this post was submitted on 24 Mar 2024
0 points (NaN% liked)

Conservative

357 readers
84 users here now

A place to discuss pro-conservative stuff

  1. Be excellent to each other. Civility, No Racism, No Bigotry, No Slurs, No calls to violences, No namecalling, All that good stuff, follow lemm.ee's rules, follow the rules of your instance, etc.

  2. We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and discussing things that might get ignored elsewhere. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.

  3. Dissent is allowed in the comments, but try to be constructive; if you do not agree, then provide a reason which is backed up by references or a reasonable alternative interpretation of the provided facts. That means the left wing is welcome to state their opinions, but please keep it in good faith.

A polite request, not a rule, if you feel the need to report a comment, please don't reply to it.

founded 11 months ago
MODERATORS
top 13 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

In the article, Letiecq said she drew upon "critical feminist and intersectional frameworks to delineate an overarching orientation to structural oppression and unequal power relations that advantages White heteropatriarchal nuclear families (WHNFs) and marginalizes others as a function of family structure and relationship status."

Just ignore the content. All these words are why many normal folks think academic liberals are airheads. I know what she's saying because I got used to this style of super dense academic writing. But how are regular folk supposed to make heads or tails of this?

To be fair, though, I'm not sure why media generally insists on presenting academic viewpoints like this. It's the social science version of talking about the mathematics of fusion reactors:

Particles are scattered by the MHD waves which are raised by instability of background plasmas. Probability that a particle entering to the downstream will eventually return to the upstream energy gain factor when a particle crosses and re-crosses the shock front.

Presenting unintelligible nonsense (from the layman's perspective) helps nobody. But then, Fox News does what media also generally does and dumbs the critique of marriage down into an absurdity to attack an easy strawman.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 5 months ago

To be fair, though, I'm not sure why media generally insists on presenting academic viewpoints like this

Because they are fundamentally social topics that impact your average Joe. To just let a bunch of quacks leverage institutions to push their crap is how we let things go worse.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Didn't I already ask you to tone down the race stuff? I appreciate the content, but Id rather avoid this kind of stuff. TBH, I dont know if this is starting to cross the line into racism or if its just being bothered by racism or what.

Man, I hate judgement calls.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The issue I see is it’s about the culture war but not tied to an event or policy. It’s the ranting of one professor.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

So it should just be ignored that leftists are using universities to push their garbage?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

One professor is not the teachings of a university. Has the university put out a statement agreeing with her? Has the department head said anything? All I see is a statement from one teacher.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

If I went and used my position as a federal employee to sling this type of political shit, I'd be out a job. It's not exactly like the university is in the dark about what this teacher is doing.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

You are against free speech? Or just speech you don’t like? She isn’t tenured but this is why tenure is important.

Did you read her research or just form an opinion based on the headline ?

[–] [email protected] -1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

She's free to say whatever she likes, and the university is free to keep slime like her on. And similarly, I'm free to judge them based on their own speech.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Read he study. The best solution to her complaints is end social programs. That would solve her complaints. End tanf, social security, etc and get complaints go away.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Fucking as if. Her type will always find new shit to cry about. Just because she accidentally stumbled into a good idea once it doesn't mean she deserves respect

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

she appears to be for expanding the programs which is stupid since it would increase cost and still wouldn't produce the results she wants.

Social Security is a Ponzai scam. She wants to allow you to give it to anyone. That way it's not tied to marriage. Imagine handing down social security benefits from generation to generation or to strangers. The program is meant to stop when you die, or your spouse dies. That is one control on cost.

TANF is a cash program. The government shouldn't be taking cash from me to give to anyone else. That is just a failed system right there.

We know that traditional nuclear families produce the best outcomes. We should only support families in that mode.

Some of her rant is unironically racist but I doubt anyone read the study or would pick up on it.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 5 months ago

Sorry, I misread your earlier comment as you saying she supported ending those programs. As such, I retract my acknowledgement that she's right about anything, and return to my original stance of full condemnation.