Mandated diversity statement drives Jonathan Haidt to quit academic society

yes, but the persons point wasn't that its good/bad but wether its the best disinfectant (in my interpretation that means effectiveness)

so, censorship may be morally bad or wrong and also very effective, and its the fact that it is effective and working is why there is a very loud objection to it

thats all im pointing out

sorry if maybe we are talking past each other!

What are the examples of ideological grift? I just found out about Kendi through this comment thread and a simple Google search didn't yield anything.

For too long, Kendi told the audience, society’s understanding of racism has focused on the perpetrators rather than the victims. “We should be outcome-centered and victim-centered,” he said. “If a policy is leading to racial injustice, it doesn’t really matter if the policymaker intended for that policy to lead to racial injustice. If an idea is suggesting that white people are superior, it doesn’t really matter if the expressor of that idea intended for that idea to connote white superiority.”

If we train our focus on outcomes and victims, Kendi said, “intention will become irrelevant.”

https://news.yale.edu/2020/12/07/kendi-racism-about-power-an...

The book presents 5 questions to settle the question of "Am I racist?"

__always giving primacy to the individual over the collective, or group;

__always embracing the concept of individual rights to help me judge problematic social interactions;

__never assessing quantities of stuff in gauging whether a policy is racist;

__always attempting to embrace the “color-blind rule” when making choices;

__always maintaining awareness of the distinctions between equity and equality; never compromizing equality of rights in order to bring about equity of stuff.

the central idea of antiracism seems to be that all racial groups are equal, and therefore, any inequality is proof of racism, and any policy that arguably contributed to that inequality is also racist. This too, does not make sense. If inequality is due to racism, how can we explain inequality within racial groups? Why do white people in one state make more money than in another state? Why do chlidren from two parent households generally do better academically than children from single parent households of the same race? Racism can't be the answer. And Kendi rarely offers any proof that racism is the primary source of inequality between groups, let alone the only source. The book also feels overly long and highly repetitive, with Kendi driving home the same handful of points/ideas over and over again.

> You didn't actually answer my request for evidence, though

I agree with the NYT that censorship is rooted in fear [1].

Evidence is aplenty of the benefits of open discourse. In real-world places where open discourse is encouraged, people and ideas thrive. Also, saying "you need to be protected from other people's words" is not a winning argument in the public sphere. People want to be trusted to make their own decisions about how to feel, not have the importance of speech dictated to them.

It's really only a small minority who seek protection against certain viewpoints, and they too want to be able to express themselves. Unfortunately, censorship is also used against them, often with prejudice and without their knowledge [2]. History has shown how this has happened over and over, for example in "Don't Be a Sucker" (1947) [3]. If you choose to ignore it, that is your prerogative. History is evidence.

> I think is the study we've been discussing

Thanks for linking it, that's not the one I had in mind. To expand on my previous comment about how we should accept "ugly" forums, I think measuring toxicity is problematic. For one thing, it's a subjective measure. One man's trash is another's treasure. For example, here's an article from someone making a case in favor of Kiwi Farms [4]. But also, censorship can chill what people state publicly. I already shared Axios's write-up of a recent study that shows that these days, what people say publicly does not align with what they say privately [5].

> The jury's still out, as you said. Personally, I'll continue to lean in favor of moderation, if only for the selfish reason that unmoderated communities are nasty places, and I want to participate in communities that "bring me joy," to indulge in a Kondo-ism. I think we've shown pretty conclusively, though, that your argument "The point is, countering negative ideas with suppression does not work" is premature at best.

FWIW, I think moderation is fine if the author is informed of actions taken against their content. That is not happening consistently on any of the platforms though, and hundreds of millions, perhaps billions, of users are impacted. Load 10 tabs of randomly selected active Reddit users on Reveddit [6]. Five or more will have had a comment removed within their first page of recent history. Almost none of these will have been notified, and all of their removed comments are shown to them as if they're not removed. I just did it and got 7. Reddit last reported 450 million monthly active users. And, Facebook moderators have a "Hide comment" button that does the same thing:

> "Hiding the Facebook comment will keep it hidden from everyone except that person and their friends. They won’t know that the comment is hidden, so you can avoid potential fallout." [7]

It's hard for me to believe that this has had no negative impact on discourse, particularly when our recent difficulties communicating across ideologies seem to align quite well with the introduction of social media. Things like this 1998 Firing Line episode [8] simply are not happening today. The depth of conversations these days is shallow and combative.

> I'll let you have the last word. Best wishes.

I will reject (graciously, I hope) your offer. I think continued discussion is the way forward.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/10/opinion/schools-banned-bo...

[2] https://www.reveddit.com/about/faq/#need

[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23X14HS4gLk

[4] https://corinnacohn.substack.com/p/the-world-should-not-need...

[5] https://www.axios.com/2022/08/17/americans-voters-private-be...

[6] https://www.reveddit.com/random

[7] https://www.agorapulse.com/blog/hide-comments-on-facebook/#o...

[8] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KQmPeM0Gmo

Something of almost no significance to freedom of speech.

Universities are advising their staff not to council in favour of abortion or offer condoms for the purposes of birth control (but OK for purposes of diseas prevenion). Violating these rules can result in felony convictions.

This is what an attack on freedom of speech looks like. And the consequences are of far more significance in this case.

Being fired for bringing the university in to disrepute barely even registers.

So if you want to know whether someone's position on free speech is hysterical posturing, or whether it's genuine, you can compare their reaction on these two paired issues.