Academic Standards

Again, it's the remarkable hegemony. People of all political persuasions (un)thinking the same way, saying, the same idiot thing.

"Anti-Science". Keep your eye on what that's supposed to be referring to. Quoting from the linked post,

Acknowledge the University of Washington campus is on land stolen from Native Americans. Use gender-neutral, culturally diverse names in examples. Stop believing being overweight is unhealthy.

Then,

I understand how you can acknowledge and use. But I very sincerely don’t understand how you can stop believing. 

I of course, sincerely believe in that sincerity.

I can't always be of service, so I tentatively offer a reversal the advice of Journey-Do stop believin'......let go of that feeling, no-wha-o....

Then,

I especially don’t understand how you can stop believing something that’s demonstrably true on orders from your employer.

If it is demonstrably true, why does it require belief? Belief is assertion in the absence of evidence or conclusive proof otherwise. If you don't believe in what is true, then you are the same as those who peddle 'obesity' cultism who do not believe inducing weight loss using calorie restriction has failed, even though their complaining, nagging and crisis-mongering is premised on that very failure.

Success would have stopped the crusade for 'obesity' from getting this far and would end it now.

I still remember being proud of supporting the party of science and facts. And now we are all about bullying people into believing ridiculous, unscientific crap. It’s embarrassing.

Umm, I don't know about proud. I have never thought of science as partisan or identitarian, science is just science, it can unhand anyone at any time. That's why we cannot vaingloriously think we are on its "side", it can pull the rug from those trying to pal up to it, just as well as those trying to fight it. Which we probably all are in some way or t'other.

People fighting it is often about identity, but, science itself, isn't, or shouldn't be one.

We're still looking for the precise application of 'anti-science'. So let's try the link itself; "Profs at UW Seattle Asked to Push Progressive Causes in School’s Diversity Guide",

...the administration seems willing to placate a group of hypersensitive, progressive activist-students and faculty seeking to purge opposing political viewpoints from campus

'Kay, so we're also looking for, "hypersensitive", "progressive" and evidence of "purging opposing political viewpoints". Remembering that, manipulating body mass is an issue of physiology, not politics nor belief.

It says emphasis on diversity is the promotion of progressive politics, whilst I would not want to present myself as the progressive-whisperer, diversity seems to me to be an endeavour that easily lends itself to plus ca change, or appearing to change whilst staying the same through, in this case, window-dressing.

File under- evidence for assertion-inconclusive, to put it mildly.

But then it gets legitimate crazy. Writing for Quillette, Reges broke down one recommendation:

Can't wait, few things are more tantalising than the prospect of finding out what people think of as cray.

Review of all course materials for inclusiveness. For instance, of a lecture that involves calculating body mass index (BMI) using guidelines from the National Institutes of Health, the report noted that it ‘seems insensitive to present students with a program that would point out that some of them are ‘obese’ while others are ‘normal.’

Incidentally, I like that detail of "..using guidelines from the National Institutes of Health,". Still pocket billiards.

Recap; anti-science, demonstrably true, hypersensitive, progressive, [indicative of] purging opposing viewpoints, refers to not the questioning of why the true nature of metabolic function has entered the status of belief system, political viewpoint, but suggesting that vested interests' insertion of sci-fi should not be jettisoned, but merely stop short of seeking to divide students into its irrelevant categorisation.

These three things mentioned as a trio; the genocidal dispossession of indigenous people, widening the references in illustrative examples and whether to hold off on yet more divisive categorisation of students, have nothing to do with each other.

I'm sure all concerned know this. Such is the desire to keep people in the same place as themselves, that, the words don't matter, they're just there to carry the tune.

Suffice it to say, I don't care who you are, what or who's "side" you are on or think you're on, what you stand for, what you think you stand for, who you are, or think you are, your rank, sex, class or race....

On this, if you continue to allow yourself to be used as a bot to police obedience in others, whilst not engaging the most primitive of your critical faculties, on your own, without being told by those puppeteering you, with your big boy-girl panties on, you're going to have to take an "L".

