Published response to "reconfiguration of LDS politics"

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Thanks for sharing. It looks like it was really directed at Murray, who is another "non-sane" speaker, but Dr. Stanger's intentions were noble. 

I think Murray was wrong and there are lots of legitimate attacks on the Bell Curve. But to say he's a "non-sane" speaker just because one disagrees with him seems deeply problematic. Upon what basis are you determining sanity? Because it's starting to sound like politics you disagree with. Whether one agrees or disagrees with Murray he's a very prestigious highly published social scientist. To put him in the same camp as Coulter or Milo seems problematic to say the least. 

[Gray]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

That's a very subjective statement.

Again, shutting down free speech -- or excusing such deprivation of civil rights -- based on subjective opinion is characteristic of the mob mentality.

Who is shutting down free speech? The first amendment protects people against government censorship. There is no first amendment right to speak at a college or to not be protested. 

I'm assuming since you didn't come up with any other examples you couldn't think of any examples of this kind of thing where a white supremacist, child molestation advocate or political troll wasn't the target of violent protest? I'm sure there must be some examples, and they would better serve the point you seem to be trying to make.

Edited May 8, 2017 by Gray

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

I'm certainly not advocating for mob violence, of the sort, for instance, that Donald Trump instigated against protesters at his rallies. We live in a very politically charged environment. The white nationalists have a lot of people spooked, leading to violence on both sides. 

The alt left have been engaged in violence for quite some time. Trump may be giving them an excuse but they're not new. That said things are getting more charged. However if the solution is simply to ban any conservative speaker from campus we've pretty well lost the principles of higher education.

[clarkgoble]

22 minutes ago, Gray said:

Who is shutting down free speech? The first amendment protects people against government censorship. There is no first amendment right to speak at a college or to not be protested. 

You don't have the right to protest in such a form that you violently silence others. No one is complaining about peaceful protests. That's not even in question. But when figures universities have already approved are stopped from speaking by protestors that's more than mere protest.

Put it an other way would you say the same thing were the protesters alt-right types shutting down feminist speakers? My guess is that things would be viewed very differently.

Quote

I'm assuming since you didn't come up with any other examples you couldn't think of any examples of this kind of thing where a white supremacist, child molestation advocate or political troll wasn't the target of violent protest? I'm sure there must be some examples, and they would better serve the point you seem to be trying to make.

A quick Google would give quite a few examples of people silenced. Putting aside alt-right trolls like Milo or Coulter we have Murray, Ben Shapiro, the local GOP (Multnomah County Republicans) who were going to just be at the Avenue of Roses Parade near Portland, and even peaceful demonstrations for Trump in the Berkeley area are now being denied.

It's very hard how to see this isn't a free speech issue given Berkeley is a government school. And I say this as someone very opposed to Trump and the alt-right. When protests of only one side are allowed because of what that side might do to the other side something is fundamentally wrong.

Further what this is doing is empowering the alt-right to start up their own sorts of things such as what David Duke is doing with those horrible statues in New Orleans. I suspect we're going to start seeing more alt-right protests to protest antifa protests. By allowing one side to effectively have power you pretty well make a situation where the other side is highly incentivized to do the same thing.

Edited May 8, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Rajah Manchou]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Guilt by association.

Another characteristic of mob mentality.

This thread, if nothing else, is showcasing that mentality very well.

Sounds like you are suggesting I'm guilty of mob mentality because I don't agree with you. Guilt by not associating?

[Gray]

Just now, clarkgoble said:

I think Murray was wrong and there are lots of legitimate attacks on the Bell Curve. But to say he's a "non-sane" speaker just because one disagrees with him seems deeply problematic. Upon what basis are you determining sanity? Because it's starting to sound like politics you disagree with. Whether one agrees or disagrees with Murray he's a very prestigious highly published social scientist. To put him in the same camp as Coulter or Milo seems problematic to say the least. 

 

 

 

Murray is a purveyor of white supremacist pseudo-scholarship. It's not just me disagreeing with it. The premise is nutty and feeds into some of the emerging political trends we're seeing today. 

[Gray]

3 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

The alt left have been engaged in violence for quite some time. Trump may be giving them an excuse but they're not new. That said things are getting more charged. However if the solution is simply to ban any conservative speaker from campus we've pretty well lost the principles of higher education.

There is no such thing as the "alt left." The alt right is an actual movement, the alt left is a creation of the alt right. 

[Gray]

6 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

You don't have the right to protest in such a form that you violently silence others. No one is complaining about peaceful protests. That's not even in question. But when figures universities have already approved and stopped from speaking by protestors that's more than mere protest.

