Didn’t realize you were just trolling the whole time. My B. Carry on.
You got me. I’m not over here nodding my head to your non-sense talking point so I must be trolling.
20% of the population interacts with the police at least once every single year resulting in .00159% of them dying is not “hugely” problematic.
At least try and be objective.
-
Was that not clear? Or was that an attempt to use humor in order to laugh off a major assumption you’ve made?
-
Do you have any point regarding why some subgroups do better than others, or do you just like the word “stereotype”?
-
Any point?
-
Did you graduate from college with any exposure to logic? I mean that seriously. Have you had any training in logic?
You seem to have accepted some ideologically driven views without challenging them, or being able to even see that you have done so. That doesn’t offer me much in terms of reasons to engage.
2 Likes
Basically this.
-
do you always answer questions with unrelated questions?
-
I think it is largely based on culture within a family unit. Do you enjoy generalizing entire races and then attack others for the same in the same breath?
-
idk why you attributed my explanation of others actions and thoughts to how I act and think.
-
yes, I took a logic class as part of my undergrad curriculum.
What views do you believe i have accepted without challenging? What makes you believe I haven’t challenged them? Because I haven’t arrived at the same conclusions as you?
Certainly it’s less prevalent outside of the humanities and social sciences, but we have more scientists from other fields now speaking about how they are being attacked.
From the article -
"What may not be obvious from outside academia is that this revolution is an attack on Enlightenment values: reason, inquiry and dissent. Extremists on the left are going after science. Why? Because science seeks truth, and truth isn’t always convenient.
The left has long pointed to deniers of climate change and evolution to demonstrate that over here, science is a core value. But increasingly, that’s patently not true.
The battle on our campuses—and ever more, in K-12 schools, in cubicles and in meetings, and on the streets—is being framed as a battle for equity, but that’s a false front. True, there are real grievances. Gaps between populations exist, for historical and modern reasons that are neither honorable nor acceptable, and they must be addressed. But what is going on at institutions across the country is—yes—a culture war between science and postmodernism. The extreme left has embraced a facile fiction.
Postmodernism, and specifically its offspring, critical race theory, have abandoned rigor and replaced it with “lived experience” as the primary source of knowledge. Little credence is given to the idea of objective reality. Science has long understood that observation can never be perfectly objective, but it also provides the ultimate tool kit with which to distinguish signal from noise—and from bias. Scientists generate complete lists of alternative hypotheses, with testable predictions, and we try to falsify our own cherished ideas.
Science is imperfect: It is slow and methodical, and it makes errors. But it does work. We have microchips, airplanes and streetlights to show for it.
… to target STEM faculty in particular for “antibias” training, on the theory that scientists are particularly prone to racism. That’s obvious to them because scientists persist in using terms like “genetic” and “phenotype” when discussing humans…”
1 Like
So, to be clear, you do not think there is a problem regarding police interactions with any demographic or race? All are treated equal? No one worse, no one better?
Or do you just think it is such a small problem that it’s not worth anyone’s time to solve?
I say you’re trolling because you stopped discussing and started obviously baiting through childish name calling.
@countingbeans, you were talking about Gad Saad and Jordan Peterson. Agree, I have to be in the right mood for JP but apart from politics, I want to watch his Biblical lectures and his Personality series. It’s really nice that we can now watch all kinds of classes or lectures on youtube.
Back to the topic, you might like these. I put them up on another thread a few weeks ago, but they belong here.
Short clip about science and identity politics. I think this is important for people to understand. I like that he’s so reasonable. I’m a person with religious faith, and he doesn’t make me feel defensive the way Dawkins can. I like him. Sam Harris 4:41 minutes.
And this one. Sam Harris interviewing Jonathan Haidt. 22 minutes.
1 Like
Heather Heying needs to calm down. Yes, the Evergreen College (where both she and her similarly embattled husband taught) train seems to have gone nonstop to PC Crazytown. But that doesn’t warrant her sweeping statements about the Left, the Right, Education, Science, etc. Evergreen has been a notorious PC tire-fire for a while now. And although isolated incidents of lesser infractions crop up elsewhere on occasion, I see no evidence that the sweeping intolerance and groupthink that infected Evergreen has spread throughout American education writ large.
So chill, Heather. Use your 500K settlement with the college to fund a nice long vacation.
No. I’m talking about lethal force interactions, which are practically non-existent regardless of race.
I think there are like 30 other problems worth tackling first.
Never called you a name.
After listening/watching Peterson, Saad, and Haidt I find it hard to listen to Harris.
