221–230 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…
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…
Is there much of a difference between this and halal/kosher certification?
I am extremely glad I live in a country in continental Europe where this shit is unconstitutional and will be stricken down by the courts immediately (as will be any sort of preferential treatment of any minority in hiring or admissions). Hope it stays that way.
I think there is a burgeoning push back on quotas and such as well. I think the woke crowd pushed their luck a bit too hard. This is coming from a very progressive person (me) but who also feels egalitarianism and personal responsibility should always be the goal and not an afterthought.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is the Motte and Bailey technique. Attacking "Political Correctness" in a vague and non-specific way lets you sound noble. As soon as you specify what that means in practice you just sound like a nasty bully (at best), so best leave that implied. But a quick glance as the history of social science that these things are a direct response to, would reveal people "proving" that various groups are inferior in ways t…
Quoted post unavailable.
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.
Roger Baldwin, founder of the now gone-astray ACLU, said this [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 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."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
The way I read it was he was removing himself from an organization, not from academia entirely. 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 b…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't find it particularly convincing Can you elaborate on what you find unconvincing about appeals to open discourse? Are you saying you think censorship is more effective?
The Nazis were helped by a lot of things. Suggesting that anti-hate speech laws are worth bringing up in this context is like mentioning Hitler was a vegetarian or banned smoking and seems to be sourced to a cartoonist, rather than a historian. Hitler went to jail for 'high treason' after an attempted coup. > Goebbels' tactic of using provocation to bring attention to the Nazi Party, along with violence at the public…
I don’t know if it helped them amass the numbers/backing and cement the ideology that led to the attempted coup, but it definitely didn’t stop it. You can definitely see how pre-existing political street gangs made it easier to justify forming their own street gangs.