no really what you do is talk a bunch of sht. get called out on it. and then disappear.

If you have the choice, you're telling me you wouldn't prefer the one whose parents are likely smarter? Maybe you, personally, would still flip a coin or whatever, or straight up hire the one with likely dumber parents as a gift to society, but how could you possibly think you're not getting the better of it if you get Jamal instead of Dwyane? (assuming a misspelled name isn't somehow a legit job qualification)

This guy is actually serious?

I'm not convinced it tells me about the parents smarts but if I assume it means the child was at a disadvantage because of their parents then, if D and J had equal qualifications for the job, I would be more impressed with the one who started with the disadvantage.

One problem with your argument is it sort of posits a world where there is a dogma accepted by the mainstream and then there are all these inquisitive skeptics going around questioning the dogma in spite of all the norms urging them to accept it. That's not the world I know.

The world I know is multimodal wrt beliefs about race. We essentially are surrounded by dogma that people accept, only there are several conflicting dogmas. In fact, the dogma we wish wasn't there has existed a lot longer and so has extremely deep roots in the national culture. Recall racism was never simply some articulation of peoples' natural distaste for those who have a few different physical traits. Since Jefferson there have been continuous attempts to add a "scientific" basis for what is actually a rationalization of slavery and other exploitation. That embarrassment of bungles continues to the modern day with The Bell Curve. That is why so much racial animus has persisted after slavery, because the concept of race and it's meaning to the social order was highly ramified into norms and explanations of the social world. And of course these ideas have shown their residual staying power right to the present where we find ourselves with multiple dogmas- not so much one dogma and some belligerent holdouts.

With multiple dogmas and the nature of the subject being that one can easily see what they want to see, telling racist people to STFU does not seem like a good strategy. Arguing with them is good IF you know your material. If nothing else, it will caution them about getting too loud about their ideas in public out of fear of being embarrassed.

That makes no sense. Given identical everything but name, there's no reason to rate D preferable and J has higher upside on average. Identical data can't 100% undo your priors, much less reverse them. (it's a valid argument if you look at a **** background and a 3.0 from college X vs a privileged background and the same 3.0 from college X)

Indeed, he did:

Your only response to this was:

So, thanks WN for pointing out you have no idea what you're talking about as usual? Cool, I guess we can agree on something for once.

That's a completely bizarre way of looking at it. (Although entirely predictable, because that's what racial paranoia is all about.)



You just don't like it when 'they' get uppity, then. But that's your problem, not theirs.

No, they want a firehose turned on 'em, but then stoodents are stoopid and extremely prone to mass hysteria. That's always been the case.

Here is the problem. There is almost no correlation between having the ability to understand a subject well and the ability to understand why other people have difficulty with the subject. In fact there is probably a reverse correlation. Yet people who are smart and well versed in certain subjects, especially politics, often proclaim that they can explain why other people don't get it. Even though the skills you need to come up with that explanation are almost completely unrelated to the skills necessary to understand the subject. (My success as a math tutor does not come mainly from being good at math but rather because I can relate to people having difficulty with the subject because I had similar difficulties due to the fact that my father taught me stuff six years early.) More specifically there is no reason for them to be so sure that at least some of the people who disagree with them couldn't be persuaded by a skillful set of questions and arguments. Of course this assumes that the side they are on is indeed the irrefutably correct one.

holy ****ing god

It's absolute clockwork, ever one of these dip****s inevitably goes from "racism doesn't exist, stop calling things racist" to "actually racism is good and I use it in my personal life".

Incredible.

Tom, what is the signaling like, do you think, on your posts? The most insane part of this is that I think you briefly tried to look down on white trash. Son, know your ****ing place.

Why would you think that a preference for normal sounding names correlates to intelligence? That seems like a weird theory with no evidence to back it up.

Frank Zappa named his kids Moon Unit and Dweezil. I'm pretty sure he had way above average intelligence.

The protesters at Evergreen seem dumb based on what I've seen.

But "social justice in Academia" has little to do with it. These are dumb kids acting out and a faculty petrified of losing students. This college will get fewer applications and either adjust or keep sinking.

But, yeah, I get the concern. I know people who teach who are fed up with entitled kids. Part of the problem is that colleges are simply desperate to avoid controversy. That's a trend that's been around for a while as colleges treat students like customers.

And the left has been pointing out these problems for a while. See Phillip Roth's The Human Stain for example.

... as the sharpness of some of his lyrics demonstrate eg

You say love is all we need
You say
With your love you can change
All of the fools
All of the hate
I think you're probably
Out to lunch

And this is a bad thing, right?

Your arguments are an incoherent mess. You argue that SJWs are authoritarian and dangerous..but they have feminine traits, which suggests the opposite. (I know, only the bad traits or something.) Meanwhile, there is no firm definition of what an SJW is besides "someone liberal I don't like."


