DS Forums

 
 

Ukip Donor Mansplains Fall Of Roman Empire To Classicist Mary Beard


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-12-2016, 20:04
Dotheboyshall
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,312

True the Roman Empire was effectively destroyed by immigration

I suppose you could call the Goths & Vandals "immigrants", though perhaps he means those "Christians"
Dotheboyshall is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 06-12-2016, 20:25
St Dabeoc
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,874
what Mary Beard was too polite to mention was that the reasons classical historians have given for the fall of the Roman Empire, whatever that was, from Gibbon up to Mary Beard (presumably), depended on whatever ideas were fashionable at the time
St Dabeoc is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2016, 20:32
WhatJoeThinks
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 10,213
What a bell-end.
WhatJoeThinks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2016, 20:50
cobaye22
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 962
Can we fast forward a decade?
cobaye22 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2016, 21:53
BBWorldWideFan
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Purgatorium
Posts: 17,627
Lost credibiility and my attention the minute you said 'mansplain', sexist pig.
BBWorldWideFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2016, 21:59
BanglaRoad
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Stirling/Windsor/Overseas
Posts: 14,334
Maybe the new UKIP leader Nuttall could have a word.
After all he says he has a PhD although it's entirely made up and a load of rubbish.
BanglaRoad is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2016, 23:19
TerraCanis
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: The Mysterious East
Posts: 5,815
Isn't that the kind of thing that Katie Hopkins would do?
TerraCanis is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2016, 06:59
vanzandtfan
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 8,588
So people are no longer allowed opinions if experts disagree?

Banks made a post about the fall of the Roman empire. His opinion is perfectly valid, and supported by a lot of historians. Beards response wasn't to offer counter arguments, nor try to engage in a debate. Instead her response was "your wrong, I'm right. I'm an expert and your not". Although I've a lot of respect for beard (far more than I have for banks) her response is rather pathetic IMO.

Plus, banks is right. The barbarian invasions were a factor in the fall of the western empire. We can debate whether it was the main factor, or whether other weaknesses in the empire left it unable to deal with the migrations, but to pretend that it wasn't a factor is ludicrous.

Frankly I think that beads posts were more motivated by political ideology rather than historical accuracy, hence her refusal to actually offer counter arguments. It sums up perfectly why people are increasingly sceptical about experts, particular in the soft sciences and humanities. Sure, we should listen to such experts and weigh up what they are saying, but we shouldnt just accept whatever they say simply because they are experts. They maybe experts, but they are also human, and therefore subject to all the same cognitive biases as the rest of us.
vanzandtfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2016, 07:09
Charnham
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: nr Peterborough, England
Posts: 48,127
I find this post offensive, it should be "UKIP Idiot Explains...." I do not wish to be associated with a UKIP type, based on my gender alone.
Charnham is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2016, 09:06
SaturnV
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 5,621
Mansplains?
SaturnV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2016, 09:56
marjangles
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 6,773
So people are no longer allowed opinions if experts disagree?

Banks made a post about the fall of the Roman empire. His opinion is perfectly valid, and supported by a lot of historians. Beards response wasn't to offer counter arguments, nor try to engage in a debate. Instead her response was "your wrong, I'm right. I'm an expert and your not". Although I've a lot of respect for beard (far more than I have for banks) her response is rather pathetic IMO.

Plus, banks is right. The barbarian invasions were a factor in the fall of the western empire. We can debate whether it was the main factor, or whether other weaknesses in the empire left it unable to deal with the migrations, but to pretend that it wasn't a factor is ludicrous.

Frankly I think that beads posts were more motivated by political ideology rather than historical accuracy, hence her refusal to actually offer counter arguments. It sums up perfectly why people are increasingly sceptical about experts, particular in the soft sciences and humanities. Sure, we should listen to such experts and weigh up what they are saying, but we shouldnt just accept whatever they say simply because they are experts. They maybe experts, but they are also human, and therefore subject to all the same cognitive biases as the rest of us.
Banks' initial post was motivated by political ideology though wasn't it? I mean a UKIP bankroller claiming immigration was the cause of the fall of the Roman Empire to make a point about the present situation isn't exactly politically neutral. He certainly wasn't basing his opinion on historical research but rather lessons from school from a guy whose name he can't even remember which doesn't exactly bode well for him remembering what he learned either.

