This year’s Tanner Lecture, un-ironically sponsored by an organization dedicated to helping the neurologically impaired, was delivered by MIT’s premier enemy of reason, free speech, and the cisheteropatriarchy, Professor Sally Haslanger.
Known for her outspoken defense of censorship and support for cancel culture, Sally is an inspiration to the legions of neurotic women and transgender felons spawned by MIT’s burgeoning Gender Studies departments. Offering gems like seminars on Erotic Vomiting and Queerness of Biblical Proportions, the world’s leading STEM institution is slowly being transformed into a haven for neurodivergent deniers of reality who insist on living in psychological worlds of their own making.
“Rather than worrying, what is gender, really? or what is race, really? I think we should begin by asking (both in the rhetorical and political sense) what, if anything, we want them to be.” Wishing is the first step toward freeing yourself from the bounds of the real world, which as we know is a horrible place dominated by male oppressors.
With MIT now being run by women it’s time to change science for the better by eliminating all vestiges of patriarchal hegemony, from Aristotle to Einstein. Kudos to Sally for leading the charge!
Story suggested by Curious Kit
I sympathize with the point of this and commend anyone that has the courage to stand up to it, but for me, this mixes sarcasm and objective criticism in a way that does not work as well as I think it could otherwise. My recommendation would be to be purer in one or the other. For example, it is not necessary in sarcasm to directly point out for the reader “premier enemy of reason, free speech”. Because this likely is not an explicit intent of Prof. Haslanger, it is much better to show this as a logical inference from her views. I am also still trying to figure out how to reconcile self-labeling of “fake news” with evidentiary links. Perhaps “irreverent news” is more accurate?