You are the one claiming that your enemies are like women. Have you no awareness?

I don't think you'll find many people supporting these students. Their arguments seem as incoherent as yours.

So only you should decide what is hate speech? Got it.

I would love for this to be the case, and hope that it is. Most of us who have been that age understand how terribly clueless we were while at the same time passionately ignorant of our own cluelessness. And I don't even think the students complaints are altogether unfounded, just misguided.

But I believe if you look deeper, you'll see there is reason for concern this is not just coming from students and the radical fringes of social media (though it is certainly exacerbated by it), but from well entrenched academic circles threatening the entire system from within. Plenty of academics are concerned.
http://heterodoxacademy.org/2016/10/...ocial-justice/
http://heterodoxacademy.org/2017/05/...ks-witch-hunt/

It's so tough because it comes down to who do you trust and confirmation bias. Especiallythese days because it's so easy to find what you want to hear, and few people honestly give the other side a sincere and charitable hearing. See these forums, and most others.

Sad part is there is good reason to doubt much of what you hear and think you know these days on all sides. Conservatives have been attacking academia and the MSM for years because they don't like what comes out of it, accusing them of bias and corruption, and lately it's been harder and harder to prove them wrong. So they dive deeper into their often more biased and corrupt news that reports what they want to hear.

The extremes are pulling everything and everyone farther apart, and I'm worried about what will happen before we come back from this.

Maybe I was unclear, but the argument is not that telling people to STFU is a good strategy to counter to actual racism.

The argument is that there are certain dogmatically accepted beliefs in society that are on some level preferable. This is why the chosen example is rape, because there are debates on twoplustwo about what rape is, there are people who don't take it seriously, there is ground to be made, but there is an extremely wide acceptance in society that rape is evil. You can also substitute in something like holocaust denial or paedophilia. People out there do it (NAMBLA are still around advocating it, I believe), but none are taken seriously at a larger scale.

It's not a counter to racism itself. It's a counter to the claim that the ideal society would have constant open discussions where we calmly engage in philosophical musings about the possible validity of every topic. No, we would much prefer to live in the world where paedophilia is reviled without a constant rehashing of the ins and outs. We'd like to live in the society where holocaust deniers are fringe nutters. And, I'd contend, we'd like racism to be one of those "settled" issues, where perhaps the grey areas are discussed but the vast, vast, majority of us are on the same lines.

The kind of "dogma" that I speak of is not the kind of propagandist belief that it perhaps conveys, but speaking to the ideology that exists amongst most developed nations regarding other moral issues e.g. theft, rape, paedophilia, murder etc. There are no serious murder advocates, and I'd like to live in a world where there are no serious racism advocates for us to take super seriously.

As if to keep proving my point, that website that FoldN clearly found like last week's stated purpose is

In other words, affirmative action but for racists. ****ing incredible.

Haidt wrote a whole article about how being called racist hurts his feelings, but called it "The Coddling of the American Mind".

So let's see what his website has for me:
http://heterodoxacademy.org/resource...ege-care-pack/

A ****ing "College Care Pack" of youtubes and talking points are you ****ing kidding me.

lol at looking down on actual students while getting your information through you rubes.

Ha, funny I'm repeatedly called all of those names here. Except pedo, I guess, but there is still time!

Problem is not that those things aren't universally reviled, but that their definitions keep drifting, and the general public has no idea what much of the social justice advocacy community means by them anymore. This is particularly true of racism: institutional/systemic vs animus, unconscious bias, etc. Turns out every white person is racist, including the social justice advocates themselves, and are taking part in a brutally oppressive white supremacist capitalist system.

On top of that, many of the more annoying of that community, who have earned the name "SJWs", tend to tar and shame unsuspecting average people with those terms, but when cornered as to why, they just admit they are using the "real" definition that everyone should be using, not the defintion everyone is used to and has formed the reviled reaction to. It's a basic bait and switch, or Motte and Bailey fallacy, and here is a great article describing how it's commonly used.

Jesus that article is awful.

Donald Sterling didn't try not to be racist. This is ****ing obvious.

Great stuff.

Three years ago. He's had kinder words since then.

Also, a great number of white Americans have wonky misspelled surnames due to the legendary sub-literacy of white immigrants and the white Ellis Island immigration officers who processed them. The immigration officers couldn't spell, and the immigrants couldn't tell them how, so it was a Carnival of the Idiots. But it was because none of them had much education, not because they were all stupid.

My nephew lives in Brooklyn and his wife (a successful fashion-industry PR) is Irish-American. She's a 'Molligan'. She isn't really, of course; but 'Mulligan' in an Irish accent sounds a bit like 'Molligan' to ignorant American ears, so that's how the Ellis Island officer wrote it down, making it official, and the family's been stuck with it ever since. Embarrassing, just slightly.