Another day, another awful op-ed in Murdoch rag The Daily Telegraph. Veterans of the australia-nz-pacific channel on the Discord may remember this guy as the one who thought Bari Weiss resigning from the NYT was literally 1984.

Some choice transcripts:

"[T]his newspaper reported that the new wave of "cancel culture" was threatening the very social fabric of this country." - Yeah, good, OK.

"[T]he global Black Lives Matter movement destroying statues and rewriting history, academics denouncing Western civilisation and removing whiteness from the curriculum, indoctrinating school students with LGBTIQ+ gender fluidity programs and deplatforming and flaming on social media any who fail to conform." - Is any of this a bad thing? Also, once again, I love how one of the worst things they can imagine happening to themselves is being attacked on social media.

"In schools students are taught radical, neo-Marxist inspired gender and sexuality theory based on the assumption boys can be girls and girls can be boys as, instead of biology, a person's gender and sexuality are dynamic and limitless." - Ignoring the bullshit phrase 'neo-Marxist', once again, is any of this wrong or a bad thing?

"When teaching the Australian national curriculum teachers are told "Indigenous history, culture, knowledge and understanding can be incorporated into teaching core scientific concepts" on the basis teachers need to "provide a more culturally responsive curriculum". Central to Western science, as opposed to superstition and witchcraft, is a commitment to rationality and reason" - Seriously fuck this guy, completely normal and not at all racist to say that Indigenous knowledge and culture is 'superstition and witchcraft'. Absolutely infuriating.

Anyway, I wasn't expecting this article to be the place to introduce Gramsci's Prison Notebooks to the Australian public, and yet here we are.

(again, this may be better on The Dunk Tank, but I would also love a community dedicated to posting awful articles like this)

  • WhatDoYouMeanPodcast [comrade/them]
    ·
    4 years ago

    instead of biology, a person’s gender and sexuality are dynamic and limitless.”

    This part is wrong because biology textbooks don't have a rigid definition of gender (it might have one for sex? It gets fun with things like androgen insensitivity). Nor would a sociologist worth their salt impose a limit upon sexuality. Why the fuck would a professor or researcher try to do such a thing? What the fuck?