Politics: J'accuse!

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I keep waiting to hear what the problem is, but it's elusive. I think I understand, but then, like sand through an hourglass, it's gone.

Evidently we have a factual disagreement as to whether it is possible for accusations of racism or other methods of name-calling marginalization to have ever stifled debate in an academic setting, or (if so) whether any such stifling has reached a level of concern. Based on my experience both as an undergraduate and in law school, I would say yes. YM has, apparently, V.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Please don't tell me you buy into that bullshit relativity of ideas trend.

You have that "actual facts" thing going on. If you think it is an "actual fact" that Muggles are dumber than sorcerers but physically stronger, then to you saying "Muggles shouldn't be running the libraries because they aren't smart enough to" isn't racist, it's just a statement of fact. If Ty thinks that if Muggles went to the same schools and had the same nutrition and other opportunities as sorcerers, and if sorcerers spent less time with the books and more time being physically active, the two groups would end up being basically the same in terms of strength and intelligence/knowledge, then you saying that is racist to him.

God, I feel stupid talking Muggles and sorcerers but I didn't want to bring anything real into it because it just pollutes the discussion.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
There are only two ways my speech could have been surpressed: (1) if I was physically gagged and (2) if I censored myself. This is not about speech surpression for someone like me, because I'm happy to fend for myself.

No. Your speech could have been suppressed if you had been shouted down by other students. Or not allowed to express your views by the professor.

I usually think that the remedy for offensive speech is more speech. You are not saying that you should have been allowed to speak more. You are saying that you don't like what other people said to you. How, in principle, is your beef different from the academic speech codes that try to ensure that all students feel comfortable by limiting certain kinds of speech likely to be offensive to some? (Not saying I agree with this, BTW.) Those codes try to ensure that everyone is comfortable by telling some to keep it to themselves. You seem to wish the other students had kept it to themselves. The only difference I see is that you are not saying they should have been punished by the school, but the principle is the same.

No, let's go there. What is your point regarding Ann Coulter?

She's the equivalent of calling someone a racist. You suspect that there is a rational argument underlying her taunts, but she doesn't always spin it out, and if she did you probably wouldn't agree with it. Is calling someone a racist worse than calling someone a traitor?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
You have that "actual facts" thing going on. If you think it is an "actual fact" that Muggles are dumber than sorcerers but physically stronger, then to you saying "Muggles shouldn't be running the libraries because they aren't smart enough to" isn't racist, it's just a statement of fact. If Ty thinks that if Muggles went to the same schools and had the same nutrition and other opportunities as sorcerers, and if sorcerers spent less time with the books and more time being physically active, the two groups would end up being basically the same in terms of strength and intelligence/knowledge, then you saying that is racist to him.

God, I feel stupid talking Muggles and sorcerers but I didn't want to bring anything real into it because it just pollutes the discussion.

I judge each person as an indivudal, rather than as a member of a group, so this has no relevance to me.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Evidently we have a factual disagreement as to whether it is possible for accusations of racism or other methods of name-calling marginalization to have ever stifled debate in an academic setting, or (if so) whether any such stifling has reached a level of concern. Based on my experience both as an undergraduate and in law school, I would say yes. YM has, apparently, V.

I think dead silence and tittering is as stifling as being shouted down. But us liberals are shrill and impervious to such things, and conservatives are well-bred and sensitive.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Evidently we have a factual disagreement as to whether it is possible for accusations of racism or other methods of name-calling marginalization to have ever stifled debate in an academic setting, or (if so) whether any such stifling has reached a level of concern. Based on my experience both as an undergraduate and in law school, I would say yes. YM has, apparently, V.

I haven't seen this in the classroom, at least not in a way that can be attributed to the teacher. See my comments to club about the remedy for speech you don't like. I know that there are schools where outside speakers have been shouted down. That's different. You were complaining that your father didn't get tenure,* but now you seem to be complaining about the way classes are taught. I still don't get it.


* My mother was junior faculty at a prestigious school that did not tenure women. She left. So I'm down with your family's irritation at the situation.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Please don't tell me you buy into that bullshit relativity of ideas trend.

