|
Jaxyon posted:Good work thread, still talking about plagiarism as if thats what this was about. So I said this in the SAL thread, but the plagiarism was what made Gay's liberal support evaporate. Despite the pressure of the genocidal maniac donors, there was still a significant amount of internal support and recognition of what was going on. And even though Rufo et al. were saying out loud what they were trying to do, it didn't matter, because people were put in a position where they couldn't easily defend her anymore.
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 18:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 15:10 |
|
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:So I said this in the SAL thread, but the plagiarism was what made Gay's liberal support evaporate. Despite the pressure of the genocidal maniac donors, there was still a significant amount of internal support and recognition of what was going on. And even though Rufo et al. were saying out loud what they were trying to do, it didn't matter, because people were put in a position where they couldn't easily defend her anymore. They could easily defend her, but they weren't willing to go to bat for a black woman against zionists. Result is the same, the entire point of the plagiarism claim was part of the zionist smear campaign. I'm sure she did do it, so did every other uni president.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 18:44
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:I'm sure she did do it, so did every other uni president. I don't think every other university president has a history of plagiarism. It sounds implausible to me considering that it's a huge embarrassment/career setback when discovered and also very easy to avoid. Why do you believe this?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 18:46
|
|
|
I don't think the right wing getting a scalp from a liberal institution affects much at all to be honest. You could argue it will have a chilling effect, but it could also do the opposite. There's a gazillion people that can do that job and I see no reason to defend her given the performance in that hearing and it coming to light that she's also the head of a god drat college and maybe did some light plagiarism. Someone else can do a better job, and the Ivy League can walk around with a bruised ego and a black eye for a bit. There's no reason to fall into a culture war trap here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 18:49
|
|
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:So I said this in the SAL thread, but the plagiarism was what made Gay's liberal support evaporate. Despite the pressure of the genocidal maniac donors, there was still a significant amount of internal support and recognition of what was going on. And even though Rufo et al. were saying out loud what they were trying to do, it didn't matter, because people were put in a position where they couldn't easily defend her anymore. I think it's more that everyone realized that when Republicans indicate that you are going to be their next Benghazi [while having control over one or more of the House/Senate], it makes sense to just get out of their way. And when the House starts saying, "About this plagiarism over your career... be a shame if we had to hold some hearings" after their first shot wasn't fatal, it became clear that she was not going to have a reasonable career if she tried to hold on. Ironically, weaponization of the government by the party who is currently investigating that concept as if it were a bad thing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 18:50
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:I don't think the right wing getting a scalp from a liberal institution affects much at all to be honest. You could argue it will have a chilling effect, but it could also do the opposite. There's a gazillion people that can do that job and I see no reason to defend her given the performance in that hearing and it coming to light that she's also the head of a god drat college and maybe did some light plagiarism. I think it'll make a difference at Harvard, the donors establishing that they can topple the leadership if they're sufficiently furious about culture war stuff and they're able to find a skeleton in her closet. I think it will definitely have the chilling effect you describe - less freedom to speak in ways donors dislike, or even to say that speech is protected. I don't see how it could do the opposite. Outside higher education I don't think it'll make any difference, but higher education is a pretty giant industry here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 18:53
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:I don't think "Joe Biden is a plagiarist" is an example of what you said it was -- "users on this forum who earnestly parrot right-wing arguments because they don't critically analyze their sources at all." In 1988 it wasn't a right-wing argument. Michael Dukakis hasn't held elected office for longer than I've been alive: today the only people who benefit from reminding people about it is the right-wing (and I guess Kinnock and Co but I doubt you're a Kinnock-stan). I'm sensitive to these non sequiturs because I went home for the holidays and dealt with random family and friends throwing Joe Biden jokes into unrelated conversations. Its worth asking where these ideas are coming up, why people bring them up in unrelated circumstances, and calling them out for it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 18:54
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:I don't think the right wing getting a scalp from a liberal institution affects much at all to be honest. The idea that billionaires using their money to gently caress over people and institutions for petty reasons "doesn't affect much at all" is certainly a hell of a take in 2024.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 18:54
