• TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
  • Follow
    • Follow
    • facebook
    • twitter
    • google+
    • instagram
    • youtube
Hearst Corporation
  • TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
Forums
  • Register
  • Login
  • Forums
  • General Discussion Forums
  • General Discussion
Ukip Donor Mansplains Fall Of Roman Empire To Classicist Mary Beard
<<
<
1 of 2
>>
>
Dotheboyshall
06-12-2016
True the Roman Empire was effectively destroyed by immigration

I suppose you could call the Goths & Vandals "immigrants", though perhaps he means those "Christians"
St Dabeoc
06-12-2016
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
WhatJoeThinks
06-12-2016
What a bell-end.
cobaye22
06-12-2016
Can we fast forward a decade?
BBWorldWideFan
06-12-2016
Lost credibiility and my attention the minute you said 'mansplain', sexist pig.
BanglaRoad
06-12-2016
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.
TerraCanis
06-12-2016
Isn't that the kind of thing that Katie Hopkins would do?
vanzandtfan
07-12-2016
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.
Charnham
07-12-2016
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.
SaturnV
07-12-2016
Mansplains?
marjangles
07-12-2016
Originally Posted by vanzandtfan:
“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.
soma_
07-12-2016
Originally Posted by vanzandtfan:
“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.
netcurtains
07-12-2016
Bless him for trying though eh
Ben_Copland
07-12-2016
How positively boring. Twitter arguments.. yawn!
TrollHunter
07-12-2016
Originally Posted by SaturnV:
“Mansplains?”

2016 term for a man explaining something to a woman. Because 'explains' is too difficult a concept for some people to comprehend.
Ben_Copland
07-12-2016
Originally Posted by TrollHunter:
“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?
D_Mcd4
07-12-2016
Originally Posted by SaturnV:
“Mansplains?”

So many idiotic buzzwords about these days. I was just mansplaing to a SJW what virtue-signalling meant from my safe splace.
Harvey_Specter
07-12-2016
Originally Posted by D_Mcd4:
“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.
DadDancer
07-12-2016
Originally Posted by Harvey_Specter:
“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.
Girth
07-12-2016
Originally Posted by DadDancer:
“No it's just a word disgruntled feminists use. ”

'Feminazis', I think you'll find.
vanzandtfan
07-12-2016
Originally Posted by marjangles:
“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

Quote:
“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.

Quote:
“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.
scottie2121
07-12-2016
Originally Posted by DadDancer:
“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.
Harvey_Specter
07-12-2016
Originally Posted by DadDancer:
“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
07-12-2016
Originally Posted by scottie2121:
“No. It's like so many other buzzwords, something used by morons who can't use simple, direct and effective plain English.”

D_Mcd4
07-12-2016
Originally Posted by Harvey_Specter:
“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.
<<
<
1 of 2
>>
>
VIEW DESKTOP SITE TOP

JOIN US HERE

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Hearst Corporation

Hearst Corporation

DIGITAL SPY, PART OF THE HEARST UK ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK

© 2015 Hearst Magazines UK is the trading name of the National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.

  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Complaints
  • Site Map