Star Wars tweet had to be deleted

[grego]

this seems pretty far out there....

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/06/22/the-university-of-california-s-insane-speech-police

 

The University of California’s Insane Speech Police

 

"Fifty years after the birth of the free speech movement at the University of California, Berkeley, officials across the UC system are encouraging faculty and students to purge mundane, potentially offensive words and phrases from their vocabularies.

Administrators want members of campus to avoid the use of racist and sexist statements, though their notions about what kinds of statements qualify are completely bonkers. “America is a melting pot,” “Why are you so quiet?” and “I believe the most qualified person should get the job,” are all phrases that should raise red flags, according to the UC speech police.

...............

Saying, “There is only one race, the human race,” is offensive because it denies “the significance of a person of color’s racial/ethnic experience and history.”

“America is the land of opportunity,” implies that “People of color are lazy and/or incompetent and need to work harder.”

 

Asking an Asian, Latino, or Native American “why are you so quiet?” is tantamount to giving the order “assimilate to dominant culture.”

And stating the opinion, “Affirmative action is racist,” is a microaggression by default."

 

----------------------------------------------

 

i'm not familiar with this interviewer (tom woods), but i am familiar with the guy being interviewed- jonathan haidt (ive posted one or two of his interviews before on here). this is a good, short listen about PC on campus. he makes it clear that its a relatively small group, generally at the elite universities. he talks about the difference between 'iiberals '(pro- freedom) and 'leftists' who he emphasizes are illiberal- against classical liberal ideas such as free speech and 'colorblindness'. he talks about how students are being taught to think or debate not by reasoning, but by ad hominum attacks. interesting stuff.  

 

 

 

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, grego said:

 

i generally agree with that was posted earlier in this thread (at least i think it was in here)- that ideas should be debated and stand or fall on their own merit. when we start restricting speech, or defending free speech when its speech we like or agree with, what use is that?

 

as for murray, i recently and somewhat reluctantly listened to an interview of him done by sam harris. i think i was probably guilty of prejudging murray and his book based on a sentence here or there, or based on other peoples interpretation of his book (which is a bad way to form an opinion). harris admitted as much in the interview. i didnt get the slightest idea that murray was some sort of bigot- quite the opposite. i'd recommend giving it a listen if you have some time. 

 

I've read the book.  It is awful to the point that I'd say it is anti-scientific (i.e. conclusions are drawn with minimal supporting evidence where the evidence is presented in a manner that it appears to support arguments that it doesn't really support, while ignoring well known contrary evidence).

 

I do suspect that Murray can make intelligent and well informed arguments.  I have not doubt that he's an intelligent person and not an unintellectual raving racist or bigot.  Historically, it isn't uncommon for people that push bad arguments to understand their audience and situation and tailor their arguments and conversations based on them.  You start small and work your way up (this is a good post related to another person):

 

The way he's pushing his ideas is not so morally and obviously repugnant that they automatically trigger a moral gag reflex in most people.  That's why they've stuck around for decades (pre-dating him and his book).

 

(In another direction (religion not race), Sam Harris is just as bad if not worse.  At that level, that they'd like each other is not at all surprising.  Though why you would interview Murray without having read the book, I don't understand.)

[grego]

24 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

 

 

(In another direction (religion not race), Sam Harris is just as bad if not worse.  At that level, that they'd like each other is not at all surprising.  Though why you would interview Murray without having read the book, I don't understand.)

 

i think he did read the book by the time he interviewed him. i'm not an atheist and i disagree with some of his arguments, but i appreciate harris' ability to articulate ideas. i dont find him to be dishonest or swayed by emotion or loyalty to anything in particular, which is rare. where would you say you disagree with him?

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, grego said:

 

i think he did read the book by the time he interviewed him. i'm not an atheist and i disagree with some of his arguments, but i appreciate harris' ability to articulate ideas. i dont find him to be dishonest or swayed by emotion or loyalty to anything in particular, which is rare. where would you say you disagree with him?

 

The very idea that neuroscience can be used to disprove the existence of free will granted by an all powerful being, and therefore disprove the existence of said all powerful being and as a result religion, shows a fundamentally flawed understanding of science.  The flaw is so fundamental that you have to propose that either he's being dishonest or is intellectually blind.

 

**EDIT**

This isn't to suggest that there isn't a conversation to be have had related to these issues in general.  I've stated here that I'm concerned that the historical (from the start with Mohamed) integration of Islam with political power acts as a barrier to Islamic societies undergoing an enlightenment to larger extent then Christian societies.  Certainly, we discuss the existence of God and free will and what studies on decision making tell us about free will and the possible mechanisms that free will could exist in the context of those studies.

 

With respect to Murray, the non-evolution of the human species (as reproduction has largely been disassociated from survival, at least in 1st world countries) is something that should be discussed.

 

In both cases, it is the larger and bigger picture.

 

With respect to microaggressions, the concern over them at a high level is relatively new.  I'm not fast to dismiss people that have significant concerns about them because from talking to people (anecdotal evidence) and scientific studies, they do have affects.  As with all things, there is going to be a balancing act and a line.  How to achieve that and where to draw the line is going to be an on-going struggle.

 

I generally support the idea that the line should be drawn conservatively to enable the most wide spread development in institutions that are supposed to be about helping people develop.  We don't have to teach college students how to deal with every issue they are going to face in life while in college.  Many of them struggle with basic time management skills.

[TK]

This thread needs more Star Wars.