No matter how safe and secure you feel right now.

The Problem is not Their Illusion, It is Your Dis-illusion

It's a strange feeling when a statement prima facie has merit, yet.... knowing from that will flow only horseshit. "'Fatphobia' and 'fat activism' are helping no one", in terms of overturning quackery in favour of science, that has some truth, however, what follows confirms suspicions,

In my late teens and early twenties this idea of 'combatting fatphobia' became prominent on the left — what did listening to this nonsense get me? Type two diabetes

So, not due to you being on course for that diagnosis, with no real means to alter that trajectory then? I've never met a group of people in my life, who are so totally about insisting the way people talk about this is the issue, rather than the state of the science and the lack of it producing effective means doing something about it. 

It's beyond a joke now or bizarre and is entering into a territory above my intellectual pay grade. It is either the rank insanity of brainwashing, cynicism or both.

This nonsense could have been written by any template fascist tool, give or take a few" socialisms" thrown in here and "capitalisms" thrown in there.

Times have changed, the Morning Star used to be the Communist Party of Great Britain's paper of record. A look at the bottom of the article tells you everything you need to know, "Tom Flanagan is communications and media officer for Scottish Young Labour."

Well there you go. 

The Labour Party, the clowns who just threw the last election-when they didn't even need to bother-and expect to own the vote of anyone remotely Left of Ghenghis Khan, whilst droning on about "reaching out of your comfort zone".

As is usual with 'obesity' promoting clowns, he drops the usual massive clangers-along with the relatively more minor ones. These people are so unchallenged, they don't have to try. One, makes absolutely no mention of science needing to be used to understand how to alter metabolic function and its outcomes, Two asserting that the Left gets it. Three, that they came a cropper health wise due to ceasing to pathologise their body. Four, acts as if CRIWL is fit for purpose and not a pathology in itself.

Fashioning this typically, as a 'debate' between doing or not doing it, rather than finding a method that does what it is supposed to do is not the stance of anyone who's explored self acceptance with any real thought. It's not an opinion, it's a shift in your internal consciousness. It should change your view about a lot of things and give insight.

The phoney debate posture, is the stance of every fatphobe and yes, fat phobia, despite being a neologism is a thing, it is the learned and/or trained hysterical response to fatness. One of the earliest things a lot of fat people do when they are getting done with inhabiting other people's psychotic delusions is to decompress their learned reaction to their own bodies.

I remember doing this myself, years ago. I looked at myself in the mirror, repeatedly, over months, until I no longer responded with the learned revulsion I'd cherished

The opposite of fat phobia is how we look at slim people. When we see a person  who is slim, we see a person, not a pathology. If they are well, they are well, if they are sick, they are afflicted by something, they are not themselves the affliction.

At one point he says, 

Imagine we dealt with any other disease this way?

He's talking about diabetes, so yes, but overall, imagine we treated any aim scientific or otherwise this way. This is a problem, so we aren't just going to solve it, instead, we're just going to keep telling everyone how bad this is, and promote a illusion of  a solution that has failed. By using every lever to press people to keep up an endless cycle of this non-solution, we will somehow, bring reality to its knees.

Imagine that.

Imagine, insisting the problem is not this whole non-strategy and its fail "solution" but people pointing out that the reality of its failure.

In other words, the problem is not the illusion, but the disillusion.

He cannot grasp for himself-because no one has told him-that when you have a kerfuffle like this about something that started off as a simple question of physiological function-how do we reset the body's weight regulation-you have to look at the science that should be at the heart of any question of human biology and ask, why are the professionals making such a mess of this?

When investigating any matter of physiology, one looks to the science to explain and understand what is going on. If that leads to such a lack of clarity and more specifically action that demonstrates grasp, then you know that is the problem, not those it is aimed at.

The fact that this could have been written by anyone in any UK party, is a statement of exactly where UK politics is.