201–210 of 906 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> newly adopted requirement that everybody presenting research at the group's conferences explain how their submission advances "equity, inclusion, and anti-racism goals." Diversity is fine. But every single piece of research has to be related to diversity? Is it not possible to do research on anything else that maybe doesn’t have anything to do with identity issues? This is not a statement about promoting diversity,…
Quoted post unavailable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> censoring and punching Nazis did not stop their rise. 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…
https://www.thefire.org/would-censorship-have-stopped-the-ri...
> Considering the Nazi movement’s core ideology, as espoused by Hitler in “Mein Kampf,” rested on an alleged conspiracy between Jews and their sympathizers in government to politically disempower Aryan Germans, it is not surprising that the Nazis were able to spin government censorship into propaganda victories and seeming confirmation of their claims that they were speaking truth to power, and that power was aligned against them.
I don't find it particularly convincing, but it does explain the strategy of complaining about free speech and censorship by "the jews" has a long history of success, with Nazis. Everyone else thinks, "oh these people are Nazis". But Nazis think, "It's a Jewish Conspiracy to silence the truth", because they are Nazis.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pro-tip: being a "toxic toss-pot" should not be a reason for getting fired. People should not be fired for any non-criminal behavior outside of their workplace, even if it's racist. Employers who fire people over non-criminal supposedly "racist" behavior should be sued and made to pay big bucks.
Being a toxic toss-pot should very much be a reason to be fired. Toxic people are notoriously destructive to the work environment, almost always in a greater degree to what they add -- even if they are top performers. Removing them can result in a more productive/creative team who can now thrive in their absence.
Your employer has no business judging you for how you (non-criminally) behave outside your working time. Firing over any such non-criminal behavior should be punishable severely.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That sounds nice, but the de facto the purpose of a university is the furtherance of the intellectuals. The scientific method's purpose is to get closer to the truth. Some research does happen at universities, but academia in its current state is far from the ideal vessel for that. (Especially when it comes to softer sciences.)
> the de facto the purpose of a university is the furtherance of the intellectuals Yes, and unavoidably so. That is why it is society's task to structure the universities in such a fashion that those goals align with society's goals.
This comment is also a bit odd given the context of the last 5 years of society being ever more overrun by anti-intellectualism, that is diametrically opposed to higher learning.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> censoring and punching Nazis did not stop their rise. 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 written version of their (by which I mean Strossen and other's like Haidt involved in FIRE movement) "anti-hate laws helped the Nazis" argument is found here: https://www.thefire.org/would-censorship-have-stopped-the-ri... > Considering the Nazi movement’s core ideology, as espoused by Hitler in “Mein Kampf,” rested on an alleged conspiracy between Jews and their sympathizers in government to politically disempower…
Can you elaborate on what you find unconvincing about appeals to open discourse? Are you saying you think censorship is more effective?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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. With the small difference being that those groups did not suppress speech by refusing to invite speakers to an event. Let's not put academia memberships and pogroms in the same category.
I wasn't comparing academia to nazis. Rather, I was saying that even in the most extreme situations e.g. nazis and communists, open and civil discourse is still better than censorship. It's also worth noting that FIRE was expressly founded to deal with free speech violations in higher education. FIRE's president often discusses this, for example in a recent interview with Nick Gillespie [1]. FIRE recently expanded to…
I'm annoyed, because there are lots of people who don't realise this is literally about survival for others, not just about free speech ideas.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Being a toxic toss-pot should very much be a reason to be fired. Toxic people are notoriously destructive to the work environment, almost always in a greater degree to what they add -- even if they are top performers. Removing them can result in a more productive/creative team who can now thrive in their absence.
Are they more destructive than woke activists? I very much doubt that. Your employer has no business judging you for how you (non-criminally) behave outside your working time. Firing over any such non-criminal behavior should be punishable severely.
Also, sounds like you think all 'woke activists' everywhere are always destructive. Which is an interesting take. At what point does someone cross the line to become an inherently destructive 'woke' person?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
does it rly change anything? like, take sports. asians have some structural advantages (endomorphism and limb to body ratio) for lifting, west africans at mnay explosive/power sports (fast twitch muscle concentration, arms/legs to body), east africans at long-distance running etc. (lighter structure, efficient muscles over long term), whites at swimming (shoulder structure & torso length). should we stop large swathe…