|
|
|
Can someone who is familiar with both comment if this is on the same level of allegations regarding Martin Luther King Jr. authorship issues? This is not to say I want to compare Claudine Gay to MLK as a person, it's just a high profile case that is the only one that I can recall the name associated with immediatelyquote:layborne Carson, director of the King Papers Project at Stanford University, has written, "instances of textual appropriation can be seen in his earliest extant writings as well as his dissertation. The pattern is also noticeable in his speeches and sermons throughout his career."[3] There are different explanations dismissing the significance of these issues. I generally agree with these that it's not a huge (I personally don't think plagiarism is a huge issue compared to other qutatiokbsble research scientific practices and original but worthless work, but I recognize people's arguments that it distorts the chain of thought and introduces material consequences due to the current structure of academia.) e: I think my perspective is kinda shaped by my knowledge of probably almost a dozen incidents in Turkey with university presidents, which were always brushed off because there it is very explicitly a political role, and plagiarism has little bearing on how well you serve the ruling class there. I think it's the same here, just with the slightest of veils over it and it can be more consequential if you get caught. Ultimately the job (especially at such a university) is a political role where you are selected to serve ruling class interests though. mawarannahr fucked around with this message at 19:03 on Jan 3, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 18:55
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:I don't think every other university president has a history of plagiarism. It sounds implausible to me considering that it's a huge embarrassment/career setback when discovered and also very easy to avoid. Why do you believe this? Everyone plagiarizes. But also,  this has never been about plagiarism and we still can't shut up about it.drat the right wing is good at this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 18:59
|
|
|
I think there's a fundamental expectation for how a leader of an institution is supposed to act. Obama is smarter and higher functioning than me. Trump is considerably worse, which betrays the problem. It's an immediate issue if the populace entertains a fantasy of how much better they could navigate government. In this instance, I would say this into a microphone: "As I stand with my friends in the Jewish community, I denounce genocide in any form". She couldn't choke that sentence out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 19:00
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The SAL grad school/academia thread has also discussed the Gay plagiarism matter with some sources and analysis, so it may be able to provide some nuance (and some discussion of the underlying challenges of the issue in academia). Yeah, I'd call pretty much everything there bullshit, even the one whole nearly identical paragraph because it's one paragraph in an analysis that's over 90 pages long. Jargon and analysis tend to clump together as a whole in the brain and if you're doing the same analysis to get the same conclusions I don't think it's unreasonable to line up the words by chance once in 90 pages. It's more telling that nobody who was interviewed about their work being "plagiarized" actually feels that they were materially plagiarized to a damaging degree. Like, here: Civilized Fishbot posted:Thank you for sharing - they're all saying it's plagiarism. Not the most egrigious plagiarism in history, but objective plagiarism. Palmquist and Voss aren't presenting a novel method of statistical analysis here, they're relating the work of Gary King, who Gay does cite in the same section of her own work. If Gay found King's work through Palmquist and Voss, both of them could just be doing a summary in the same way. Especially if Gay is trying to use the method on a different set of data than Voss and Palmquist obtained, she's going to cite King and not Voss-and-Palmquist-pointing-to-King. In this era of automatic detection tools it's a false positive you might want to take steps to avoid, especially in a dissertation, but the dissertation is from 1997, before such tools even existed. I'm pretty sure you'd get a few significant hits on any hundred-page anything from that time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 19:01
|
|
|
Morrow posted:In 1988 it wasn't a right-wing argument. And it isn't today! "Plagiarism is bad" is not a right-wing idea. The claim that "he only people who benefit from reminding people about it is the right-wing" - even if true, it doesn't make it a right-wing argument. It doesn't reflect or reinforce any right-wing ideas about how the world works or ought to work. I also don't think that claim is true. If you're a leftist who wants the Democrats (as a party or as a block of voters) to embrace a candidate other than Joe Biden, then that goal is clearly advanced by denigrating Joe Biden's character.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 19:01
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:I think it'll make a difference at Harvard, the donors establishing that they can topple the leadership if they're sufficiently furious about culture war stuff and they're able to find a skeleton in her closet. I think it will definitely have the chilling effect you describe - less freedom to speak in ways donors dislike, or even to say that speech is protected. I don't see how it could do the opposite. Ackman posted a huge screed going off on DEI as a concept; on top of the affirmative action ruling, higher education will be taking a giant step back. Fence-sitting liberals, which makes up the vast majority of the academy, have collapsed under this threat and we're going to see a notable regression in diversity efforts, and a lot more willful ignorance of fascist bullshit. That'll have pretty significant effects everywhere.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 19:03
