More Race and PC problems at Harvard

[Tempra]

Re: Tempra

How do you know that it was not objectionable in the beginning?

Because the snitch talked about how she was worried about the impact this student could have because of her prestigious credentials and likely career trajectory. Of course, she didn't care that a racist was going to be clerking for Judge Kozinski until the student in question slept with a guy she liked....six months later.

[TerraPrime]

Re: expectation of privacy

Wow. I guess I learned today that my expectation of privacy when it concerns communication is a lot lower than a lot of other people.

In my experience, most people are not kind. They are not considerate. They are not ethical. So, I operate with that assumption, and under that assumption, there's no reason to expect that they will treat what I sent them in email with any respect. I'd say that if this woman had operated under the same assumption as I have, this would not have happened. Seriously, writing out that you don't think you can rule out the possibility that black Americans are genetically disposed to be less intelligent is like writing your own rejection letter to being confirmed for Judges. She needs to learn to hide her racism.

Re: kairparavel

It's deplorable to me, that we live in a society that jumps on and lives to take glee in the weak moments of others and sometimes even profit from it. Where are the email forwards and praise for things this girl did? Surely she must have done something right or good in life? Said something simply wonderful in correspondence, or in class, or at some other time in her life?

That is utterly unfounded speculation. There are raging assholes out there who, really, probably have not said a single nice thing in their lives. I don't see how you can automatically rule out the possibility that this person is one of those. Particularly considering that she's top of her class in a Law School.

But no, because she has the audacity to ask questions that make people feel a little uncomfortable, because it goes against the grain of what society deems 'acceptable' she's open to criticism from you and me, just because we have an internet connection?

It's so brave of her to regurgitate racist thoughts dressed in modern respectability, indeed. Let us indeed ponder the possibility that black people are stupid because they are black... what an audacious notion! So counter-counter-culture! A visionary more brilliant we have yet to discover! Give this woman a medal!

Barf.

And why is she racist? The framing of questions and wanting scientific proof makes her that way?

Yes.

Really?

Yes, really.

When did 'not socially acceptable' = racist?

When the issue is racism.

So what does this make her?

A kindred spirit of Happy Ent? Particularly when she opined that her child will be the most gorgeous-looking genius whether she raises it herself or if it's raised by an orphanage in Kenya.

Women tend to perform less well in math due at least in part to prenatal levels of testosterone, which also account for variations in mathematics performance within genders. This suggests to me that some part of intelligence is genetic, just like identical twins raised apart tend to have very similar IQs [...]

She's quite the sexist, too, yes. But why would you want to bring up her other flaws?

[sio]

People, in general, are sensationalist morons.

I absolutely do not rule out the possibility that African Americans are, on average, genetically predisposed to be less intelligent.

is not equal to

black people are genetically inferior to white people.

This woman's email can be summarized thusly:

I have not yet reached a conclusion on this issue, but feel that both options are possible and will await further scientific evidence before making a definitive judgement.

I fail to see how any rational person could consider this a racist comment.

[Ran]

So you have freedom of expression so long as you can shout louder than your dissidents and bring enough guards to protect yourself? Nice system you want there.

Freedom of expression depends, among other things, on context. You are not necessarily allowed to speak in my living room as you would in your own. You are not necessarily advised to shout, "Fire!" in a crowded theatre without cause. You probably shouldn't expect a docile audience at a university that you have denounced and decried in the strongest possible terms as an indoctrination camp filled with ignorant, zombie-students who eat up liberal pablum.

Maybe if Horowitz wasn't such a reactionary wingnut, or maybe if he was a reactionary wingnut whose opinions actually mattered in the world, he'd get more of a hearing. Certainly, for every knee-jerk conservative who has a hard time of it, how many more don't? You only hear the bad cases. How many speaking engagements does Horowitz do per year, I wonder? Hrm...

The question is not whether he matters

Of course that's the key question. You want people of genuine influence, or with genuine ideas, or genuine merits, to speak before students. They provide a window into the world.

Coulter's a window into the sewer. Were I a student at a university that hired her to speak, I'd be pretty annoyed.

Why do you care if conservative organizations invite her to school and pay her speaking fee?

I don't personally care, myself, other than in the general sense that no one should be wasting their time with her. She is an idiot who has, to the best of my knowledge, never offered anything of remote value to political discourse.

