Mandated diversity statement drives Jonathan Haidt to quit academic society • Hacker News Board

Re: Mandated diversity statement drives Jonathan Haidt to quit academic society

#371

Post by hackerlight » Sun, Oct 02, 2022, 4:40 PM UTC

ianai wrote: post #311

yummypaint wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once one realizes that tolerance follows the model of a peace treaty rather than a moral precept, these apparent dilemmas resolve themselves. Treaties only protect parties who abide by their terms. There is no contradiction in being intolerant of intolerance.

I think this is a pivot society ought to make in a larger extent very soon. Applies to things like “nuclear extortion” ala Russian in Ukraine too.

I am becoming more sympathetic to this, too. Real liberals (not necessarily leftists, although perhaps so) need to start punching back, hard. Slippery slopes are real and we're on one.

Re: Mandated diversity statement drives Jonathan Haidt to quit academic society

#372

Post by pas » Sun, Oct 02, 2022, 4:41 PM UTC

zmgsabst wrote: post #235

pas wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's ... not how this works. This is not a zero-sum thing. (Even if there are parts of the problem where the actual conflicts are zero-sum, ie. there's a limit of how many first-year students can fit into classes, etc.) Discriminating against already well off groups to help chronically not well-off groups (affirmative action) is of course discrimination but the consequence is very unlikely to cause the well-off gro…

Saying that it’s okay to discriminate against poor Whites, Jews, and Asians because some are rich is entirely racist: You’re viewing people as defined by their race, not their individual attributes and histories.

No one said that, and I don't view people as that. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Re: Mandated diversity statement drives Jonathan Haidt to quit academic society

#373

Post by shellami » Sun, Oct 02, 2022, 4:44 PM UTC

wcerfgba wrote: post #276

rhaksw wrote: post #173

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…

> Censorship is all these characters need to gain new followers. No, they also need a platform to make people aware of their existence, their views, and to recast their censorship to be in their favour. The whole point of no-platforming individuals is to make a statement that their views are seen as reprehensible and to stop them from being able to air those views to an audience. Not all ideological disputes are abou…

All we need to do to end piracy or pornography is "no-platform" it, right?

Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Rational or not, it's better for bad ideas (ignoring the even more pernicious question of who decides which ideas are "bad") to be examined than have them fester in dark corners.

Re: Mandated diversity statement drives Jonathan Haidt to quit academic society

#374

Post by thisiscorrect » Sun, Oct 02, 2022, 4:44 PM UTC

hackerlight wrote: post #360

pessimizer wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No, they also need a platform to make people aware of their existence, their views, and to recast their censorship to be in their favour. The whole point of no-platforming individuals is to make a statement that their views are seen as reprehensible and to stop them from being able to air those views to an audience. The only way that this works is to exert total control of the content of all communications. Otherwi…

Quoted post unavailable.

>Ideas, especially those that stoke resentments, are like viruses.

The problem is that people make statements like this but apply them selectively. E.g., platforms like major news networks are happy to give airtime to the claim that people alive today, who never owned slaves and are very likely not descended from anyone who did, must pay reparations to others alive today who were never enslaved and may well not be descended from slaves. These same platforms also give airtime to those claiming all societal ills stem from one ethnic group or another (as long as it's the "right" ethnic group being blamed).

This incredibly skewed double standard isn't fooling anyone.

Re: Mandated diversity statement drives Jonathan Haidt to quit academic society

#375

Post by orf » Sun, Oct 02, 2022, 4:44 PM UTC

canadiantim wrote: post #365

orf wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, because the acronym is DEI…

mhmm, because of course everyone knows that we order the letters in an acronym according to the least rememberable order, right?

You seem to know very little about the topic and yet seem to have strong opinions about what the “social justice crowd” is up to.

I’d reflect on that.