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:I think it'll make a difference at Harvard, the donors establishing that they can topple the leadership if they're sufficiently furious about culture war stuff and they're able to find a skeleton in her closet. I think it will definitely have the chilling effect you describe - less freedom to speak in ways donors dislike, or even to say that speech is protected. I don't see how it could do the opposite. Angry_Ed posted:The idea that billionaires using their money to gently caress over people and institutions for petty reasons "doesn't affect much at all" is certainly a hell of a take in 2024. My brothers in Christ, the billionaire donor class could already do these things, and have been for the entire time I have been on this planet. This is the system working as intended, not some deviation from the mean.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 19:07
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:You can't just say a factual statement is a right wing mind virus and therefore it must be ignored. Some right wing mind viruses are simple factual statements though, and it being a factual statement doesn't change that. You can usually tell because it gets brought up, often repeatedly, in irrelevant situations where thee link is tenuous at best, or when the person uses the simple factual statement to mean a lot of stuff they don't understand doesn't apply. Civilized Fishbot posted:I don't think every other university president has a history of plagiarism. It sounds implausible to me considering that it's a huge embarrassment/career setback when discovered and also very easy to avoid. Why do you believe this? I assume most have that or something like it, to be honest. You get to the top in academia by cutting corners that give you a competitive advantage. A plagiarist can simply get more done, more effectively, than someone who doesn't do it at all, and still have time left over for networking. I don't know how common it actually is, but I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be. (also for those picking the person, having a little something to hang over their head if need be doesn't seem like the worst thing) But regardless, arguments are not right wing or not based on their content - right wing arguments are inherently kind of content-neutral. Whether the statement is true or not is kinda irrelevant to whether the argument itself is right-wing. GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 19:15 on Jan 3, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 19:10
|
|
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:Ackman posted a huge screed going off on DEI as a concept; on top of the affirmative action ruling, higher education will be taking a giant step back. Fence-sitting liberals, which makes up the vast majority of the academy, have collapsed under this threat and we're going to see a notable regression in diversity efforts, and a lot more willful ignorance of fascist bullshit. That'll have pretty significant effects everywhere. Ackman wrote his senior thesis on "The Jewish and Asian-American Admissions Experience in Harvard Admissions" and even though that should have a lot of personal resonance for a person from my background, I felt like I could already tell where someone hung up on that would stand on affirmative action and DEI.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 19:11
|
|
|
Scags McDouglas posted:I think there's a fundamental expectation for how a leader of an institution is supposed to act. Obama is smarter and higher functioning than me. Trump is considerably worse, which betrays the problem. The Republicans were throwing 100 darts at a wall and then picking the one that landed closest to the bullseye to create an outrage cycle over. If it wasn't that answer, it would be the next one. If it weren't her, it would have been another of the Presidents. The Republicans were looking for scalps, not governance, and you can't win that battle when they have subpoena power.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 19:13
|
|
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:Ackman posted a huge screed going off on DEI as a concept; on top of the affirmative action ruling, higher education will be taking a giant step back. Fence-sitting liberals, which makes up the vast majority of the academy, have collapsed under this threat and we're going to see a notable regression in diversity efforts, and a lot more willful ignorance of fascist bullshit. That'll have pretty significant effects everywhere. Ackman has also been going haywire over campus protests against the Gaza invasion, and that’s the context for this high profile firing at an elite institution that the donor class expects to churn out candidates to run the empire. There’s been a real sense of upset over any protests generally, but protests at elite institutions against the status quo are always focused on with particular ire by the elite press (there’s been outsized coverage over Ivy protests vs the much larger ones elsewhere) and their pundits. This happened during Vietnam too; what’s wild is how much more intense the protests were and how much milder the crackdown was. I think this indicates a desperation among certain classes that the consensus over things like Israel is far shakier than they’d prefer, and they’re clamping down with much harder retribution right away. The Wikipedia article on Vietnam protests at Harvard is a wild ride, keep an eye out for thread favorite Clarence Thomas making a cameo appearance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1969%E2%80%931970_Harvard_University_unrest
