Mandated diversity statement drives Jonathan Haidt to quit academic society

The Quillette article was cited as tautological proof of how "those people" feel about the wiki entry. They don't find it convincing and are explaining the citations they feel it lacks...

The point of Wiki is to educate and that means reaching the uneducated who are going to have those nasty uninformed opinions. Even if I agreed with your assessments of the people involved I'd want to improve them, not crap on them for where they are. If Wiki is only for those who already believe the right things, why even have Wiki?

> split along communist/non-communist lines?

Why would a support for a scientific concept be split across groups by economic philosophy? Is there anything inherently capitalist or communist about these ideas or are these ideas conflated with identities?

> [IQ being] anything that could be described as 'intelligence'

That it's related at all, or that it's a perfect match? Because of course we'll always have subjective views of the definition of intelligence and no one test will satisfy everyone.

> the idea that genes impact IQ and that IQ actually usefully measures anything

Unlike intelligence, IQ is definable, stable, and correlates highly to job performance. (Of course, because the tests resemble many work-skill tasks...)

Why would IQ be the only trait that isn't genetic at all?

I have no desire to see any given racial group maligned, even with "correct" data, but I feel the discussion about genetic traits is limited for fear of this, and that this censoring falls exactly along the lines of the USA's post-slavery racial lines. To me this suggests that this is a you (the USA) problem, not an us (the rest of the anglo-sphere) problem, and that it should be treated with racial sensitivity training and honesty, not with demonization and censorship and quashing research.

> [scientific racism] You're the one who pivoted the conversation in that direction.

The whole article is about a professor being forced to politicize and limit his research, presumably because it would be used to justify wrong-think.

To restate more generally though, the censoring side needs to prove the 'reading viewpoints -> copying actions' pipeline. Would a plainly written description of Hitler's beliefs create nazis of those who read it or is it the oration and the cult tactics that do that? If a nazi quotes a book in support of their views does that mean the book would cause someone without those views to become a nazi?

Sun Tzu counsels to know your enemy, how would this work if they were censored?

> intersectionality, which nobody disagrees with.

Cough. Intersectionality assumes that people's problems are the problems of their identities, and that their identities are the ones visible to others. Black, short, etc.

Identity politics seems purpose-built by "allies" to explain why the allies don't actually listen to the people they're helping.

For instance, Thomas Sowell isn't treated as an individual who disagrees with BLM's policies instead he's declared to be a defective or traitorous black man who isn't part of the real black people group.

Intersectionality also reframes all minority politics in terms of a framework defined by white people according to white people’s political priorities. It creates a framework where you “center POC” voices—but only if they agree with white people. To further your example, Justice Clarence Thomas is treated as unrepresentative of Black people even when his views are typical of a southern Black man. About half the Black people in his home state of Georgia oppose abortion, and Black people nationwide have similar views on same-sex marriage as Republicans. When Justice Thomas votes to overturn racial preferences in college admissions, he’ll be attacked as a tool of white supremacy—even though most Black people also oppose using race as a factor in admissions and jobs.

By contrast, progressive POC are always presented as representative of their race even when they’re not. Ilhan Omar is held up as the face of Islam in America. But there’s way more Trump voting Muslims than ones who are as far left as Omar.

> You’re putting words in my mouth to use a non sequiter as your argument?

I'm quoting you. You wrote those two sentences.

> Once again you’re using words that you do not understand. [Posts link to definition of 'Ally']

That definition is clearly aspirational.

> so one person got upset and acted poorly?

A lot more than one. And when they returned to their group nobody took issue with it. Look at riot footage, a majority of the people burning down black neighborhoods were whites carrying BLM-supporting signs.

> Anti fascism means to be against fascism.

Apparently anti-fascist just means fascist. I'm sure there's an aspirational definition somewhere that says otherwise but actions speak more loudly than words.

> Fascism is anti American so to be antifa is to be patriotic.

Antifa beats people in the street for their political views. That's very un-American! There was literally a USA communist party during the cold war, but there was no USA party in the USSR.

> My families elders did not kill fascists in wwii to see fascism brought to America by our own minority party.

Surprise, it's being brought by the majority party!

> There isan ever increasing body of unbiased research unequivocally proving ...

The article we're discussing is literally about how the institutions sanctioning the research are biased and only accepting research that purports, in its very setup, to support DEI. What we see is an echo chamber where people are expected to agree with those statements.

> I am trying to speak plainly for you but you need to do your part in trying to understand me. I actually want to help people, especially the marginalized and forgotten

This is what I used your quote to show, the type of allyship you are practicing defines problems as being based on intersections such as race, and how that turns into attacks on anyone who disagrees. (Even where that outcome is absurd, such as white people lecturing black people about blackness.)

I have seen Thomas Sowell and Candace Owens being racially attacked, by supposed anti-racist allies, simply because they did not subscribe to the narrative you use. I've seen Antifa members beat unarmed people and claim to be patriots. Behavior speaks louder than words.