I remember that the engineering students (we called them 'engees' as if they were an alien species) from my time at Adelaide Uni (when Noah was a lad) were not exactly known for appreciating the finer things in life (and were as 'politically incorrect' as all get out) but, my goodness, were they smart. Whilst I was sweating over statistical testing for the social sciences, they were solving three dimensional equations (or whatever their complicated equations were on about) with ease. Thank goodness for that because, as you say, we now have things they built that actually stand up.
And they wrote parody letters to the press in which they penned pretentious guff about some contemporary art exhibition (along the lines of Jackson Pollock but not as good) on behalf of some fake 'art appreciation society' taking the mickey out of pretentious art critics - and getting them published in all seriousness. Ah, engees - gotta love 'em. Long may they stand as the vanguard of the anti-woke brigade
Alas, I will have to decline you invitation to read the paper of concern in your article - that's your job, to read this bilge so we don't have to.
It's so good to know that engineering students have been the scourge of the politically correct for all these years 🤣. And yes, the stuff they built is still standing, while most of the contemporary 'art' has been swept into the dustbin of history.
Seriously though, you should take a gander at that paper. It's an absolute crack-up!
I cannot imagine that anything about dicks could make you laugh. Seriously, has there ever been anyone in the history of humanity who has made a joke about penises that was actually funny? Oh, wait....
Sep 23, 2023·edited Oct 9, 2023Liked by Robyn Chuter
Last December Bettina Arndt did a post called Jobs for the girls: how the feminist mafia is controlling science funding; so it's just as well male engineering students are striking an irreverent posture in an attempt to staunch the nonsense coming out of universities, though I'm despondent about how successful they will be.
And last month she did a post about hiring at BHP, which focused mainly on the lower levels of employment at the company. But, of course, BHP also employs people like mine engineers. Nevertheless, it was clear that male employment and working conditions were in trouble. Will there be anywhere safe for our young, irreverent, male 'attack helicopters' when they enter the workforce? Will their merit be properly recognised? It doesn't look like it.
I wouldn't have thought much effort needed to be expended when it comes to setting women against men. Misandry has a history that long predates the arrival of the current crop of puppet-masters.
Sep 22, 2023·edited Oct 8, 2023Liked by Robyn Chuter
In my mind's eye I can still just make out an illustration in an ancient Scottish primary school history book in which armed men clash on an old wooden bridge. The illustration is a depiction of the Battle of Stirling Bridge, though much like the film Braveheart, it takes its own liberties with the truth.
I have walked the field of victory at Bannockburn and the field of defeat at Culloden, but there is no equivalent field of battle at Stirling Bridge as portrayed in the 1995 film Braveheart despite the actual presence of thousands of English and Scots men-at-arms and cavalry. And in the film there is no bridge in sight either, you may have noticed.
In reality, the bridge was too narrow for a battle, allowing room for only two horses abreast, possibly three, to cross it. In a well-conceived and executed manoevre, the outnumbered Scots under the dual leadership of William Wallace and Andrew de Moray, the latter unaccountably making no appearance in the film, trapped part of the English army on the bridge, cutting off any chance of retreat. In the ensuing panic and mayhem, the bridge, which may also have been sabotaged by the Scots, collapsed into the River Forth below. The English who had made it across the bridge now found themselves on boggy ground unsuited to cavalry charges; and to make matters worse, they were hemmed in on three sides by one of the meanders of the River Forth, thus enabling the Scots to swoop in and slaughter the English. Talk about a home ground advantage!
I suppose I should note that by omitting the collapsing bridge scene, Gibson has no doubt spared impressionable engineering students the trauma of seeing things no engineering student should ever see.
A fuller, very readable account of the battle further merited by its easily digestible length can be found at the link below.
For more Braveheart historical inaccuracies here's a provocative article called Braveheart: Why Braveheart is a Porn Movie, which I suppose isn't really that provocative, once you factor in actor/director Mel Gibson's well-known ultraconservative views. Who knows how Braveheart would have turned out if Wallace had been fighting the Jews instead of the English.
There's some upcoming posts by Robyn about the good art of spotting dodgy arguments, so it's well to remember that spotting dodgy facts, especially Hollywood 'facts', but now also Covid 'facts'—better known as barefaced lies— is just as important.
That said, I'm going to try and buckle down and do a comment about a dodgy argument that wasn't on Carl Sagan's list. And, naturally, it's going to be the one known as The No-True-Scotsman Move, and why it's called a move and not a fallacy.
Well, that's ruined Braveheart for me, for ever! You'll be amused to know that I first saw it with my then-boyfriend, who was most proud of his Scottish ancestry. His clan were bitter enemies of the Bruces, so the Robert the Bruce betrayal scene was most satisfying to him. I thought the Wallace-Isabella romance subplot was utterly ridiculous from the get-go, but I didn't realise how completely ahistorical it was. Never let the truth get in the way of a Hollywood script!