That there are people who do think she's worthwhile to listen to is their own problem. I hope they sort that out.

Where did I say any of this? I said it is rank hypocrisy to think we should tolerate one, but not the other.

But ... it's not, because as I've said repeatedly, there's a difference in the value of listening to the controversial leader of a controversial nation and the value of listening to a loud, obnoxious pundit whose main claim to fame is that she's loud and obnoxious, and of which claim several dozen other pundits can make the same.

[TerraPrime]

This woman's email can be summarized thusly:

I fail to see how any rational person could consider this a racist comment.

I have not reached a conclusion yet on whether Jews are greedy manipulators controlling the world, and so I await further scientific studies on the matter before I can commit to a position on this issue.

Along the same line, I'm also awaiting scientific proof to show that Mexicans are not lazy.

[The Mance]

So you have freedom of expression so long as you can shout louder than your dissidents and bring enough guards to protect yourself?

Once again, the question is not whether she matters in the grand schemes of things, it is whether she should be allowed to speak (and have her message actually heard).

Your freedom of expression does not include a right to be politely listened to or taken seriously.

[kairparavel]

Re: kairparavel

It's so brave of her to regurgitate racist thoughts dressed in modern respectability, indeed. Let us indeed ponder the possibility that black people are stupid because they are black... what an audacious notion! So counter-counter-culture! A visionary more brilliant we have yet to discover! Give this woman a medal!

Hey. I never said she was brave or counter-counter-culture or a brilliant visionary. She is, for all I know, a sheltered, socially inept scholastic star-girl from privilege who suffers from foot in mouth disease. All I know about her is an email she wrote, a snapshot of a conversation, who's beginning and end I've yet to see.

And really, isn't it better that she asked these awful, horrible, terrible, no good questions and promoted discussion of it, thus allowing someone to set her straight on how it is, instead of keeping these awful, terrible, no good thoughts to her herself and forming her own conclusions and perhaps propagating her misinformed opinions? If you really think she's racist, there was an opportunity squashed here, that could have been her learning moment. And that's just as sad as the vindictive act that got us on this topic in the first place.

[Max the Mostly Mediocre]

So you have freedom of expression so long as you can shout louder than your dissidents and bring enough guards to protect yourself? Nice system you want there.

Ah, freedom of expression has to do with the government. So, yes, Horowitz has it all he likes, regardless of whether or not students shout at him or whatever.

[kairparavel]

I have not reached a conclusion yet on whether Jews are greedy manipulators controlling the world, and so I await further scientific studies on the matter before I can commit to a position on this issue.

Along the same line, I'm also awaiting scientific proof to show that Mexicans are not lazy.

And so now, someone comes along, snips this post and emails it out to the interwebs.

Sure, it's completely out of context.

Some people will research it and find the greater picture of what you're talking about, but most will just write you off as racist Jew-hater.

See how that works?

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

I have not reached a conclusion yet on whether Jews are greedy manipulators controlling the world, and so I await further scientific studies on the matter before I can commit to a position on this issue.

Along the same line, I'm also awaiting scientific proof to show that Mexicans are not lazy.

Isn't that a bit of a strawman? I expect better from you, TP.

[Tempra]

Freedom of expression depends, among other things, on context. You are not necessarily allowed to speak in my living room as you would in your own. You are not necessarily advised to shout, "Fire!" in a crowded theatre without cause. You probably shouldn't expect a docile audience at a university that you have denounced and decried in the strongest possible terms as an indoctrination camp filled with ignorant, zombie-students who eat up liberal pablum.

He is speaking at a university. If free expression is not welcome at a university, please, sir, tell me where it is welcome?

Maybe if Horowitz wasn't such a reactionary wingnut, or maybe if he was a reactionary wingnut whose opinions actually mattered in the world, he'd get more of a hearing. Certainly, for every knee-jerk conservative who has a hard time of it, how many more don't? You only hear the bad cases. How many speaking engagements does Horowitz do per year, I wonder? Hrm...

And who are you to judge the quality of a person's content? Is anyone without their own bias? I'm not saying that Horowitz offers as much quality content as you seem to think Ahmadinejad brings to the table, I am saying that he has every right to speak before an audience without being shouted down and without needing 10+ body guards because he fears for his personal safety.

Your view of free expression is dangerously shallow.

