Politics: J'accuse!

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
That said, it's hard to find a religion that does not have an extremist fringe that gives the more innocuous parts of the religion a bad name.

True, and that is why it is better to discuss a particular sect rather than Chritianity or Islam in general. The beliefs vary considerably from sect-to-sect and the negative impact of the sects vary, too.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Mission creep. The term as I know it originated in tendency of certain people, mostly of the far left persuasion, who sought to stifle or limit the scope of discussion of some topics relating to historically discriminated-against people, while simultaneously using certain terminology to measure the loyalty of others to that cause.* The term may well have transmogrefied into a synonym for "unthinking liberal," but that's not how I see it, and represents a reduction from the true perniciousness of the original debate-stifling strategy.

* To wit (footnotes are allowed on the PB right), much discussion of race, as in racial disparities in SAT scores, for example, could not be had because to do so was assumed necessarily and offensively to require mention of hte possibility that something other than institutional racism was the sole explanation.

Footnotes are encouraged on the PB. You get bonus points.

It's hard to find people talking about PC without using the passive tense, which reflects that they are being maddeningly vague about who is saying or doing what to whom. "Much discussion of race could not be had . . . ." Hard to disagree with this, or even to figure out what it means. We all know that there are places where debate is stifled by the left or the right. If we're going to talk about the academy, the stifling will more likely be by the left, which got there early and took all the best seats. Oddly, conservatives who are upset about PC in the academy don't seem all that upset by the other ways in which academic speech is impaired -- e.g., by corporate and government money. It's easier to respect a commitment to process when it cuts both ways.*

* The corollary, as bilmore will tell you, is that when someone complains about process, but only about the part of the process which is goring their ox, it seems more likely that they are a rancher than an animal rights activist.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Karl Marx would have a thing or two to say about this. I think we can come up with something besides religion and genes. [1] Culture? [2] Economics? [3] Environment? [4] Flouridation? [5] Home schooling? [6] Tax policy?

Are we talking about Islam's treatment of women still, or something more general and less susceptible of explanation?

1: Can you separate culture and religion when the two are essentially coterminus in teh middle east? If so, and Islam results from the culture, what's the cultural explanation? You still end up with a problem that the "cultural" beliefs (instead of the religious beliefs) are causing the subjugation. Not sure there's a difference that matters.

2: Can you make a serious economic argument for subjugation of women? I'm sure it's possible--slavery had it's economic advantages as well.

3: Ahh, the dry desert air means women are necessary solely to bring us water and pick our nose. Point taken.

4: Uhhuh

5: What are they learning in school that's not cultural or religious, to the extent it's relevant to this aspect of societal decisionmaking.

6: Ah, yes, the Burqa deduction. I forgot about that. I do now recall we decided yesterday that tax policy drives culture rather than the other way around.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by bilmore
Just wanted to add, Happy Lenin's Birthday!

Coincidentally, Earth Day.

[bilmore]

6: Ah, yes, the Burqa deduction. I forgot about that. I do now recall we decided yesterday that tax policy drives culture rather than the other way around.

Culture drives tax policy. Tax policy then perpetuates culture.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Coincidentally, Earth Day.

They go together well. I, for one, am glad he's buried in it.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
left . . . right . . . . left . . . . conservatives

Same old, same old.

[Replaced_Texan]

The Seattle times published a photograph of rows and rows of coffins draped in American flags on Sunday. As far as I know, it's the first such photograph to make it into a major newspaper. I think it's quite a sobering photo, and I can understand why the Bush Administration wasn't too keen on these types of photographs hitting the newspapers on a regular basis. Accompanying story here.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2001906044.jpg (photo)

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Footnotes are encouraged on the PB. You get bonus points.