I find it truly worrying that people are so quick to dismiss experts these days. Sure it's important when studying anything to actually do some research yourself and to listen to a range of experts from various perspectives before making any decisions on what you believe but Banks doesn't appear to have done any of that. He makes an ill-informed statement and people leap to his defense because it's his 'opinion' and decry Beard because she dares to stick up for her subject . This is no better than the goons who'll happily tell you that the empire collapsed due to acceptance of homosexuality.

And Beard told him that in her considered opinion that facts didn't bear out what he was saying and that he should do some more reading on the topic, isn't that what she should do, isn't that her right? That's why she challenged him to name the historians that he was relying on when he made his initial statement and why ultimately he backed down because his opinion was baseless.

For what it's worth the fall of the Roman Empire was a hugely complex process (indeed some historians suggest it didn't actually fall fully until the Ottoman takeover of Constantinople in the fifteenth century) and trying to boil it down into a soundbite for political purposes is dangerous. I'm glad Beard stepped in to stop him getting away with spouting yet more dissembling dressed as fact.
marjangles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2016, 09:57
soma_
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 650
So people are no longer allowed opinions if experts disagree?

Banks made a post about the fall of the Roman empire. His opinion is perfectly valid, and supported by a lot of historians. Beards response wasn't to offer counter arguments, nor try to engage in a debate. Instead her response was "your wrong, I'm right. I'm an expert and your not". Although I've a lot of respect for beard (far more than I have for banks) her response is rather pathetic IMO.

Plus, banks is right. The barbarian invasions were a factor in the fall of the western empire. We can debate whether it was the main factor, or whether other weaknesses in the empire left it unable to deal with the migrations, but to pretend that it wasn't a factor is ludicrous.

Frankly I think that beads posts were more motivated by political ideology rather than historical accuracy, hence her refusal to actually offer counter arguments. It sums up perfectly why people are increasingly sceptical about experts, particular in the soft sciences and humanities. Sure, we should listen to such experts and weigh up what they are saying, but we shouldnt just accept whatever they say simply because they are experts. They maybe experts, but they are also human, and therefore subject to all the same cognitive biases as the rest of us.
yes his having an opinion is valid, but he was wrong to be simplistic and also claim that his historical knowledge was of some 40 years ago was greater than marys understanding as an expert.

he was using the fall of roman empire - as he claimed due to invasion - because he was pushing an anti immigrant - anti muslim - narrative as a threat to europe. the same narrative of the alt-right-bnp-edl-bf and the far right across europe that ukip sponsors. he was trying to justify his extremism, its why mary didnt engage.

marys response was more to the idea of 'who needs experts' to inform. why engage with someone who thinks he knows more than experts based on remembering school level history lessons.