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 19:13
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Some right wing mind viruses are simple factual statements though, and it being a factual statement doesn't change that. You can usually tell because it gets brought up, often repeatedly, in irrelevant situations where thee link is tenuous at best, or when the person uses the simple factual statement to mean a lot of stuff they don't understand doesn't apply. Sure, but the argument that the president of anything shouldn't be a plagiarist gets pretty demolished by the fact that the actual president is a plagiarist, on top of the irony of the president of an Ivy League institution being one. Any student that had to submit papers to turnitin.com will get a little chuckle out of that. I would love to have higher standards for presidents of all kinds, which is why I don't see replacing one that was below those standards as an issue even if the impetus was a right wing hit job.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 19:14
|
|
|
I genuinely do not understand what you are trying to say or how to wrangle that into a coherent thought I can process, I'm sorry. It seems to be that we shouldn't care about the right wing carrying out hit jobs, but I'm not sure? If it is, I'll say I disagree.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 19:18
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:My brothers in Christ, the billionaire donor class could already do these things, and have been for the entire time I have been on this planet. This is the system working as intended, not some deviation from the mean. Please don't bring me into your religion. There's a constant tension between donors wanting to suppress inconvenient speech and the university wanting to maintain its reputation as a place for free inquiry (important to recruiting talent). The balance between these pressures is established by how reliant the university is on any individual donor/coalition of donors, and by the university's dependence on its free-inquiry reputation. It's the system working as intended, but the way it's working is by moving from one balance to another one, the new balance giving even more power to donors and even less to the free-inquiry idea. Jaxyon posted:Everyone plagiarizes. Why do you believe this? Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 19:22 on Jan 3, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 19:19
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:I genuinely do not understand what you are trying to say or how to wrangle that into a coherent thought I can process, I'm sorry. You can care all you want, I don't care about this particular one. The idea that squishy institutionalist liberals will buckle under fascist social pressure to ensure the money supply is not interrupted is not a novel one for anyone paying attention to history. Is it a bad sign? gently caress yeah but it's like a 10 watt lightbulb in a sea of blinding infernos when you compare it to other measures of how fascist ideology is negatively impacting daily lives.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 19:28
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:I also don't think that claim is true. If you're a leftist who wants the Democrats (as a party or as a block of voters) to embrace a candidate other than Joe Biden, then that goal is clearly advanced by denigrating Joe Biden's character. Ah, now we finally reach the "why" of critical analysis. Why are you so focused on tying Joe Biden to an unrelated scandal? Because you believe Joe Biden is bad and he can be replaced by someone further left. Much like in academia, the democratic response to Joe Biden going down will be that his leftist policies made him unpopular and the party needs to move towards the center.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 19:29
|
|
|
Morrow posted:Ah, now we finally reach the "why" of critical analysis. Why are you so focused on tying Joe Biden to an unrelated scandal? Because you believe Joe Biden is bad and he can be replaced by someone further left. Who is "you"? I didn't bring up Joe Biden ever, I am not interested in connecting him to the Harvard president stuff. You said: Morrow posted:There's a lot of users on this forum who earnestly parrot right-wing arguments because they don't critically analyze their sources at all as long as it agrees with their gut instincts. and I asked for an example of this: Civilized Fishbot posted:If that's happened in this discussion, show me where. And you quoted another user (not me) talking about Joe Biden's plagiarism: Gyges posted:A Plagiarist is President of the United States, Harvard is small beans. All I've been saying in response to this is that calling Joe Biden a plagiarist is not an example of anyone "earnestly parrot[ing] right-wing arguments because they don't critically analyze their sources at all". The idea that Joe Biden is a plagiarist is not right-wing and the implication hat this makes him less fit to hold office is not right-wing. His plagiarism - generally unintentional once he hit the national stage - is well-attested by sources at the time and since then, so talking about it doesn't indicate a failure of critical reading.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 19:37
|
|
|
And we circle back to my original point, which other posters have affirmed, that it's the context of an argument that matters for making something right-wing, not just the factual basis. This isn't a discussion about the 1988 primary, which I wasn't alive for, this is a discussion about critically analyzing the context of an argument: why is it being made, who is it being made by, where did it originate etc etc. People don't ask these questions and take things at face value and end up advancing toxic narratives. As pointed out, this isn't a conversation about plagiarism. This was an attack on a liberal figure in order to advance right-wing narratives and intimidate academia into compliance.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 19:44
