lol sort by youtubes, flawless victory

none that I know about. I am sure ppl who are smarter and more aware have some ideas.

Say about folks logic and emotions all you want, when you are the official podium and a minimum amount of exaggeration is required to satire how bad you are, you got the biggest problem. Bigly.

Take that like a spear through the heart or like a 10 ft. pole reaching out to help you out the muck.

It's coming from somewhere. I still think about haidts reasoning behind it. I'm unsure if I buy it. Skip to the 1.42.00 mark and listen for a few minutes. It's interesting

Um, no.

Let's start with restoring the power that the Supreme Court stole from the Voting Rights Act.

I keep wondering what look on Bernie's face when somebody asks him a question like that. Hahaha, but do you haz ideas?

Great I'm going to listen to this soon.

Yes, I basically agree with Haidt's analysis. If you haven't seen it also watch this, it is excellent:



I don't think he says a single word I disagree with on the whole thing.

Haidt is an interesting guy. But he's not always truthful:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...&postcount=181

If SJWs are so bad, then why is he making stuff up?

Obviously there's a problem with misogyny and honesty in the anti-SJW camp. I'm not sure these people stand for anything at all.

Haidt is not making things up.

Nitpick about acronyms?

COINTELPRO, is it coming back?

Does the new administration act like they'd do that to avoid social accountability?

Read my post on his other video. This claim:

is untrue. I cited the letter he's talking about. He made it up or completely misread the letter.

But if you think I'm wrong, please be specific and cite evidence as I did. Simply stating "you're wrong" is not going to cut it.

This Lorddik guy might be an SJW. He doesn't seem interested in questioning his beliefs and he fits all of the definitions. Honestly, if he is a typical SJW then I believe I can see why so many people are upset with them.

I accept your surrender.

aoFrantic,

Have a read

If you would like.

And if you want some bonus reading, knock yourself out on reading the stated positions and goals of the antifa movement to get a little more insight.

this is some pretty serious pwnage

I find the conclusion of your critique a bit unfounded, because you accuse Haidt of arguing a straw man, when you yourself are arguing with no man at all. He's not actually here to defend what he means by the argument he made, so you just assuming he must be lying? This, after praising him for being interesting and claiming you agree with a lot of his points?

If you agree with a lot of his points, why not search for where he may have expounded on that particular point before assuming he's just lying? Maybe you've debunked a major premise, revealing a gaping hole in his argument. Or could he actually have good reason to believe the intent and the outcome of Obama's executive order was just that, to "even out the disparities," in school discipline by race regardless of what was written in the executive orders?

I think you bring up a possibly very good point, but I don't think you've made an honest effort yourself to answer your own question. Instead, you assume he's just lying.

The constant accusations of "lying" are one of the weirdest things about this group of young SJWs. They are very ... Trumpian in that sense.

I actually find the accusation that the Obama letter meant to equalize outcomes much less controversial than Haidt's assumption black kids are more disruptive in school than white kids, thereby deserving of more punishment. This is because so far, all the studies I've seen conclude the disparity in discipline is not tied to student conduct, and that black kids don't actually act out significantly more than whites in the same schools.

If those studies are right, then Obama's letter would go after most schools with disparate outcomes in discipline by race. But Haidt pretty much glazes over this claiming obviously black kids act worse judging by broader crime rates and so many fathers in prison, etc. Surprised 13 didn't jump on that.

I'd like to see more of Haidt's reasoning there, because it's hard to believe he's not read those studies. Maybe he thinks the studies are all poorly done, or that there's publishing bias?

I agree it's an assumption on my part that Haidt is lying. When I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I shouldn't have said that Haidt was lying or being dishonest without evidence.

But Haidt is a smart guy--a professor at NYU. And in the presentation he is working from the same sources that I used. His slides include the first page of the letter from the Obama administration and a news article that I was also able to find online. So it's unlikely that he is relying on some third source that gets it wrong. But it is entirely possible for him to have simply mistakenly read those sources due to his own bias. Or he may have some argument, as you say.

And I think part of mt frustration comes from how arrogantly he addresses some of the issues in that video. His whole lecture is about making sure we don't jump to conclusions in terms of correlation and causation, but then he skips over a huge part of his argument and jumps to conclusions?

Yeah, it was a lot easier for me to nod in agreement to that video the first time I saw it, because I was thinking about arguments I've had, mostly on here, with social justice advocates. The earlier part of the presentation where he really illustrates the correlation/causation fallacy and how often it's ignored by feminist social justice advocates is much more fully fleshed out, and then he sort of burns through the racial justice part.

So, see post above yours, I think there are parts he's either wrong about, or he just didn't get deep enough into his reasoning to survive scrutiny. Surprised I couldn't find some article or blog refuting him on this though. I'll update here if I run into an explanation.

Jordan Peterson also chimes in on his insight on SJWs, basically describing it as a form of narcissism and also due to a poor teaching of history in schools. Well worth the listen, even though it's long.

And what keen insight dies he have on the homophobia, racism and misogyny that leads to SJWs?

No offense but the post you linked misses a lot and is in fact a strawman. One you quote a "dear colleague" letter, a letter that carries more weight than a simple suggestion. Just look at a similar examples. One I can think of off the top of my head is a "dear colleague" letter that was sent to college administrations in 2011 that outlined possible sexual assault protocols that could be adopted on campus. One of which was a switch of from campus sexual assault hearings using a preponderance of evidence instead of reasonable doubt as the basis of a guilty verdict being levied in campus sexual assault cases by the university administrations. This has been widely adopted by most universities as well as other policies outlined in the letter. These letters when written are usually "suggestions" that are in fact veiled orders to comply or else you will face possible future funding cuts or prosecution. In regards to "equal disciplining" in schools you completely disregard that many schools have adopted this policy and in fact is law, in at least, Minnesota and possibly more states.