
A teacher teaching that terrorism is not always wrong might run the risk of being reported to PREVENT. However, I am with you on this and think that these difficult subjects have to be broached.
Incidentally, Honderich offered the royalties he received on the back of the book in which he initially expressed his controversial viewpoint to Oxfam. They turned him down.
I have so many plates spinning in terms of reading, even in retirement, that I have yet to familiarise myself with the finer details of Honderich's argument. But this is the book I intend to read, eventually:
With the ongoing controversies surrounding BLM, I was thinking of going with this older publication next:
Do have a quick look at the brief Channel 4 video if you haven't already. It's quite a striking sequence.
Ditto the Yancy thing. That kicked off massively over in the US.
Finally, here's something else that I used with my sixth formers on Martin Luther King. It's a bit hard to read but worth the bother.
Did you watch the doc?
PannickAtTheDisco
Well-Known Member
Channel 4 also did the same thing recently.
What interests me is what a 'politically impartial' stance might actually look like in the classroom. And also, what an 'uncontested fact' is?
As a former teacher of Philosophy and Religious Studies, up until last year when I retired, I was tasked with looking at equality as an ethical issue as part of the A Level course that I was teaching. This basically entailed exploring the ideas (and sometimes the theology) of advocates of racial and gender equality like, for example, Martin Luther King Jr., Malcolm X (after his conversion to mainstream Islam and Hajj) and the less well-known but no less significant James Cone. With gender equality, it was authors like Simone de Beauvoir and Mary Daly.
I also got my students to look at the furore surrounding an article by the philosopher George Yancy. For more on that see here.
Dear White America
If you are white, and you are reading this letter, I ask that you don’t run to seek shelter from your own racism.opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com
The Ugly Truth of Being a Black Professor in America
I’ve received hundreds of racist emails, phone messages, and letters. This is what it’s like to be hated.
For balance, we then studied the philosopher Harry Frankfurt, who argues that equality itself is not a bedrock notion. He thinks that we need to drill down further, and when we do we find that arguments about economic inequality are really about everyone having enough, while debates about the unequal treatment of minorities are essentially about a more fundamental lack of respect.
And that's as far as I got. If I had stayed in the classroom I might have subsequently included a discussion of the thinking of the economist Amartya Sen, who believes that we are in danger of flattening everything into one dimension when it comes to Identity Politics. Instead we should seek to recognise the plurality of our identities as there is more of a chance of establishing common ground and a more inclusive society that way. I don't think he mentions Whitman but this would entail the application of his famously lyrical remark 'I am large, I contain multitudes' to our everyday interactions.
Okay, I am being long-winded here but this is my question: if I had wanted to look at the claim that white privilege is a myth, or that is a concept that is past its sell-by date, or no longer a helpful one, which I understand is a belief maintained in some circles, who should I have been looking at?
I really don't know where to start but would welcome being pointed in the right direction, preferably to reputable academic writing, as I am still interested in following this up.
There is also something else. If I understand her correctly, Badenoch's insistence on political impartiality might have other implications.
For example, I happen to think that Darwin's theory of evolution is an uncontested fact. But others don't, like creationist Christians, or supporters of intelligent design. So does this mean that space in biology textbooks should be devoted to creationist thinking to achieve greater impartiality in the teaching of science?
Moving back into politics again, on the same course I was teaching students are required to look at a topic called 'Religion and Terror'.
In teaching that topic, should I assume that acts of terror are always and in every situation immoral? Or, for the sake of impartiality should I be exposing sixth formers to justificatory concepts like that of qisas in Salafi-Jihadist theology, or perhaps the ideas of Ted Honderich, a philosopher whose views on free will and determinism are specifically referred to elsewhere in the textbooks and who has also controversially stated that, '..the Palestinians have had a moral right to their terrorism as certain as was the moral right, say, of the African people of South Africa against their white captors and the apartheid state'?
Apologies for taking this thread a little off-topic.
that's a deeply prejudicial and harmful thing to be teaching open-minded children, particularly when it isn't true. Sowing the seeds of prejudice, hatred and victimhood for no legitimate reason.