It's hard to find people talking about PC without using the passive tense, which reflects that they are being maddeningly vague about who is saying or doing what to whom. "Much discussion of race could not be had . . . ." Hard to disagree with this, or even to figure out what it means. We all know that there are places where debate is stifled by the left or the right. If we're going to talk about the academy, the stifling will more likely be by the left, which got there early and took all the best seats. Oddly, conservatives who are upset about PC in the academy don't seem all that upset by the other ways in which academic speech is impaired -- e.g., by corporate and government money. It's easier to respect a commitment to process when it cuts both ways.*

* The corollary, as bilmore will tell you, is that when someone complains about process, but only about the part of the process which is goring their ox, it seems more likely that they are a rancher than an animal rights activist.

Let me put it to you this way:

Liberals regularly used debate-stiffling tactics, including accusations of racism as well as, nearly as damningly, accusations of utter insensitivity to fellow students, on the few* occasions on which someone offered an explanation for racial disparities other than inherent systemic bias.

*The occasions were few because free thinkers learned to take their thoughts to the conservative weekly or the Federalist Society, once in law school, rather than become complete social pariahs.


As for corporate/government money, are you saying that either is being used to pay people not to write, or simply that there's an inherent benefit to writing and thinking with viewpoints that may attract sponsorship? I would certainly be troubled by the former, but while I'm sure that has, on occasion, happened, I am doubtful that the strategy is capable of much success, as there are numerous means by which ultimately to make the speech that is ostensibly being stiffled.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by bilmore
They go together well. I, for one, am glad he's buried in it.

He's no longer above ground in Red Square?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Are we talking about Islam's treatment of women still, or something more general and less susceptible of explanation?

I think Ty is talking about conservatives being just as culpable as liberals.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Liberals regularly used debate-stiffling tactics, including accusations of racism as well as, nearly as damningly, accusations of utter insensitivity to fellow students, on the few* occasions on which someone offered an explanation for racial disparities other than inherent systemic bias.

Re: academics, that area has truly passed into the realm of the suppression of speech, not merely PC. The suppression occurs, as stated earlier, because all the good seats got taken by one side, and students of a different persuasion than the chairs are chilled in the expression of their beliefs in the presence of people who have shown an ability and a willingness to punish holders of "non-acceptable", unconforming thought.

Combine PC with power relationships, and you get free speech issues.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I think it's quite a sobering photo, and I can understand why the Bush Administration wasn't too keen on these types of photographs hitting the newspapers on a regular basis. Accompanying story

Wasn't this policy in effect prior to GWB taking office?

FYI - Drudge has more photos here.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
He's no longer above ground in Red Square?

Well, I guess, technically, he's surrounded by stone, which USED to be part of the earth . . .

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Are we talking about Islam's treatment of women still, or something more general and less susceptible of explanation?

I was talking about Not Me's empirical evaluation (or lack thereof) of religions.

1: Can you separate culture and religion when the two are essentially coterminus in teh middle east? If so, and Islam results from the culture, what's the cultural explanation? You still end up with a problem that the "cultural" beliefs (instead of the religious beliefs) are causing the subjugation. Not sure there's a difference that matters.

I don't know about "separate," but surely there is a lifetime's worth of interesting work to be done here. E.g., you could look at religious minorities (Egypt's Christians, off the top of my head) and see how they compare in different ways.

2: Can you make a serious economic argument for subjugation of women? I'm sure it's possible--slavery had it's economic advantages as well.

I was suggesting economic factors as an explanation for some of the bad things that Not Me attributes to Islam.

3: Ahh, the dry desert air means women are necessary solely to bring us water and pick our nose. Point taken.

I was thinking more about the effects of having large pools of oil underneath formerly nomadic societies, but you raise an interesting point.

4: Uhhuh

Word. But they get into this stuff in Orange County.

5: What are they learning in school that's not cultural or religious, to the extent it's relevant to this aspect of societal decisionmaking.

I ask the same thing about my local public schools.

6: Ah, yes, the Burqa deduction. I forgot about that. I do now recall we decided yesterday that tax policy drives culture rather than the other way around.

It's a Hegelian dialectic, no?