he wasnt really offering any historical insight.
soma_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2016, 10:14
netcurtains
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Hull
Posts: 15,887
Bless him for trying though eh
netcurtains is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2016, 10:21
Ben_Copland
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Work, probably..
Posts: 3,837
How positively boring. Twitter arguments.. yawn!
Ben_Copland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2016, 10:32
TrollHunter
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 7,697
2016 term for a man explaining something to a woman. Because 'explains' is too difficult a concept for some people to comprehend.
TrollHunter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2016, 10:35
Ben_Copland
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Work, probably..
Posts: 3,837
2016 term for a man explaining something to a woman. Because 'explains' is too difficult a concept for some people to comprehend.
Isn't that when someone who used to be attached to you 'splains something?
Ben_Copland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2016, 12:15
D_Mcd4
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 4,461
So many idiotic buzzwords about these days. I was just mansplaing to a SJW what virtue-signalling meant from my safe splace.
D_Mcd4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2016, 12:19
Harvey_Specter
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: London
Posts: 598
So many idiotic buzzwords about these days. I was just mansplaing to a SJW what virtue-signalling meant from my safe splace.
But it's not an idiotic buzzword, it's a word which describes a specific thing concisely.
Harvey_Specter is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2016, 12:26
DadDancer
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 3,606
But it's not an idiotic buzzword, it's a word which describes a specific thing concisely.
No it's just a word disgruntled feminists use.
DadDancer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2016, 12:29
Girth
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 9,338
No it's just a word disgruntled feminists use.
'Feminazis', I think you'll find.
Girth is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2016, 12:29
vanzandtfan
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 8,588
Banks' initial post was motivated by political ideology though wasn't it? I mean a UKIP bankroller claiming immigration was the cause of the fall of the Roman Empire to make a point about the present situation isn't exactly politically neutral. He certainly wasn't basing his opinion on historical research but rather lessons from school from a guy whose name he can't even remember which doesn't exactly bode well for him remembering what he learned either.
Of course it was politically motivated. However I think its somewhat different for a layman to post a politically motivated statement, than it is for an expert who some people will take as fact simply because of their status

I find it truly worrying that people are so quick to dismiss experts these days. Sure it's important when studying anything to actually do some research yourself and to listen to a range of experts from various perspectives before making any decisions on what you believe but Banks doesn't appear to have done any of that. He makes an ill-informed statement and people leap to his defense because it's his 'opinion' and decry Beard because she dares to stick up for her subject . This is no better than the goons who'll happily tell you that the empire collapsed due to acceptance of homosexuality.

And Beard told him that in her considered opinion that facts didn't bear out what he was saying and that he should do some more reading on the topic, isn't that what she should do, isn't that her right? That's why she challenged him to name the historians that he was relying on when he made his initial statement and why ultimately he backed down because his opinion was baseless.
First, why do you think his opinion was baseless. Do you think the barbarian migrations didn't play a role in the fall of the western empire? That's pretty far fetched IMO. The last book I read on the subject put it as one of the primary causes.

Second, you miss the point I was making. Beard has every right to disagree with banks, it's the way she went about it which I object to. She made no effort to debate the facts, no counter arguments, no "you should try reading the latest research by x who demonstrated that x was the cause of the fall of the western empire". Nope none of that. Just I'm right and your wrong. That's not rational debate, it's just appeal to authority, a blatant logical fallacy.

For what it's worth the fall of the Roman Empire was a hugely complex process (indeed some historians suggest it didn't actually fall fully until the Ottoman takeover of Constantinople in the fifteenth century) and trying to boil it down into a soundbite for political purposes is dangerous. I'm glad Beard stepped in to stop him getting away with spouting yet more dissembling dressed as fact.
Of course it's complicated, and I'm more than happy for beard to disagree,its the way she went about it that I think was wrong.

Anyway, I've spent enough of my time defending someone I think is a bit of a part, against someone I respect, so I'll bow out now.
vanzandtfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2016, 12:31
scottie2121
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,307
No it's just a word disgruntled feminists use.
No. It's like so many other buzzwords, something used by morons who can't use simple, direct and effective plain English.
scottie2121 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2016, 12:31
Harvey_Specter
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: London
Posts: 598
No it's just a word disgruntled feminists use.
I'm neither disgruntled nor a feminist.

No doubt someone will pipe up with the usual Feminazi and miss the irony of that buzzword.
Harvey_Specter is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2016, 12:32
Harvey_Specter
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: London
Posts: 598
No. It's like so many other buzzwords, something used by morons who can't use simple, direct and effective plain English.
Harvey_Specter is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2016, 12:33
D_Mcd4
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 4,461
But it's not an idiotic buzzword, it's a word which describes a specific thing concisely.
No, it's a buzzword and quit trying to mansplain to me it's not.
D_Mcd4 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 13:54.