|
|
|
Morrow posted:Much like in academia, the democratic response to Joe Biden going down will be that his leftist policies made him unpopular and the party needs to move towards the center.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 19:46
|
|
|
Morrow posted:it's the context of an argument that matters for making something right-wing, not just the factual basis. I completely disagree. The political content of an idea is determined by its content, by how it assumes the world works and should work, not by the political identities of the people who benefit from it or are hurt by it at the exact point in time our discussion is taking place. There's nothing right-wing about "Joe Biden committed plagiarism" or "plagiarism is bad." If the '24 election is Biden v. Haley, the idea that women make bad leaders will clearly benefit Biden and hurt Haley. Does that mean it becomes a left-wing idea, despite its intrinsic sexism and reinforcement of patriarchy? Was it a left-wing idea during the '16 DNC primaries, where it clearly benefitted Bernie and hurt Hillary? No, it means defining every idea's political valence by "who immediately stands to benefit if everyone embraces this idea" is dysfunctional. "Women make bad leaders" is always right-wing even if, in a particular context, it benefits what can very generously be called the American political left. Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 20:03 on Jan 3, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 19:54
|
|
|
It can be true that the witch-hunt and her firing has nothing to do with plagiarism, and also that there is no winning argument that the left can make because she did do plagiarism. “She did it” is going to carry the day every time, right or wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 19:55
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Everyone plagiarizes. In academia, plagiarism is a fairly significant taboo, which is why it actually matters quite a bit that the president of a highly prestigious academic institution was a plagiarist. Yes, everyone knows that the investigation into her academic past was part of a campaign to get her fired for political reasons. But the plagiarism was real and is an actual issue, even if it was only discovered as part of a politically-motivated investigation. Would she have lost her job for the plagiarism? Probably not, since she's an administrator who hasn't published anything in more than seven years. Without the political and donor outcry, this likely would have been a slap on the wrist. But there's a difference between "she wouldn't have been fired for this plagiarism" and "she didn't plagiarize". And the only reason we're talking about the plagiarism at all is because people are making highly controversial statements like "this isn't plagiarism" or "everyone plagiarizes" that are easy to challenge. We can settle on "she wouldn't have been fired just for plagiarism" without having to argue that plagiarism is a fake idea.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 19:59
|
|
|
Was aqny more plaigarism by her found throughout the body of her academic works? Usually when plagiarism cases come up further plagiarism is found.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 20:03
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:I completely disagree. You can disagree all you want, but you'd be wrong pretty inarguably wrong. If you think "the political content of an idea is determined but it's content" then you fundamentally do not, to the slightest extent, understand right-wing politics (or even non-right wing politics). "It's true" is as irrelevant here as it is when my five year old tries to use that excuse to justify saying something mean. Whether it's true or not was not relevant to why they said it or what they hoped to accomplish by saying it, or whether it should be given serious consideration or thought. Right wing political rhetoric is, on most issues, completely truth-neutral from a political perspective. The same content in terms of truth-value can be a right-wing or not, and it doesn't depend on who benefits, it depends on how it is being used, to what purpose, and the context it operates within. There are absolutely conversations where you can say "Biden is a plagiarist" and not have it be a right wing argument, and there are conversations where it would be nothing but a right wing argument. That depends not on the fact, but on the argument the fact is being used to make. Civilized Fishbot posted:No, it means defining every idea's political valence by "who immediately stands to benefit if everyone embraces this idea" is dysfunctional. Except that's not what people are arguing, and that's not even what you've actually argued against. Main Paineframe posted:But there's a difference between "she wouldn't have been fired for this plagiarism" and "she didn't plagiarize". And the only reason we're talking about the plagiarism at all is because people are making highly controversial statements like "this isn't plagiarism" or "everyone plagiarizes" that are easy to challenge. We can settle on "she wouldn't have been fired just for plagiarism" without having to argue that plagiarism is a fake idea. I am pretty sure you're getting the order of things here bckwards - we were talking about the plagiarism before any of those dumb claims were made, weren't we? They were made because we were talking about the plagiarism, to my recollection. GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 20:08 on Jan 3, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 20:04
