181–190 of 906 posts
Free Speech for Me--But Not for Thee: How the American Left and Right Relentlessly Censor Each Other (1992) [1] is a good read on how we got to a point where our ability to communicate across ideologies appears to be broken in many ways. For example, in 1963 Yale disinvited George Wallace, who was popular in the deep south, as a speaker. As a result, observers were deprived of a chance to hear opposing speakers' argu…
"Now that many university presidents have agreed to implement many of the demands, I believe that the conflict between truth and social justice is likely to become unmanageable." Can someone ELI5 what is this conflict between truth and social justice Haidt refers to?
In other words a researcher studying a topic unrelated to diversity will need to lie by claiming that there is a link.
Free Speech for Me--But Not for Thee: How the American Left and Right Relentlessly Censor Each Other (1992) [1] is a good read on how we got to a point where our ability to communicate across ideologies appears to be broken in many ways. For example, in 1963 Yale disinvited George Wallace, who was popular in the deep south, as a speaker. As a result, observers were deprived of a chance to hear opposing speakers' argu…
Quoted post unavailable.
Another more extreme example would be the Nazis. They went through early political suppression and existed in an environment where organized political street violence was already common. Who knows what the counterfactual was, but censoring and punching Nazis did not stop their rise. The Coming of the Third Reich by Richard Evans is a good book on this. It certainly seems that extremism is fostered by such environments.
It is good to go to the sources - but the obvious source I found appears to be [0] a recursive link so that isn't too helpful. Throwing babies out with the bathwater is bad and doing studies with diverse participants seems like a good idea. The statement can say "this research doesn't further the SPSP's goals" So I don't see why the statement itself would be objectionable. The objection would be if the statement is u…
They would pass the reviewing process where they would receive the lowest score on the "3-point rating scale".
It would also mean by negation that the submission did not employ "diverse research participants", "diverse research methods (e.g., methodology that promotes equity)", or "diverse members of the research team", which basically would be viewed as a self-indictment in our political climate. Nobody with an interest to succeed would willingly arrive at this conclusion, they would view it as necessary to avoid it (like by making up reasons as to why the submission advances anti-racism).
In other words, the requirement to include the statement is a way of enforcing the stated goals and policing the researchers' conformity.
Free Speech for Me--But Not for Thee: How the American Left and Right Relentlessly Censor Each Other (1992) [1] is a good read on how we got to a point where our ability to communicate across ideologies appears to be broken in many ways. For example, in 1963 Yale disinvited George Wallace, who was popular in the deep south, as a speaker. As a result, observers were deprived of a chance to hear opposing speakers' argu…
Quoted post unavailable.
> Host: "What possible reason is there for giving civil liberties to people who will use those civil liberties in order to destroy the civil liberties of all the rest?"
> Roger: "That's a classic argument you know, that's what they said about the nazis and the communists, that if they got into power they'd suppress all the rest of us. Therefore, we'd suppress them first. We're going to use their methods before they can use it."
> "Well that is contrary to our experience. In a democratic society, if you let them all talk, even those who would deny civil liberties and would overthrow the government, that's the best way to prevent them from doing it."
Regarding your claim that this is only "faintly" related to free speech, you should know that Jonathan Haidt is very near to that issue. He co-authored a book [2] with the current president of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), Greg Lukianoff. See also: Jonathan Haidt on the moral roots of liberals and conservatives [3]
[1] https://youtu.be/ND_uY_KXGgY?t=1225
[2] https://www.amazon.com/Coddling-American-Mind-Intentions-Gen...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don’t believe the propaganda. “Anti-racism” is actually about racism against Asians. “Equity” is actually about lowering the standards and destroying meritocracy. “Inclusion” is actually about excluding people that have different political or moral opinions (e.g. that don’t want to be racist against Asians or that support meritocracy).
> “Equity” is actually about lowering the standards and destroying meritocracy. The "meritocracy" that includes your rich parents into your "merit".
By the way, this is the meritocratic way because we're looking for best people, which includes identifying unrealized talent and then nurturing it.
Instead, the SJW/woke way is "reduce standards until everybody passes", literally https://www.wsj.com/articles/california-leftists-try-to-canc... (a.k.a. everybody equal, everybody stupid akin to Communism's everybody equal, everybody poor)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
I think this is exactly what they’re talking about. In no way did the grandparent endorse or glorify Wallace; his implication was that Wallace would have been less popular had he and therefore his opponents been heard. But in this environment, merely suggesting a person should be heard is taken as a strident endorsement. Another more extreme example would be the Nazis. They went through early political suppression an…
Precisely. Nadine Strossen, president of the ACLU board from 1991-2008, argues that censorship helped the Nazis [1]
> "In the Weimar Republic there were laws very similar to the anti hate speech laws that still exist in Germany today. And they were very strictly enforced, there was an umbrella of Jewish organizations in the Weimar Republic, the head of which did a study. They said that these laws are by and large being strictly enforced, the prosecutions are being capably handled, there were many convictions, including of Nazis, and the Nazis loved the propaganda. They got far more attention than they otherwise would have, became free speech martyrs, actually had posters saying, 'In all of Germany why is this one man silenced?' They gained sympathy and attention that they otherwise never would have."
This is by grasping at straws trying to find a relationship between their decades-long research thrust and a shiny new requirement popular among the administrative class that is now in charge.
There’s a large scale pushback against this new religion and it’s happening fast.