1 Like
I spend a lot of time on a college campus and I do believe that it is not as widespread as is it portrayed but it is a movement that has a power disproportionate to their numbers. But that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be stopped now.
Also, it has infiltrated education in elementary and high schools.
1 Like
@EyeDentist, well, I hope you’re right of course. We agree about Evergreen. I think I’m more concerned that this isolated nonissue is more like cancer. I hope I’m very, very wrong.
@xXSeraphimXx, hey. Thanks for stopping in. I don’t listen to any of the new aethiests a lot, but I’ve been happy to see them come out for free speech and diversity of ideas. I think people like Harris and Dawkins often make a strawman of religion, and fail to see pragmatic positives of belonging and community. Dawkins really turns me off in a way that Harris doesn’t. At people like Dawkins or Coyne, the evolutionary biologists and people interested in topics like the neuroscience of sex differences are particularly threatened by being accused of some form of sacrilege against the PC taboos. All the controversy over the Damore Google memo brought some of the science of that out, which was a good thing. We need to be able to study and talk openly about any topic.
@zecarlo. I agree. I’m happy to see any instances of this kind of intolerance of ideas shut down. I don’t think you run into this much at all in the STEM fields at this point, unless you’re studying something sensitive (gender/race).
Protestors at William and Mary shutting down a speaker from the ACLU, chanting “liberalism is white supremacy.” One has to wonder where these young people got that idea.
Regarding the association with free speech an Nazis, Haidt did a nice article about this recently at Heterodox.
“Free Speech has now suffered from contagion. Anything Nazis support becomes stained. If Nazis said that carrots were their favorite vegetable, and they organized a march to promote carrots, many people would find carrots less desirable. Those of us who embrace the American tradition of free speech will now have a harder time promoting that tradition to students.”
2 Likes
At the video in the link. Skip through the first few seconds and the quality improves. If I were on the yearbook staff, I’d label them “Most likely to be totalitarian dictators of a banana republic.”
1 Like
Wow. I can’t even with this. Calling everyone you disagree with a fascist while fighting to tamp down free speech… The world rending irony.
The first time I heard about the below story I disregarded it as a publicity stunt. Now I’m not so sure it is a bad idea.
3 Likes
Yep. Intolerance of free speech is being taught under the guise of Critical Race Theory and Intersectional Feminism where they flat out teach that these tenets of a liberal society (like free speech) are a way to maintain power. It’s upside down.
I was impressed with how the UC Berkeley prof went ahead with his exam, but that little incident will cost him a bureaucratic headache, and many hours over the next couple of months, since they went to lodge a complaint against him. The temptation to cave, or to not do or say anything that might set off the little totalitarians has to be huge.
2 Likes
A panel discussion from just yesterday at NYU, Viewpoint Diversity on Campus. I haven’t listened to it in it’s entirety yet, but I wanted to share. @thunderbolt23, I know you’re familiar with Mark Lillia who speaks here. Also Nadine Strossen, former president of the ACLU. A great group of bright people talking about viewpoint diversity.
Discussing these issues were Heterodox Academy members:
Mark Lilla — professor, Columbia University; author, “The Once and Future Liberal”
Nadine Strossen — professor, New York Law School; former president, ACLU
April Kelly-Woessner — professor, Elizabethtown College; author, “The Still Divided Academy”
Samuel Abrams — professor, Sarah Lawrence College
Haidt quoting John Stuart Mill just 6 minutes in. WHOOT! I heart them both.
3 Likes
Excellent panel. I’ve watched it twice, and it’s wonderful to listen to adults discuss these issues.
1 Like
I’m glad you liked it. Some great things, right? Yeah, I thought Strassen (in purple’s) discussion of MLK was pretty powerful. Historically, free speech has been a protection for marginalized groups.
It’s a bit depressing to hear the data on the Millennials being higher on authoritarianism and lower on tolerance of political diversity than previous generations. Apparently, that’s an unprecedented reversal in attitudes, at least in recent history (3-4 generations).
We’re soooo vulnerable to tribalism about labels. The fact that if we know it’s someone from our team, we’re more likely to listen. Or that if we think an article or study is from someone across the aisle, we’re likely to mentally turn it off. That’s discouraging. I wonder sometimes about how that is for more Libertarian minded people because we often feel like we’re liberal in a sense, and conservative in others.
I think it’s about 46 minutes in where they talk about the changes in the political parties. I’m really interested to see what this looks like when the post-Trump data is in.
1 Like