191–200 of 906 posts
Wow and I thought psychology was a pseudo-science before!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
The point is, countering negative ideas with suppression does not work . Countering speech with more speech is better. Roger Baldwin, founder of the now gone-astray ACLU, may have put it best [1], > 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 w…
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.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Is it really a conspiracy when we're watching exactly what the theorists said would happen, happen? An earnest, good-hearted, and well-cited author and scientist is removing himself from academia because of the ever-accelerating creep of DEI influence into entirely unrelated work. This sounds like exactly what the so-called 'conspiracy theorists' were trying to warn us about back in 2012 or so. If anything, your comm…
This particular organization wants to follow the antiracist line of thinking, and they probably feel that strengthens their community. He's perfectly entitled to leave it and complain about it. But, the organizations reasons for making people who join the organization align with this values statement seems like it should be their prerogative.
Maybe they feel like to grow as an organization, they need to ask their community to that line of thinking. If they have done the work to understand that's what they should do, isn't it correct, even if they lose a researcher like Haidt?
> because of a newly adopted requirement that everybody presenting research at the group's conferences explain how their submission advances "equity, inclusion, and anti-racism goals." Wow and I thought psychology was a pseudo-science before!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The point is, countering negative ideas with suppression does not work . Countering speech with more speech is better. Roger Baldwin, founder of the now gone-astray ACLU, may have put it best [1], > 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 w…
> 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.
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 cover all free speech issues, but that is where they got started. They've taken over a role that the ACLU has largely abandoned, since they now construe rights to be in conflict with each other, as former Executive Director Ira Glasser mentions [2] with the ACLU's new guidelines [3]:
> "The guidelines are designed to assist in consideration of the competing interests that may arise when such conflicts emerge. The guidelines do not seek to resolve the conflicts, because resolution will virtually always turn on factors specific to each case."
> "The potential conflict between advocacy for free speech and for equal justice in the fight against white supremacy is especially salient, but by no means unique in presenting tensions between ACLU values."
But you're not supposed to construe rights as being in conflict with each other, as implied by the 9th amendment [4]:
> The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people
Like balancing form and function, one should not take away from another.
[1] https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/greg-lukianoff-saving-...
[2] https://youtu.be/x0Lc5b8Flto?t=87
[3] https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/aclu...
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "The telos of a knife is to cut, the telos of medicine is to heal, and the telos of a university is truth."
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.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
Quoted post unavailable.
But I don't like when the vote ranks stifle good retorts, which is what has now happened here. Logged out users won't see this entire thread of replies because the comment to which you are replying is marked "dead".
What's the solution?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
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.
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…