The Telegraph opens up black Cambridge student for barrage of online abuse

Am sorry, I must have missed that. What two connotations did you explain?

Can you please summarise them.

Don't worry, I am keeping note of your other questions, and I promise to do you the honour of going back to answer every single one of them after I clear up what I see as a strawman.

Well, if you did read the letter, it calls for consultation with students about what should be on the curriculum.

I have literally no idea what you're raving about now.

And so?



Yep. I reasoned intelligently and logically.

That is required for subjective isues.

A top university should focus on materials that mostly intellectually develop its student body, not the ones that make them politically correct.



So you were strawmanning?

"A taste of her own medicine" without specific context could have meant a) she gave out racial abuse and was getting it back or b) she misled people with her title, that the Telegraph then did to her. You've now explained the connotation you meant, so this is really a non-argument at this stage.

Personally I'm not vested in keeping this going further unless you do start tackling the other points, as there is no reason we can't address them in parallel, and it prevents this from being a productive debate if you don't address the key points.

When we are discussing a newspapers reporting as "unfair" and "misleading", and I state she is getting "A taste of her own medicine", I think the context is pretty clear.

My aim is that you clearly understand the ground rules of any debate with me is that I would not tolerate any strawman that is attributing statements I did not make to me. Only after that is when I can continue a debate on other things.

Utilising strawmans are not grounds of a productive debate.

"A consultation between course conveners and groups of students about how the faculty can be more inclusive"

That's not the same as calling for consultation about the curriculum

x

This is basic course design and improvement stuff. It's not newsworthy or controversial.

And so nothing, just correcting your grammar.

You don’t seem to understand what a subjective issue is. When something is subjective, that means it’s up to the individual to decide whether they consider it right or wrong/agree disagree/etc. You can’t hold a monopoly on being right about a subjective issue, otherwise it would be an objective issue.

I did not want to malign your precious TSR reputation with a strawman, I made a mistake by typing “ask” instead of “suggest”. It’s pretty telling that you consistently (both with me and with others) choose to argue over the most minor technicalities to avoid actually responding to the points we’re making.

It was in a paragraph about the curriculum, and it seemed like a simple request. The more sociotropic "children are the future" stuff was later on. Either way, she was criticising the academic staff. I am incredibly impressed you know all that stuff about how courses are designed and stuff, almost suggests you're an academic or something, but it is beside the point.

It is not fair to mislead people as to her statements, regardless of what you think of her actions. The heading was misleading at best and a blatant lie at worst, so even with the context it's still an inaccurate statement to say it's a taste of her own medicine in my view.

Now, you've had your say about the strawman, and that point has been cleared up. If we can't move on to an actual debate at this point, then I don't think there's anything to be gained from a continued circular argument, I'm afraid. You've yet to counter the actual crux of the post, and there's little value in continuing if you continue to refuse to do so.

So was the heading of her letter.

She got a taste of her own medicine.

I'm not sure why you seem to think that people on the course wish to study mainly English history, or wouldn't want to read works of other authors within their course? The course is hinged on reading works in the English language, not on works penned by English authors.

It is not about what people want to study.

Cambridge should select material they feel is the most challenging and best at developing people intellectually.

Anyone that does not like what they come up with has the liberty to go to another university that have what they want to study.

Maybe even take an online course with the Open University, where they can pick and mix as they wish as if they are in the University of Woolworth.

I'm not sure, however, how much point there is on this discussion going further if you refuse to address the crux of the issue, namely, what the actual issue is with having more diversity in the syllabus. At this point it starts to suggest you don't have a point to combat this, though I would be interested in what you do have to say on the matter.

Diversity should only be included at Cambridge as long as it would increase the intellectual challenge and development.

Not because it makes some people feel inclusive, represented or warm and cuddly.

I am not saying no to diversity, I am saying no to diversity for the sake of diversity.

The staff who it was directed to weren't offended. They welcomed it and used it for a discussion (because this sort of input is basic course development stuff).

Why are you so worried about academic staff or curricula being criticised?

Which is still not the crux or the argument here, nor particularly important even if true, given one is a national newspaper and one is a letter to a university,

The latter is part of the sick SJW movement which is aimed at maligning white males.

It is called crybullying.

First step: Cry about being a victim of some oppressor.

Second step: Use the platform of "victim" as a bullying mechanism of getting your way by shaming the Whites, mostly th male ones.

"White privilege", "Cultural Appropraition", "Micro-aggression" etc.

It is what gave us Trump, so it is very important if you think outside the box.

They can select the challenging material that develops people intellectually and still have it from a more diverse range of authors, or at least investigate further that possibility. There is not a lack of books or resources for them to choose from, and there are plenty they don't currently use that would be of equal challenge to their students.

It's not a case that every student should be able to pick and choose exactly what they study, but your point about it being a university in England doesn't seem wholly relevant given a curriculum in terms of authors should not be based on the country it's in?

However there is no reason to believe, currently, that more diversity would have a negative impact on intellectual challenge and development. It could, in fact, increase the level of difficulty. Diversity for the sake of diversity is an arguable concept, granted, but it stands to reason that given the number of potential books to study, there would be more than enough to increase diversity and also have a positive impact on challenge and development.