Of course that's the key question. You want people of genuine influence, or with genuine ideas, or genuine merits, to speak before students. They provide a window into the world.

Once again, who are you to judge the quality of content provided by a speaker? If you do not think that Horowitz offers anything insightful, skip the event. Don't steal his books, rip down signs announcing his speaking engagement, and deny others the opportunity to hear what he says because you think his opinion is shit.

Coulter's a window into the sewer. Were I a student at a university that hired her to speak, I'd be pretty annoyed.

Student organizations often pay the fees. And I bet more taxpayers would be upset to know that Columbia (which receives federal funding) invited the head of a terrorist state that is responsible for the death of American soldiers.

But, hey, your opinion is all that matters.

I don't personally care, myself, other than in the general sense that no one should be wasting their time with her. She is an idiot who has, to the best of my knowledge, never offered anything of remote value to political discourse.

That there are people who do think she's worthwhile to listen to is their own problem. I hope they sort that out.

And you are more than entitled to your opinion, but don't justify denying other people, people who disagree with you, the right to hear her speak

This may be surprising to you, but many people on the right don't value the content of liberal speakers either. And before you tell me that conservatives should shout down liberal speakers because of the (lack) of quality of their content, I think that is just as much bullshit.

If you don't like what a person says, don't show up. Or, if you do show up, ask him questions to embarrass him. Wear your protest t-shirts or carry your signs. That's fine. But it is completely unacceptable to block speech because you don't approve of it.

But ... it's not, because as I've said repeatedly, there's a difference in the value of listening to the controversial leader of a controversial nation and the value of listening to a loud, obnoxious pundit whose main claim to fame is that she's loud and obnoxious, and of which claim several dozen other pundits can make the same.

And that is your opinion. However, many Jewish people, the family/friends of dead American soldiers, and, quite frankly, many/most Americans were shocked and dismayed that one of our universities would invite the leader of an Enemy nation to speak his trash.

Stop pretending that your opinion is the word of God on this subject matter.

[Datepalm]

And who are you to judge the quality of a person's content?

Another person with the right of free speech. Hes free to say what he wants, i'm free to tell him what I think. Sure, doing so via running him off campus isn't the polite way to go about it, but hey, he dosen't seem like a polite fellow either.

And that is your opinion. However, many Jewish people, the family/friends of dead American soldiers, and, quite frankly, many/most Americans were shocked and dismayed that one of our universities would invite the leader of an Enemy nation to speak his trash.

I'd love for Ahmadenijad to speak at the Hebrew university. If only so we can run him off campus.

[Tempra]

Another person with the right of free speech. Hes free to say what he wants, i'm free to tell him what I think. Sure, doing so via running him off campus isn't the polite way to go about it, but hey, he dosen't seem like a polite fellow either.

A person's free speech rights extend only so far. You are free to tell him what you think. You do not (should not) have the right to deny him his free speech rights.

Free speech is a joke if one person can deny another person the opportunity to speak all together. That is not free speech.

I'd love for Ahmadenijad to speak at the Hebrew university. If only so we can run him off campus.

Columbia's President called him a petty dictator and that caused a shit fit.

[sio]

I have not reached a conclusion yet on whether Jews are greedy manipulators controlling the world, and so I await further scientific studies on the matter before I can commit to a position on this issue.

Along the same line, I'm also awaiting scientific proof to show that Mexicans are not lazy.

Strawman, Terra.

Fact: on average, black people score lower on IQ tests than white people.

Explanation 1: cultural/social factors negatively affect their performance.

Explanation 2: genetic factors negatively affect their performance.

Explanation 3: some combination of (1) and (2).

Do you disagree with this?

Stand back, I'm going to try science!

From wiki:

In the developed world, nearly all personality traits show that, contrary to some expectations, environmental effects actually cause non-related children raised in the same family ("adoptive siblings") to be as different as children raised in different families (Harris, 1998; Plomin & Daniels, 1987). There are some family effects on the IQ of children, accounting for up to a quarter of the variance. However, by adulthood, this correlation disappears, such that adoptive siblings are not more similar in IQ than strangers,[53] while adult full siblings show an IQ correlation of 0.6. Twin studies reinforce this pattern: monozygotic (identical) twins raised separately are highly similar in IQ (0.86), more so than dizygotic (fraternal) twins raised together (0.6) and much more than adoptive siblings (~0.0).[54]

Say what you like about the reliability of Wikipedia, these particular studies, et cetera; the fact remains that a combination of genetics and environment is supported by a large majority of the scientific community. It seems rather unlikely to me that the majority of research scientists are just racist.