Re: Mandated diversity statement drives Jonathan Haidt to quit academic society

#376

Post by fareesh » Sun, Oct 02, 2022, 4:44 PM UTC

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #341

memish wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have laws for separation of church and state, they should be applied to this as any other. This is a religion. It's the same as any religious group trying to impose their morality and beliefs on everyone else. To be a good person use the correct words and correct ideas as defined by us, the good people. If you disagree you are a bad person. Sinful, evil. How can you disagree with the Holy Words, Diversity, Inclusi…

Like most religious analogies in this area, I completely agree with it as a framework but don't really follow the conclusions. If it's a religion, surely part of living in a secular society is allowing people to practice it freely, even if that means that some conferences (or professors, or schools) adopt explicit creeds. I do worry, because I think this particular religion is factually wrong in ways that matter a lo…

> the idea that academics should never let their core beliefs impact their work isn't really realistic.

I wanted to explore this a bit. Let's hypothesize that the academic is in some ISIL dominated region and the caliphate says that all research must further the goals of caliphate expansion and the spread of the religion. If an academic were to write an equivalent statement - is it their core belief, or are they simply saying the Emperor's clothes are beautiful?

Given the ideal role of academia in society, isn't the latter possibility quite harmful?

Re: Mandated diversity statement drives Jonathan Haidt to quit academic society

#377

Post by jdlshore » Sun, Oct 02, 2022, 4:45 PM UTC

CrazyPyroLinux wrote: post #320

krapp wrote: post #247

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. 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 governm…

So in order to prevent book burnings we must...burn books that advocate book burnings?

The argument is for deplatforming, so it would be more accurate to say, “in order to prevent book burnings, we must not give them any assistance in publicizing their thoughts.”

Deplatforming doesn’t forcibly prevent speech, it just pushes it to the margins. You can still publish your book in favor of book burnings, but, in a deplatforming world, no major publisher would publish it, so you’d have to do a small independent print run that would likely be ignored.

This is the way the world has always worked. Publishers (including TV channels, newspapers, etc.) have always exercised discretion over what they thought was worthy to publish. What’s different today is that the human content moderation has largely disappeared, which has allowed the marginal voices (antivax on both left and right, QAnon, etc.) to flourish.

Edit: That’s not to say this content moderation has been perfect. It allows small communities to exercise behavior that the larger society finds abhorrent, such as refusing service to people of color. And so laws are passed regulating what small communities can do, which understandably pisses them off. Human systems are messy; there’s no absolutist answer that works, either in unbridled control or unbridled tolerance.

Re: Mandated diversity statement drives Jonathan Haidt to quit academic society

#378

Post by hackerlight » Sun, Oct 02, 2022, 4:46 PM UTC

thisiscorrect wrote: post #374

hackerlight wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

>Ideas, especially those that stoke resentments, are like viruses. The problem is that people make statements like this but apply them selectively. E.g., platforms like major news networks are happy to give airtime to the claim that people alive today, who never owned slaves and are very likely not descended from anyone who did, must pay reparations to others alive today who were never enslaved and may well not be de…

How is this relevant to the question of whether censorship is effective?

Re: Mandated diversity statement drives Jonathan Haidt to quit academic society

#379

Post by nilespotter » Sun, Oct 02, 2022, 4:46 PM UTC

orf wrote: post #249

canadiantim wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone else find it unsettling that the acronym the social justice crowd settled on was DIE (Diversity, Inclusion, Equality)?

No, because the acronym is DEI…

I've always said DIE

Re: Mandated diversity statement drives Jonathan Haidt to quit academic society

#380

Post by plasticchris » Sun, Oct 02, 2022, 4:47 PM UTC

canadiantim wrote: post #364

plasticchris wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Equity, not equality. Big difference (almost the opposite meaning !)

What is equity if not equality then? (Honest question, as I just assumed it was equality as generally that's something we've been historically striving for.)

I'll do my best at an honest answer then :)

Equity is equality of outcomes (done by explicitly redirecting resources as needed to get this result). As opposed to equal opportunity which is what is generally meant by "equality".

Or to ELI5 it's treating people differently to get them all to the same position, instead of treating everyone the same. The argument for "equity" is then that we aren't all starting from the same place. It's the same line of reasoning that justified affirmative action in the US.