I'm not sure what you mean, but I also don't think it's getting at what I'm getting at.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
It isn't about caring what someone thinks. It is about being falsely accused of something and then penalized for this. Many whites in our society feel a collective guilt over how blacks were treated in the past. In a misguided effort to prove to themselves and the world how they aren't racists, they will blindly accept any allegations of racism. And if they have the power, they will try to penalize this person who is accused of being a racist even when there is no foundation to the allegation.

What's the penalty?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
No. Your speech could have been suppressed if you had been shouted down by other students. Or not allowed to express your views by the professor.

I have a very loud voice.

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop I usually think that the remedy for offensive speech is more speech. You are not saying that you should have been allowed to speak more. You are saying that you don't like what other people said to you. How, in principle, is your beef different from the academic speech codes that try to ensure that all students feel comfortable by limiting certain kinds of speech likely to be offensive to some? (Not saying I agree with this, BTW.) Those codes try to ensure that everyone is comfortable by telling some to keep it to themselves. You seem to wish the other students had kept it to themselves. The only difference I see is that you are not saying they should have been punished by the school, but the principle is the same.

You are misunderstanding me. I do not believe that I needed the protection of a code or that there should be any codes. Remember, I am fairly radical in my position on free speech. My classmates should not have been censored. My point is that my experience is the logical result of the PC movement, and that the fact that my classmates resorted to these tactics is sad and not a desirable result for society.

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop She's the equivalent of calling someone a racist. You suspect that there is a rational argument underlying her taunts, but she doesn't always spin it out, and if she did you probably wouldn't agree with it. Is calling someone a racist worse than calling someone a traitor?

I find her funny because I do not take her seriously. She is an entertainer at this point. I find racist and sexist humor funny because I take it for what it is - entertainment. Chris Rock is hilarious, even when he is ripping on white males.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I'm not sure what you mean, but I also don't think it's getting at what I'm getting at.

I thought you were proposing a subjective standard for racism.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
What's the penalty?

Depends on what power someone has to enforce a penalty. In the classroom, a professor might give someone a worse grade because he or she thinks that it is racist to think a business owner has a right to enforce English only in the workplace. There is nothing racist about believing that a business has a legitimate business purpose for English only in the workplace. I have seen professors retaliate against students with grades for espousing non-racist but un-PC ideas in class.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
What's the penalty?

I think anyone who is incredibly vocal about racism either way is unlikely to be made CEO of a company, make partner at a big firm, or get elected by any large-ish polity (e.g., maybe in the incredibly gerrymandered H of R but not the S).

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I think anyone who is incredibly vocal about racism either way is unlikely to be made CEO of a company, make partner at a big firm, or get elected by any large-ish polity (e.g., maybe in the incredibly gerrymandered H of R but not the S).

Yet Lani Guinier has tenure at Harvard. Things that make you go hmmmm.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I find her funny because I do not take her seriously. She is an entertainer at this point. I find racist and sexist humor funny because I take it for what it is - entertainment. Chris Rock is hilarious, even when he is ripping on white males.

I find people who are always, ALWAYS throwing out accusations of racism entertaining. Do you really think that Ann Coulter thinks of herself as equivalent to Chris Rock? She certainly doesn't position herself as a stand-up comic.

[Atticus Grinch]

Conservatives:

(1) Believe that the academy's major failing is that it permits consequence-free experimental thought that would get "no traction" in the real world, but simultaneously object to the existence of a purely social phenomenon within the academy that is inarguably a precise reflection of outside realities, except that the beat-down that you get for offending someone personally is merely verbal instead of physical, and the sense of community is often such that people will defend someone else, even an absent party, from perceived offense. Conservatives regard the defense of absent parties as dirty pool, because they harbor the belief that the absent party has a 50/50 shot of agreeing with them, but have no opportunity to establish this because it too often defies common sense ("if there were a poor immigrant in this room here at Dartmouth, they would agree they have equal opportunities to me").

(2) Trust that unregulated free markets always produce things that enough people want, except there are inexplicably no first-rate colleges or universities with majority conservative tenured faculty, and no significant mass media with conservative voices. Majorities can be trusted to be a reflection of market demand, except in the highly competitive marketplaces of college selection and media consumption.

I invite someone from the other side of the aisle to attempt a fair summary of liberal thought on the above topics.

Edit: typos.