You can't really accept evolution as the process by which modern lifeforms developed and then call anyone who suggests that a certain trait might be heritable a bigot.

[Stalker]

I have not reached a conclusion yet on whether Jews are greedy manipulators controlling the world, and so I await further scientific studies on the matter before I can commit to a position on this issue.

Along the same line, I'm also awaiting scientific proof to show that Mexicans are not lazy.

Since you don't actually belive those are parallels; that a coherent theory and evidence exist in support of them, one should this as your way of admitting being in error.

[Liadin]

Columbia's President called him a petty dictator and that caused a shit fit.

It seemed a little rude to invite him, then (caving to criticism, but not caving far enough to disinvite him) introduce him with a string of insults. It didn't accomplish anything other than letting us know that, although Columbia's president was happy to have him there, he really thought he's an awful guy and look, is even willing to say so to his face.

[TerraPrime]

Re: kairparavel

Hey. I never said she was brave or counter-counter-culture or a brilliant visionary.

Well, that's what I gleaned from your framing of the issue: "But no, because she has the audacity to ask questions that make people feel a little uncomfortable..."

And really, isn't it better that she asked these awful, horrible, terrible, no good questions and promoted discussion of it, thus allowing someone to set her straight on how it is, instead of keeping these awful, terrible, no good thoughts to her herself and forming her own conclusions and perhaps propagating her misinformed opinions? If you really think she's racist, there was an opportunity squashed here, that could have been her learning moment. And that's just as sad as the vindictive act that got us on this topic in the first place.

If an intelligent woman of above-average capacity to read has not reached her epiphany on race issues through her life experience that has culminated in her becoming part of the Law Review at Harvard, my little piece of cyber criticism that she'll never read is not likely to have an impact, donchathink? You flatter me to suggest that what I say here will have any impact whatsoever on this woman's outlook on race in the U.S.

Also, let's be clear that she did not write what she wrote in that email to start a discussion. She's offering her opinion to her friends enemies.

And so now, someone comes along, snips this post and emails it out to the interwebs.

Sure, it's completely out of context.

Some people will research it and find the greater picture of what you're talking about, but most will just write you off as racist Jew-hater.

See how that works?

Yes. And I accepted that risk when I wrote it.

Honestly, someone I don't know think I'm anti-semitic? It's item #571 on my To-Care list, right above "Did you see Oprah? She gained weight again!"

Re: Matrim

Isn't that a bit of a strawman? I expect better from you, TP.

:lol:

It's only a strawman if I attribute a point that someone didn't make and then pretend that I've won an argument by defeating that make-up point. What you're seeing is mockery, and ridicule.

If you'd care to read Sio's post, the part that I quoted, you'd see the context of what I just wrote. Asking a question about the scientific proof of something does not make the question immune to biases. In fact, the asking of the question itself can be, and is in this case, a manifestation of bias.

[Tempra]

It seemed a little rude to invite him, then (caving to criticism, but not caving far enough to disinvite him) introduce him with a string of insults. It didn't accomplish anything other than letting us know that, although Columbia's president was happy to have him there, he really thought he's an awful guy and look, is even willing to say so to his face.

I personally agree, but according to Ran, if people disagreed with with him, they should have taunted his ass back to Tehran. That's how free speech works.

[Datepalm]

Columbia's President called him a petty dictator and that caused a shit fit.

All good, as far as i'm concerned. I want to live in a world with more angry debates and people saying what they really think in public, not less.

[kairparavel]

Re: kairparavel

If an intelligent woman of above-average capacity to read has not reached her epiphany on race issues through her life experience that has culminated in her becoming part of the Law Review at Harvard, my little piece of cyber criticism that she'll never read is not likely to have an impact, donchathink? You flatter me to suggest that what I say here will have any impact whatsoever on this woman's outlook on race in the U.S.

Also, let's be clear that she did not write what she wrote in that email to start a discussion. She's offering her opinion to her friends enemies.

Well no. While you're not always wrong ;), in this case, I meant from her friends enemies, that were so concerned about her views/questions. They could have set her on the path to right. Instead they chose to ruin her. So her learning moment is completely different from what it could have been.