>>12418875>Math is elitist, because it excludes those who can't do it.When you think about it throughout history, that is not entirely false. Rather than "those who can't do it", it would be, "those who couldn't afford it".
>Math is racist, because of crime statistics.Haven't seen anyone make that claim.
>Math is white supremacist, because many mathematicians were white.Again, some parts of it are true. Indian and Chinese mathematicians are often times not appreciated enough in favor of some westerner. Just look at the "Fibonacci" sequence.
>Math is a social construct, thus anyone can claim a 'personal' math which is correct regardless of logic.
I saw someone with a math phd make this claim on Twitter and I was at awe at the stupidity of it. According to him, anyone could claim that 2+2=5, even without any context, and other people should be the ones to ask the claimer which definitions and context were used to get such a result. This is of course really stupid and defeats the purpose of having language in the first place.
Anyways, I don't think they'll come very far, but is definitely something to keep an eye on.They want to get a Trojan horse inside, the exterior looking like reasonable points, and the interior being absolute nonsense. I think some of their exterior points are valid, just need to keep the inside out.