|
|
|
Morrow posted:And we circle back to my original point, which other posters have affirmed, that it's the context of an argument that matters for making something right-wing, not just the factual basis. The context for the current discussion of Joe Biden's plagiarism is Gyges making a joke in response to a bot account.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 20:08
|
|
|
DelilahFlowers posted:Was aqny more plaigarism by her found throughout the body of her academic works? Usually when plagiarism cases come up further plagiarism is found. In brief some of the dissertation material from 1997 included plagiarism of an unambiguously clear form; the source wasn't reliably cited and it's clear Gay started with the source text and didn't really even try to paraphrase. Subsequent plagiarism during her career was somewhat more ambiguous because they involved descriptions of procedural or technical elements where the exact description is pretty mandatory. This Crimson article does the best summary and breakdown of each alleged case. https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2023/12/12/allegations-plagiarism-gay-dissertation/ A lot of the alleged plagiarism looks to my eyes to be real stretches. None of this was the sort of plagiarism you might expect after, say, watching that hbomberguy video; there's no indication that Gay's some sort of constantly plagiarizing fabulist. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 20:18 on Jan 3, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 20:09
|
|
|
DelilahFlowers posted:Was aqny more plaigarism by her found throughout the body of her academic works? Usually when plagiarism cases come up further plagiarism is found. As far as I can tell, the first accusations were surfacing in October regarding 3 articles. It's been a pile-on since then, with more and more actual or alleged incidents getting compiled.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 20:15
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:You can disagree all you want, but you'd be wrong pretty inarguably wrong. If you think "the political content of an idea is determined but it's content" then you fundamentally do not, to the slightest extent, understand right-wing politics (or even non-right wing politics). It seems like you're saying that in evaluating a political idea you don't care about its content, you don't care about whether it's true or not, you're just interested the "context" of how it exists as a force in today's political environment right now. If I'm reading you correctly, then sure, by that definition, "plagiarists shouldn't be president" is a right-wing idea, because it advantages Trump* over Biden, and if Nikki Haley is nominated in '24, "White men make the best presidents" will be a left-wing idea, because it advantages Biden over Haley. But this isn't actually thinking about the idea, it's thinking about how other people might think about the idea. To think about the idea yourself, to assess its political character, means to go after the content: what is this saying about the world, what moral and factual assumptions are being made, what ways of thinking are highlighted or ignored? Reading this way, "White men make the best presidents" is obviously a right-wing idea even if it wins an election for Biden and "plagiarists shouldn't be president" is not a right-wing idea even if it wins an election for Trump. The plagiarism discussion is not nearly as interesting as this question, "is an idea left/right wing because of its actual content or because of how it spreads or who it empowers within a political environment?" *I'm sure Trump, being a lazy stupid rear end in a top hat who hates to share credit, has done a ton of plagiarizing Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 20:33 on Jan 3, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 20:16
|
|
|
Do we know if any of the children being killed by the weapons we are bypassing congress to sell to Israel are plagiarists? Grade school plagiarism is a significant taboo and might send the children down a dark path.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 20:29
|
|
|
This is so ridiculously stupid to even be in the news. The GOP is doing a victory lap and everyone is still clutching pearls about plagiarism? This is an internal Harvard issue. We are so hosed as a country once Trump returns to power.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 20:39
|
|
|
It is logical and expected, when you think about it, that people in organizations that are trying to build something constructive and helpful to society would have to follow certain rules, whereas individuals and people in organization that are just about bullying and tearing things down, would not have as many rules that they are bound to.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 20:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 15:10 |
|
|
I'm not going to support her just because she was attacked by the right-wing media apparatus, but Harvard response is pretty inconsistent if they want to say it's about plagiarism. They kept her on as a tenured professor. If she was removed for plagiarism, she should be removed from a teaching job not the administrative job. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/02/us/harvard-claudine-gay-resigns.html quote:Alan M. Garber, an economist and physician who is Harvard’s provost and chief academic officer, will serve as interim president. Dr. Gay will remain a tenured professor of government and African and African American studies. Maybe students should start running all their faculty and administrators' papers through those anti-plagiarism programs. The instructors should be kept to a higher standard than students.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 20:58
|
|
