When historians study ancient societies they use pottery, cave art, paintings and engravings as their sources. Memes can play the same role as one of the sources of history.
Cossman consistently minimised the scope and power of C-16, using qualifying words and phrases like only, most extreme and high threshold.
We are not arguing that racism has vanished, or that racists don’t exist. We’re making precisely the opposite argument.
All of this discussion leaves unanswered the question of how we decide if something represents a breakthrough — after all, there isn’t an international court of arbitration for creativity.
For every article published highlighting a case of students being taught this ideology, there are dozens of other instances that aren’t covered by the news.
However, if we look to other situations I think there is at least grounds for further reflection. Let’s consider two situations.
Large portion of social scientists seem to hold their surprise and perplexity as a badge of honour, rather than as an opportunity to improve their models of human behaviour.
Human societies, generally are conservative, and they prefer primarily two things, order and rule of law in society, and the perceived safety of one’s own tribe.
Many social scientists have quite openly voiced surprise and perplexity at both the Trump and Brexit events
There should be no misunderstanding that Russia is an adversarial great power.
Just as it is unfair to compare idealised socialism to a realistic but flawed capitalism, so too is it unfair for Brook to compare his idealised capitalist vision to realistic socialism.
It’s progress. It’s the constantly expanding intellectual and social capacity that has led human civilization to every single one of its most mind-blowing achievements.
The British people voted to reject an institution that curtails the will of people, that serves crony business interests before democracy, and that promotes nepotism.
Allowing one group to use freighted words like homophobe or racist or rapist to tarnish an individual’s reputation without proof violates a principle of fairness that some of us hold dear.
The question is: Is that entirely a good thing? As our research – and Trump’s rise – shows, not necessarily.