POTF 10 - Winner and Runner-Up

[Aexodus]

The winner of POTF 10 was sumskilz with his third win, earning 1 competition point and 5 rep points as well as the second ever bronze award. Well done!

Winning Post

Far right hate speech. What should be done?

Seventy years after the establishment of the state of Israel, Israel has achieved many goals of the Zionist movement, but the plan to become a state "like any other" has not been fulfilled. If the Jews were the archetypical "other" in history, ironically, Israel-which so much wanted to avoid the stamp of otherness-has become the Jew among the nations... The flag of Israel is a religious symbol. The claim: Israel never became "like any other" nation, and remains "the Jew among nations". In support of this, it is pointed out that Israel has a religious symbol on its flag. However, one third of countries, including the majority of European countries, have a religious symbol on their flag: Spoiler Alert, click show to read:  An alternative hypothesis is that Israel isn't different from other nations, or at least wouldn't be if people worldwide weren't so prone to treating it differently. For example, acting as if having a religious symbol on the flag is unique or repeatedly using completely unrelated threads as platforms to forward arguments about Israel's supposed uniqueness, to allege uniquely nefarious pro-Israel activity by American Jewish groups, to forward the erroneous view that Jews are somehow different than other Americans in their having hyphenated identities, and to cite Neo-Nazi websites and open Nazi sympathizers to support such views. Side note, the Star of David wasn't widely used as a Jewish symbol prior to the Nineteenth Century. It came into wider use in Europe when it was adopted by assimilationist Jews in order to be visually more like Christianity, so that synagogues would look just like churches but use a different symbol. The Reform movement went as far as calling synagogues "temples" in order to disassociate themselves with Jerusalem. This was meant to as means to try to protect Jews from the dual loyalty charge since the center of their religious life would be in their home country (never mind that Jerusalem is also important to Christians). The original Zionists who were not religious adopted it as a Jewish national symbol in 1897. The religious use and the Zionist use were actually based on competing worldviews. The assimilationist view was that Jews could protect themselves from antisemitism by making Judaism strictly a religion, so that the they would be German or Polish or whatever in every way except religion. The Reform movement also stopped using Hebrew in its liturgy (despite Catholics still using Latin). In contrast, the Zionists believed Jews would always be seen as the other by some and thus would always be in danger without a safe haven of their own. This was before the Holocaust of course. Obviously none of the Reform movement's assimilation saved them. Anyone ethnically Jewish was killed regardless of how assimilated they were and regardless of their religion or lack thereof. Today the Star of David is considered a Jewish symbol in both a religious and non-religious sense. Historically, it was considered a magic protective symbol used by Muslims, Jews, and Christians in the Middle East, like the ḥāmsa.

Runner-up this week is Dante Von Hespburg. See you next time!

Runner-Up Post

Political Correctness is Reducing Academic Freedom at Cambridge - Noah Carl Sacked