Well, I'll just have to correct you there, missy; and if you're still on speaking terms with your former boyfriend, you can let him know that Robert the Bruce's betrayal of Wallace is another piece of Hollywood fiction. I also think from memory that Wallace and the Bruce never even met, but I better fact check that later, since you caught me out once before being over-confident about my memory.
My quick search on the topic suggests that you're correct, but there's also (unsurprisingly) a dearth of primary source material from the time. I think we can safely assume that almost nothing that we're told about history, either in Hollywood or the history books, is true; history is, as the saying goes, written by the victors.
Sep 24, 2023·edited Sep 24, 2023Liked by Robyn Chuter
That's exactly the same conclusion I've been arriving at myself, as far as mediaeval Scotland is concerned, although I think there can still be sound reasons for preferring one interpretation of historical events over others. There will almost always be well enough known background facts and knowledge of someone's actions, movements, personal and public behaviour and psychology that can be brought together to arrive at a satisfying conclusion that's still in principle falsifiable in the face of new evidence. I'm still looking into it.
On a personal note I've been fascinated to discover that those historians who've placed the home of the Wallace clan in Ayrshire in south-west Scotland, in the exact area where I was born, have said that Wallace's daughter went on to marry a Baillie. So, who knows, I may be related to the big man himself. I do remember my mother telling me as a child that we belonged to the Wallace clan, though I never seemed to be terribly excited about it. I just wanted to be me.
I've become quite comfortable with informational ambiguity at this point: there are all sorts of issues on which my position is, quite simply, 'I don't know'. It's been my experience that most people find uncertainty uncomfortable, and would rather make a hasty decision about what they believe, and then commit to that belief regardless of any new information that contradicts it.
On the ancestry issue, I have a few cousins who have spent countless hours researching the family genealogy. I don't begrudge them their hobby, but I honestly couldn't care less about my ancestry. I'm sure my family tree is festooned with roughly the same mixture of good and bad apples, and very middle-of-the-road ones, as everybody else's!
I remember that the engineering students (we called them 'engees' as if they were an alien species) from my time at Adelaide Uni (when Noah was a lad) were not exactly known for appreciating the finer things in life (and were as 'politically incorrect' as all get out) but, my goodness, were they smart. Whilst I was sweating over statistical testing for the social sciences, they were solving three dimensional equations (or whatever their complicated equations were on about) with ease. Thank goodness for that because, as you say, we now have things they built that actually stand up.
And they wrote parody letters to the press in which they penned pretentious guff about some contemporary art exhibition (along the lines of Jackson Pollock but not as good) on behalf of some fake 'art appreciation society' taking the mickey out of pretentious art critics - and getting them published in all seriousness. Ah, engees - gotta love 'em. Long may they stand as the vanguard of the anti-woke brigade
Alas, I will have to decline you invitation to read the paper of concern in your article - that's your job, to read this bilge so we don't have to.
Identity politics - sheesh!!
It's so good to know that engineering students have been the scourge of the politically correct for all these years 🤣. And yes, the stuff they built is still standing, while most of the contemporary 'art' has been swept into the dustbin of history.
Seriously though, you should take a gander at that paper. It's an absolute crack-up!
'That paper'.
Damn, I'm twisted. That was funny. Funniest being the 'dick' paragraph. :-) Couldn't stop chuckling for some <very, VERY strange> reason.
https://www.skeptic.com/downloads/conceptual-penis/23311886.2017.1330439.pdf
I cannot imagine that anything about dicks could make you laugh. Seriously, has there ever been anyone in the history of humanity who has made a joke about penises that was actually funny? Oh, wait....
Last December Bettina Arndt did a post called Jobs for the girls: how the feminist mafia is controlling science funding; so it's just as well male engineering students are striking an irreverent posture in an attempt to staunch the nonsense coming out of universities, though I'm despondent about how successful they will be.
https://open.substack.com/pub/bettinaarndt/p/jobs-for-the-girls?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email
And last month she did a post about hiring at BHP, which focused mainly on the lower levels of employment at the company. But, of course, BHP also employs people like mine engineers. Nevertheless, it was clear that male employment and working conditions were in trouble. Will there be anywhere safe for our young, irreverent, male 'attack helicopters' when they enter the workforce? Will their merit be properly recognised? It doesn't look like it.
https://open.substack.com/pub/bettinaarndt/p/is-bhp-discrimining-against-men?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email
More on the Postmodernist pox:
Bettina interviews Helen Pluckrose about the Grievance Study Hoax
https://youtu.be/7Wxc9E7Uuws?si=PymVUMt95X7v0uwN
Jordan Peterson interviews James Lindsay about the Grievance Studies Hoax
https://youtu.be/NtroGK9D6-o?si=XVx-dtzkkzPu3hJt
Helen Pluckrose on Grievance Studies, Social Justice and Postmodernism
https://youtu.be/qiXGp2VykaE?si=vr7h5ymA8VjkapZy
John Anderson interviews Helen Pluckrose about Dog Parks and Rape Culture
https://youtu.be/NzahTmBpVq8?si=GVZ4hIDncUbkOO4b
The puppet-masters must be very happy with this arm of their divide-and-conquer strategy: setting men against women.