I agree that violence is not right. But I do think that the OP is complaining that any kind of protests are somehow a violation of free speech. The first amendment protects against governments silencing speech, not private individuals. If a protest turns violent that's not a free speech issue. Protesters aren't being arrested for violating anyone's freedom of speech. That's an important distinction, I think. 

 

Quote

Put it an other way would you say the same thing were the protesters alt-right types shutting down feminist speakers? My guess is that things would be viewed very differently.

I disapprove of violence as a means of protest, on any side. White supremacists have every right to picket a feminist speech, though, just like liberals have the right to picket a Milo speech. 

Edited May 8, 2017 by Gray

[Gray]

9 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

 

A quick Google would give quite a few examples of people silenced. Putting aside alt-right trolls like Milo or Coulter we have Murray, Ben Shapiro, the local GOP (Multnomah County Republicans) who were going to just be at the Avenue of Roses Parade near Portland, and even peaceful demonstrations for Trump in the Berkeley area are now being denied.

 

To respond to your edit here, Ben Shapiro is another non-normal political figure. He's the editor of a white supremacist publication. 

A single person pulled a fire alarm, and this was his response:

 

Quote

"If this sort of thing happened during classes at this university, the kid who pulled the fire alarm would be off this campus so fast it would make your head spin," Shapiro said. "But not you out there, the protesters, the special magical leftist children protected from the consequences of living in the real world with my taxpayer dollars. You get to shut us down for disagreeing with your thug tactics and your nasty, pathetic, evil ideology."

Sounds like a total nut. 

[Rajah Manchou]

16 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

The alt left have been engaged in violence for quite some time. Trump may be giving them an excuse but they're not new. That said things are getting more charged. However if the solution is simply to ban any conservative speaker from campus we've pretty well lost the principles of higher education.

It may have got lost in the mix, but there's a site that tracks these things. To say only voices on the right are being silenced is not at all accurate. The database only goes back to 2000, but its a big enough set to determine that both the left and right are equally hypocritical when it comes to free speech.

Edited May 8, 2017 by Rajah Manchou

[Scott Lloyd]

13 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Sounds like you are suggesting I'm guilty of mob mentality because I don't agree with you. Guilt by not associating?

No. I'm saying you are indulging in guilt by association, a characteristic of mob mentality.

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, Gray said:

I agree that violence is not right. But I do think that the OP is complaining that any kind of protests are somehow a violation of free speech.

This is a false characterization. Nowhere have I indicated such a thing even remotely. I agree very much with what Clark Goble has said here.

Please don't tell falsehoods about my position.

 

[Gray]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

This is a false characterization. Nowhere have I indicated such a thing even remotely. I agree very much with what Clark Goble has said here.

Please don't tell falsehoods about my position.

 

Just so we're clear, you don't have a problem with people protesting public speakers? You said you objected to "mobs trying to impose their will on everybody else". So you're not referring to peaceful protests aimed at getting these events cancelled? 

[Rajah Manchou]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

No. I'm saying you are indulging in guilt by association, a characteristic of mob mentality.

CFR for that exact moment in time I exhibited a mob-like mentality by declaring that you were guilty of something because of your associations.

[clarkgoble]

22 minutes ago, Gray said:

Murray is a purveyor of white supremacist pseudo-scholarship. It's not just me disagreeing with it. The premise is nutty and feeds into some of the emerging political trends we're seeing today. 

Being wrong doesn't mean it's "white supremacist pseudo-scholarship." The conclusion (not premise) might be wrong and I think it is. But the idea that intelligence is heritable is pretty mainstream proven biology. The problem was his claims about IQ among certain groups and ignoring the Flynn effect and then some of the data he used. But just because you don't like the conclusions doesn't mean you can dismiss Murray as a pseudo-scholar. You're falling into exactly the same trap the protestors are.

In any case the way to deal with bad scholarship isn't to silent people but is to produce arguments against their arguments. That's what people used to do quite successfully with Murray. Now instead we're seeing universities silence ideas we don't like. That's wrong and will ultimately harm universities. 

You're seeing that same trend, albeit in less violent ways still aimed at silencing people out of the mainstream of political views. Rebecca Tuvel’s article, “In Defense of Transracialism,” is getting the same sort of treatment. Again I might think her wrong, but it's interesting that the arguments aren't being addressed.

This acceptance of silencing speech is deeply problematic. It's bad enough when done to populist agitators who aren't doing scholarship. When it happens to scholars we know academia is in deep trouble.

