The Academic Bubble • Hacker News Board

Re: The Academic Bubble

#31

Post by ahoyhere » Sun, Sep 19, 2010, 8:56 PM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #23

ahoyhere wrote: post #10

Did nobody notice the other articles linked at the bottom of this one? For example: "Black Children Do Not Need a Western-style Education" I, for one, would like to see a little bit more criticism of things being posted to HN, and their sources. Because once people know the HN push-button issues, unquestioning readers can be easily lured down the path to thinking and believing very nasty things. Despite what the 'log…

I'm confused. How are facts skewered by intent? The author cites an article at the NYT which points out that black children are suspended more than whites. He then points out that this suggests black children are more likely to exhibit behavior problems, hindering the education process for better behaved white children. He then advocates segregating black children from white children, except for the minority who have…

He quoted an entire, extremely racist essay to support his point. That way he let somebody else argue in his stead, without getting his hands dirty. Example:

"Blacks are keenly interested in their own racial characteristics."

"Blacks break down the intimacy that can be achieved in the classroom"

"One point on which all blacks agree is that everything is “racis’.”"

"Anyone who teaches blacks soon learns that they have a completely different view of government from whites."

"Blacks are extraordinarily quick to take offense."

"But the real black is not on television..."

There's no way you can take these statements and say they are anything but flat-out racist. It's one thing to say "This is my experience in a certain school with black students" and it's another thing entirely to say "Blacks are." If the author is telling the truth, then he mentions many "facts" of his experience.

However, he doesn't settle for merely reporting it as his experience. He skewers those facts - with intent - into de-personalized blanket statements.

Which are clearly and irrefutably racist:

"Racism is the belief that race is a primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism

Him allowing that there might be a few "specially sensitive blacks" doesn't excuse him from racism.

Now, again, the author of the "essay" in question quoted this other author more than at length -- he quoted him in full. While he studiously did not MENTION the entire essay length piece embedded in his blog post, he clearly condones it. There's no way around it: racist, of the highest degree.

Re: The Academic Bubble

#32

Post by shod » Sun, Sep 19, 2010, 9:23 PM UTC

[deleted] wrote: post #30

shod wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A couple of Scott's archived articles turned my stomach, Watermelon. Such as this piece, where he details his preference for foreign women, because they're more submissive, easily-flattered, and wear skirts: http://www.alternativeright.com/main/the-magazine/the-case-f... It's extremely revealing that he suggests Mel Gibson's attitude toward women as exemplary. His articles on class structure expose a rather violent i…

[deleted]

I saw that you've been reading his articles for a year, so it makes sense that your views reflect his misogyny and subscription to the violent totalitarian credo that might makes right. You wouldn't tolerate him otherwise.

Locklin was no more making a defense for the skirt than I was making a criticism of it. His position is that the proper state of a woman is to wear dresses and skirts, and that the only possible reason for wearing pants is that she's ashamed of her gender. His position, in other words, is that women should be easily identifiable by a uniform. This is part of his preference for women who are subservient and can be kept in what he feels is their proper place.

That you attempt to frame this in terms of liberty reveals that you recognize the shamefulness of this attitude. Well, shame on you.

On class wars: Locklin proposes to "get along with a lower class person" by beating them until they "lick the boots that kick them". Even if class warfare were inescapable, Locklin's views offer no insight except into the violence of his own imagination, and my point was simply that.

You may think your views are legitimatized in seeing them written by someone who claims intellectual authority (even while railing against the institutions who credit it), but the rest of us recognize them for what they truly are: crude, violent, and misogynistic. You are right on this much: I'm not convinced we can fairly add racism to that list, but I'd hardly be surprised to be proven wrong.

Re: The Academic Bubble

#33

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Sep 19, 2010, 10:21 PM UTC

shod wrote: post #32

[deleted] wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[deleted]

I saw that you've been reading his articles for a year, so it makes sense that your views reflect his misogyny and subscription to the violent totalitarian credo that might makes right. You wouldn't tolerate him otherwise. Locklin was no more making a defense for the skirt than I was making a criticism of it. His position is that the proper state of a woman is to wear dresses and skirts, and that the only possible re…

[deleted]

Re: The Academic Bubble

#34

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Sep 19, 2010, 10:37 PM UTC

ahoyhere wrote: post #31

yummyfajitas wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm confused. How are facts skewered by intent? The author cites an article at the NYT which points out that black children are suspended more than whites. He then points out that this suggests black children are more likely to exhibit behavior problems, hindering the education process for better behaved white children. He then advocates segregating black children from white children, except for the minority who have…

He quoted an entire, extremely racist essay to support his point. That way he let somebody else argue in his stead, without getting his hands dirty. Example: "Blacks are keenly interested in their own racial characteristics." "Blacks break down the intimacy that can be achieved in the classroom" "One point on which all blacks agree is that everything is “racis’.”" "Anyone who teaches blacks soon learns that they have…

[deleted]

Re: The Academic Bubble

#35

Post by yummyfajitas » Sun, Sep 19, 2010, 11:00 PM UTC

ahoyhere wrote: post #31

yummyfajitas wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm confused. How are facts skewered by intent? The author cites an article at the NYT which points out that black children are suspended more than whites. He then points out that this suggests black children are more likely to exhibit behavior problems, hindering the education process for better behaved white children. He then advocates segregating black children from white children, except for the minority who have…

He quoted an entire, extremely racist essay to support his point. That way he let somebody else argue in his stead, without getting his hands dirty. Example: "Blacks are keenly interested in their own racial characteristics." "Blacks break down the intimacy that can be achieved in the classroom" "One point on which all blacks agree is that everything is “racis’.”" "Anyone who teaches blacks soon learns that they have…

You've convinced me that Alex Kurtagic is racist, which I never really doubted. You have yet to explain why pointing out this fact invalidates his reasoning, or the reasoning of Scott Locklin.

In fact, I don't think you even are trying to argue against his reasoning. I think you are instead attempting to lull us into a false sense of sharing an identity with you. And that, according to all kinds of psychological research, can end up with us conforming to your other ideals as well -- if we believe they go part and parcel together, we will, on some level, strive for consistency [1].

You are hoping that if we pay a lot of attention to Alex Kurtagic being racist, we will share an identity with you ("I'm not racist at all"). Then, based on a shared identity, we will assume that Scott Locklin's opinions must be wrong, without even examining the content of his argument.

I think HN is smarter than that [2].

[1] Yes, I did steal that paragraph.

[2] I realize I'm playing the same game ahoyhere is.