281–290 of 906 posts
> Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) Hiding in plain sight, as they say xD
FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) has been defending student rights from attacks from all sides since the late 90s, well before any of this social justice stuff. They've done innumerable good works that your slanderous implications here deny without cause simply because the world changed around them and they're not exclusively protecting students from one political block instead of all political bl…
And I like this phrase: "inability to discern shades of grey due to polarization". It is well-said. Many intersting intellectual discussions are about exploring shades of grey in a difficult topic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interestingly, in my EU country we have explicit laws in constitution which forbid any kind of preferential treatment or discrimination based on gender, race and etc. However, there are agencies and courts who allow affirmative action policies to exist. For example, a public grant for entrepreneurs where women are officially awarded extra points for their gender. So basically constitution is ignored and no one cares.
In Switzerland it's illegal to make a difference between genders...however since a very short time woman's had to work not as long as men, now some woman cry it's unfair and blablabla, and there is still one or more thing, woman's don't have to go to military-service OR pay money for not going. But if you say that, some of them will tell you that they would do that if they earn the same as men, but that is already in…
> Appropriate measures aimed at achieving true equality are not regarded as discriminatory.
https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/1996/1498_1498_1498/de#ar...
The article doesn't quote or link to the policy in question, seems difficult to get a neutral point of view without actually reading the changes to the policy. Edit: the link was in the sixth paragraph, but it's much less damning than the article frames it.
The article clearly says this: “In order to present research at the conference, all social psychologists are now required to submit a statement explaining 'whether and how this submission advances the equity, inclusion, and anti-racism goals of SPSP.’”
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…
Private academic institutions (in the US-sense / not-government-funded) have no blanket obligation to separate from church, because they aren't the state.
I assume at least some of this research is funded with public grants. That might be from where pressure can be exerted.
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…
Have y'all considered that this is what the "talking" looks like?
I see a whole bunch of noise about "CENSORSHIP IS RAMPANT!" and I'm kind of like, no silly -- this noise IS the signal.
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…
The source doesn't actually say whether submissions not advancing "SPSP's goal of promoting equity, inclusion and anti-racism" would be accepted though. 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 promote…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, the correct answer to this is "provide free/subsidised schooling to exceptional people who cannot otherwise afford it". 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...…
Meritocracy is opposed to egalitarianism. After all, people with advantages rise to the top, whether that's upbringing, talent, or gene.
But even with the same starting conditions/talent/upbringing/genes, some people will climb further than others. Effort, creativity, etc. We as society should encourage that and reward people who achieve more, for the common benefit of all.
The article doesn't quote or link to the policy in question, seems difficult to get a neutral point of view without actually reading the changes to the policy. Edit: the link was in the sixth paragraph, but it's much less damning than the article frames it.
https://spsp.org/events/demonstrating-our-commitment-anti-ra...