Edited May 8, 2017 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

5 minutes ago, Gray said:

Just so we're clear, you don't have a problem with people protesting public speakers? You said you objected to "mobs trying to impose their will on everybody else". So you're not referring to peaceful protests aimed at getting these events cancelled? 

Peaceful protests are fine by my book so long as they don't silence those they are protesting.

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, Gray said:

Just so we're clear, you don't have a problem with people protesting public speakers? You said you objected to "mobs trying to impose their will on everybody else". So you're not referring to peaceful protests aimed at getting these events cancelled? 

I've never objected to peaceful protests about anything.

But make no mistake: There is a fundamental difference between peaceful protests and attempted intimidation.

 

[clarkgoble]

13 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

It may have got lost in the mix, but there's a site that tracks these things. To say only voices on the right are being silenced is not at all accurate. The database only goes back to 2000, but its a big enough set to determine that both the left and right are equally hypocritical when it comes to free speech.

There is of course hypocrisy although the deeper issue is that universities are now accepting it in a way they didn't befor.e

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

CFR for that exact moment in time I exhibited a mob-like mentality by declaring that you were guilty of something because of your associations.

The exact moment in time was when you tried to equate the Church of Jesus Christ with the views of extremists in so-called culture wars. Look back a few posts. It's there.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Peaceful protests are fine by my book so long as they don't silence those they are protesting.

By my book as well.

[Gray]

6 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Being wrong doesn't mean it's "white supremacist pseudo-scholarship." The conclusion (not premise) might be wrong and I think it is. But the idea that intelligence is heritable is pretty mainstream proven biology. The problem was his claims about IQ among certain groups and ignoring the Flynn effect and then some of the data he used. But just because you don't like the conclusions doesn't mean you can dismiss Murray as a pseudo-scholar. You're falling into exactly the same trap the protestors are.

In any case the way to deal with bad scholarship isn't to silent people but is to produce arguments against their arguments. That's what people used to do quite successfully with Murray. Now instead we're seeing universities silence ideas we don't like. That's wrong and will ultimately harm universities. 

You're seeing that same trend, albeit in less violent ways still aimed at silencing people out of the mainstream of political views. Rebecca Tuvel’s article, “In Defense of Transracialism,” is getting the same sort of treatment. Again I might think her wrong, but it's interesting that the arguments aren't being addressed.

This acceptance of silencing speech is deeply problematic. It's bad enough when done to populist agitators who aren't doing scholarship. When it happens to scholars we know academia is in deep trouble.

The conclusion that there is a racial basis to intelligence is what makes it white supremacist pseudo scholarship.

 

Is Tuvel really in the same category? She seems to have gotten the typical social media response to anything remotely controversial 

[Scott Lloyd]

19 minutes ago, Gray said:

To respond to your edit here, Ben Shapiro is another non-normal political figure. He's the editor of a white supremacist publication. 

A single person pulled a fire alarm, and this was his response:

 

Sounds like a total nut. 

You're the one who's sounding nutty now.

I'm starting to think there is no vocal, prominent, opinionated conservative whom you wouldn't brand with the "white supremacist" label. It's affecting your credibility.

[Gray]

6 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Peaceful protests are fine by my book so long as they don't silence those they are protesting.

Isn't protest fundamentally about attempting to stop whatever it is you're protesting? Viet Nam protesters were attempting the stop the war. Milo protesters were attempting to stop the event. 

Protest itself is a fundamental free speech right. 

[Gray]

25 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You're the one who's sounding nutty now.

I'm starting to think there is no vocal, prominent, opinionated conservative whom you wouldn't brand with the "white supremacist" label. It's affecting your credibility.

I certainly wouldn't call the vast majority of conservatives "white supremacists." Only those who self identify as such (or use some of the rebranded terms like "white nationalist" or "alt right"). Ben Shapiro edits (correction: EDITED)  an online publication that brands itself as  the voice of the alt right. 

 

Or, alternatively, only those who say that the white race is superior in some way, which is something that many of the public figures we've been discussing have done, sometimes using coded language. 

 

 

And the white supremacist saith unto them: I am no white supremacist, for there is none – and thus he whispereth in their ears. – Gray

Edited May 8, 2017 by Gray

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Isn't protest fundamentally about attempting to stop whatever it is you're protesting? Viet Nam protesters were attempting the stop the war. Milo protesters were attempting to stop the event. 

Protest itself is a fundamental free speech right. 

Clark Goble can speak for himself, but I think he is talking about coercion. Which is what these groups engage in with their violence, vandalism and attempted intimidation. There is a fundamental difference between that and peaceful protest, whether you see it or not.

Edited May 8, 2017 by Scott Lloyd