Just watched the full i-player interview (Cheers Aexodus for drawing me to that)... Firstly the spokesperson admits they haven't actually read their work, and admits it might even be 'good', but he signed the letter to sack Dr Carl anyway because he feels he's associated with islamophobia and 'racist' based soley on the citations that Dr Carl used...and also because he's been published in 'far right' journals...though he's never read the actual content (and Professors like David McLean, who is about as Conservative as you can get in economics, even arguing quite convincingly that Western Imperialism and the global world economy has 0 responsibility for informal empire, nor the collapse of Qing China, Latin America's troubles or The Shogunate's collapse, has published articles in Marxist Journals. Academics publish wherever they can, and tend to seek out audiences who would disagree to test how their articles hold up. The spokesman defending the decision to sign a letter that sacked this guy...is in a complete mess. It seems to almost be 'i don't like what this guy MIGHT stand for'. To be slightly flippant, I've written essays about the nature of certain groups of the modern alt-right... i've naturally cited interviews and papers done by them, my work is as an academics should be 'attempting' to be as impartial as possible (You can never truly be impartial, but you recognize that limitation and try your best to be). With that in mind, people can i'm sure walk away from reading that work and say 'ahh these alt-right guys aren't so bad', or 'they have a point'. So now apparently that is in danger, likewise Dr Carl has written many publications that are 'respectable' (Which i agree with the commentators, Universities are not meant to be 'respectable' they are meant to ask questions that most people are uncomfortable with- Its why Academics play such a vital role in highlighting the lies told by modern political parties), but apparently one strain of research... that actually is valid regardless as research, is enough for him to be mobbed by.... i don't know what? Academics and students who have lost perspective and want to essentially destroy academic research in a fundamental way. What's more worrying is a key reason seems to be that he was only 'targeted' because he achieved a fellowship at Cambridge (because that is a 'prestigious platform'). So other universities conducting equally controversial research seem not to have been targeted. The reason Cambridge is so 'prestigious' is because they like most other British Universities allow academic freedom (one of the points of tenure indeed- we'll fund, whatever you want to do), so its a weird paradox that they A) caved in, and B) this is the reason I genuinely despair, this will come back if it continues, to bite us on the arse in a big way. I mean god damn basic tenants, you do not research with a 'goal' in mind (if you do, that's poor academia), you have a rough idea of the area you want to look into, and the research then can take you into very weird and wonderful places that contribute to knowledge in ways no one could ever have envisaged (To use a personal example, my 'big project' started as questioning the nature of Neo-imperialism from Suez, but has now developed into a full blown geopolitical analysis and spatial history of the Antarctic, its massive relevance to global politics currently begs for such a historic backing). So to 'cut it off' because they dislike the person... is the height of stupidity. Let his work be ripped to shreds in the peer review and public process, sure. Due to the Research Excellence Framework, he may indeed then lose his job- but that is how actual academia is supposed to function. Even the best academics have had their Dunkirk's (Niall Ferguson's life is essentially one long one Though i'm thoroughly with him on the latest Applied History drive), but sacking for 'political views'... its insulting. I mean literally, we know for instance that male students from Asian backgrounds, even from a lower economic standing-point generally perform better than White males from indeed a better economic position. There are a huge number of reasons for this, one indeed that is based on genetics (and arguments against it that are equally important). But the only reason this debate is happening is because an academic somewhere researched it. It has relevance to the British economy, education structures, the rise of populism, social cohesion, the benefits of multiculturalism, the issues created by multiculturalism- its incredibly useful. But using the logic of these academics and students who got Dr Carl fired, because it can be seen as being racist, has links to eugenics etc, this entire discussion should never have seen the light of day. Its ridiculous. If he beleives in eugenic quackery, he can't be that bright. https://www.newstatesman.com/politic...nics-seriously In this country employers are free to dismiss staff, if they have reason to do so. Holding on to unsuitable people just to appease a handful of political commentators is politically correctness redefined. I'm sure Noah's replacement will do an excellent job. I think Eugenics is a difficult issue. Current work on Climate change has actually put eugenics back on the table (under several different names- and indeed Eugenics in modern academia should be removed from its Imperial and Nazi connotations, because it's a tool to which political emphasis was added. I'm not defending Eugenics, but it did directly contribute to the rise of the European Welfare state, so cutting down research because of its connotations to Eugenics can have some very bad consequences for other areas). The reason its back on the table is because of the rise of 'gene-splicing' (see China recently with that controversy), issues in a post-antibiotic world (because their worryingly losing effectiveness rather faster than some thought) that might have their solution in genetic engineering (also based on Eugenics) and also population vs resources (And this is incredibly controversial indeed but in terms of preventing children from ever having physical or mental disabilities prior to birth, because some predict society will not be able to shoulder the cost- the other 'Eugenics' alternative of course is what Sweden did until the 1970s- mandated abortion for children with disabilities- so its an important area for academics to be able to look into- and a huge part of that indeed is it'll allow us to argue along ethical lines, expose academics who favour Eugenics for political/racist means and make sure their work is thoroughly discredited (if its indeed not worthy). By driving Eugenics underground, because its not as if academics who 'believe' in its elements will stop, it undermines 'professional academics' by having such a polarizing split, it also means there is no debate or dialogue and that academics who research Eugenics, because they are going under the academia radar, cannot be subjected to peer review and debated and analysed properly, so no ethical framework can ever really come about, until its too late and it becomes a 'political' issue as one party or another picks up their work, and then immediately that work is protected, because good luck trying to get through as a 'professional academic' to those who unquestioningly believe what Populists are advocating. So i do appreciate peoples quite rightly natural reactions to Eugenics, but this is exactly why it should have a place and stay within academia, and not be driven underground, so their peers can essentially keep a check on what is going on and why. Scientists, Economics, Historians, Sociologists etc, all feed into each other (its why i laugh at people who believe that 'science isn't a 'real' degree, or sociology isn't a 'real' degree- they are all connected and all parts are necessary to create a fully functioning society and peer review process. For instance without Sociologists, There would potentially be no framework for the debates around gene-splicing in terms of societal impact, which would be stupid for social cohesion and sustainability) and essentially create a 'finished piece' of knowledge together, that then is properly packaged for use in human society (or indeed not for use).