I wouldn't have thought much effort needed to be expended when it comes to setting women against men. Misandry has a history that long predates the arrival of the current crop of puppet-masters.
It could be the oldest divide and conquer strategy ever used.
In my mind's eye I can still just make out an illustration in an ancient Scottish primary school history book in which armed men clash on an old wooden bridge. The illustration is a depiction of the Battle of Stirling Bridge, though much like the film Braveheart, it takes its own liberties with the truth.
I have walked the field of victory at Bannockburn and the field of defeat at Culloden, but there is no equivalent field of battle at Stirling Bridge as portrayed in the 1995 film Braveheart despite the actual presence of thousands of English and Scots men-at-arms and cavalry. And in the film there is no bridge in sight either, you may have noticed.
In reality, the bridge was too narrow for a battle, allowing room for only two horses abreast, possibly three, to cross it. In a well-conceived and executed manoevre, the outnumbered Scots under the dual leadership of William Wallace and Andrew de Moray, the latter unaccountably making no appearance in the film, trapped part of the English army on the bridge, cutting off any chance of retreat. In the ensuing panic and mayhem, the bridge, which may also have been sabotaged by the Scots, collapsed into the River Forth below. The English who had made it across the bridge now found themselves on boggy ground unsuited to cavalry charges; and to make matters worse, they were hemmed in on three sides by one of the meanders of the River Forth, thus enabling the Scots to swoop in and slaughter the English. Talk about a home ground advantage!
I suppose I should note that by omitting the collapsing bridge scene, Gibson has no doubt spared impressionable engineering students the trauma of seeing things no engineering student should ever see.
A fuller, very readable account of the battle further merited by its easily digestible length can be found at the link below.
https://medium.com/@johnwelford15/the-battle-of-stirling-bridge-1297-78718369dacb
For more Braveheart historical inaccuracies here's a provocative article called Braveheart: Why Braveheart is a Porn Movie, which I suppose isn't really that provocative, once you factor in actor/director Mel Gibson's well-known ultraconservative views. Who knows how Braveheart would have turned out if Wallace had been fighting the Jews instead of the English.
https://aelarsen.wordpress.com/tag/isabella-of-france/
There's some upcoming posts by Robyn about the good art of spotting dodgy arguments, so it's well to remember that spotting dodgy facts, especially Hollywood 'facts', but now also Covid 'facts'—better known as barefaced lies— is just as important.
That said, I'm going to try and buckle down and do a comment about a dodgy argument that wasn't on Carl Sagan's list. And, naturally, it's going to be the one known as The No-True-Scotsman Move, and why it's called a move and not a fallacy.
Well, that's ruined Braveheart for me, for ever! You'll be amused to know that I first saw it with my then-boyfriend, who was most proud of his Scottish ancestry. His clan were bitter enemies of the Bruces, so the Robert the Bruce betrayal scene was most satisfying to him. I thought the Wallace-Isabella romance subplot was utterly ridiculous from the get-go, but I didn't realise how completely ahistorical it was. Never let the truth get in the way of a Hollywood script!
Well, I'll just have to correct you there, missy; and if you're still on speaking terms with your former boyfriend, you can let him know that Robert the Bruce's betrayal of Wallace is another piece of Hollywood fiction. I also think from memory that Wallace and the Bruce never even met, but I better fact check that later, since you caught me out once before being over-confident about my memory.
My quick search on the topic suggests that you're correct, but there's also (unsurprisingly) a dearth of primary source material from the time. I think we can safely assume that almost nothing that we're told about history, either in Hollywood or the history books, is true; history is, as the saying goes, written by the victors.
That's exactly the same conclusion I've been arriving at myself, as far as mediaeval Scotland is concerned, although I think there can still be sound reasons for preferring one interpretation of historical events over others. There will almost always be well enough known background facts and knowledge of someone's actions, movements, personal and public behaviour and psychology that can be brought together to arrive at a satisfying conclusion that's still in principle falsifiable in the face of new evidence. I'm still looking into it.
On a personal note I've been fascinated to discover that those historians who've placed the home of the Wallace clan in Ayrshire in south-west Scotland, in the exact area where I was born, have said that Wallace's daughter went on to marry a Baillie. So, who knows, I may be related to the big man himself. I do remember my mother telling me as a child that we belonged to the Wallace clan, though I never seemed to be terribly excited about it. I just wanted to be me.
I've become quite comfortable with informational ambiguity at this point: there are all sorts of issues on which my position is, quite simply, 'I don't know'. It's been my experience that most people find uncertainty uncomfortable, and would rather make a hasty decision about what they believe, and then commit to that belief regardless of any new information that contradicts it.
On the ancestry issue, I have a few cousins who have spent countless hours researching the family genealogy. I don't begrudge them their hobby, but I honestly couldn't care less about my ancestry. I'm sure my family tree is festooned with roughly the same mixture of good and bad apples, and very middle-of-the-road ones, as everybody else's!
God help us!