If Mort Divine ruled the world

[Einherjar86]

I think? he was trying to prove a point about the culture. It may indeed be an outlier in the strength of response. However, in the aggregate on that press release I linked - which was before the PC stuff really hit "peak" (the HERI survey rotates that item in and out for some reason, so it wasn't in the most recent iteration), over 60% answered in the affirmative to some degree across all faculty across the country.

The HERI survey specifically says: "Colleges should prohibit racist/sexist speech on campus."

It is entirely reasonable that faculty would respond affirmatively to this, as it doesn't specify that this speech is coming from invited speakers. It could just as easily refer to graffiti sprayed on dormitory walls--and why wouldn't faculty object to that?

The question itself is ambiguous and encourages an affirmative reply, and one that cannot be automatically conflated with the restriction of free speech.

Can you quote/describe the portion that mentions how he determined that there is no hereditary limit on intelligence? He cites adoption studies as one example in the abstract, but several studies have come out since then showing that identical twins have more correlated IQs than a child with an adoptive sibling. All he seems to say is that adoption/upbringing can influence intelligence, which as I've said multiple times now is obviously true, just not necessarily the most important factor determining an upper limit.

No, I can't quote the essay. It's not available as an essay, only as a book chapter, and I can't copy/paste from it. The evidence is there, as far as I'm concerned. Why do you feel that genetics is necessarily the most important factor in determining an upper bound? You seem quite confident on this matter, so either it's obvious to you "because genetics"... or there's some evidence you have that reinforces that assumption.

 

[CiG]

Vicky Pryce, an economist, former government adviser and author of Why Women Need Quotas, said Allan was right that men would have to work harder, but that was a good thing.

“There are so few women in senior positions, and for a woman to rise they obviously have to prove they are really good, and often better than the man,” she said. “It’s so much harder to get there because the path is so much more difficult.

“What we’re really talking about is that people should be judged on merit, so having more women encouraged to stay and compete increases meritocracy rather than decreases it. But yes, men will have a wider range to compete against, which can only be a good thing for the economy.”

http://archive.is/zqgIl#selection-1409.0-1417.280

 

[arg]

More dumbass students being pumped out looney lefty universities

 

[rms]

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2017/03/study_shows_black_men_are_seen.html

WASHINGTON - Young black men are seen as taller, more muscular and more threatening than comparably sized white men, a bias that may prompt more aggressive law enforcement response towards them, a new psychological studyshows.

The researchers noted that Centers for Disease Control biometric data says that average non-Hispanic white and black men over age 20 have the same average weight - 199.3 lbs. - but white men are a centimeter taller, on average.

whoa. gotta see this. we're biologically the same size yet they got like 3 inches on our dicks?

"Participants also believed that the black men were more capable of causing harm in a hypothetical altercation and, troublingly, that police would be more justified in using force to subdue them, even if the men were unarmed," said Wilson.

obvious problem for fairness

 

[rms]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/10/opinion/sunday/stop-beating-black-children.html?_r=0

"its whiteys fault we beat our children 3x higher than any other ethnic/racial group!"

removing agency from minorities and placing it all on the majority is the highest order of importance for (progressive) libs, right?

 

[Dak]

"Only the white man has agency". And Asian men if the issue is forced.

 

[rms]

But if whupping children kept black people out of prison or safe from abusive cops, there would be no mass incarceration or police brutality. If beatings were a prerequisite for success, black people would be ruling the world.

Before white America enslaved millions of Africans,

In fact, there is no evidence that ritualistic physical punishment of children existed in pre-colonial West African cultures, where children were viewed as sacred and purer than adult

Africa is rife with primary sources, amiright?

It is a European idea that children are “born in sin” and should have the devil beaten out of them with a “rod of correction.”

It's a christian idea, no? This wasn't really practiced until the late 19th and early 20th centuries which was obviously global and not just European.

It should not be surprising, then, that black American slaves

pssst slaves were not Americans

The truth is that white supremacy has done a masterful job of getting black people to continue its trauma work and call it “love.”

And worse, it erodes our children’s humanity and co-signs the slave master’s logic that you have to hit a black body to make it comply.

oh, this idea originated with slave owners?

Especially as we brace for the possibility of more systemic racial devastation

it's gonna get worse than when africans were slaves? jesus

This is the logic of an about to be or already doctorate academic. just baffling they can make it this far up the ladder and be successful in spite of it

This is one of the saddest untold stories in American history — the way in which the victims of racist oppression and violence have hurt the bodies of their own children in an effort to protect them from a hostile society.

this is actually interesting and maybe the only worthwhile line in this piece

 

[Dak]

This is the logic of an about to be or already doctorate academic. just baffling they can make it this far up the ladder and be successful in spite of it

Climbing the ladder depends on embracing this sort of rhetoric. It's where the money and limelight goes. I mean, getting in the NYT is primetime.

 

[Einherjar86]

It's a christian idea, no? This wasn't really practiced until the late 19th and early 20th centuries which was obviously global and not just European.

Original sin, as a doctrine, goes back to Augustine.

pssst slaves were not Americans

Even the ones born in America?

oh, this idea originated with slave owners?

It was certainly practiced en masse by slave owners.

Climbing the ladder depends on embracing this sort of rhetoric.

No it doesn't, unless I'm reading "ladder" differently. Do you honestly still believe this? You can be just as, if not more, successful in academia and avoid this kind of language entirely.

 

[rms]

Even the ones born in America?

were they guaranteed rights as citizens?

Original sin, as a doctrine, goes back to Augustine.

isnt 'original' original sin via women?

children getting the evil beaten out of them couldn't really have been practiced since formal and organized education didn't occur until what, late 18th century just land owning male children? then progressed from there

It was certainly practiced en masse by slave owners.

of course but this is a different response

Do you honestly still believe this? You can be just as, if not more, successful in academia and avoid this kind of language entirely.

in soft science humanities? do you really believe this?

 

[Einherjar86]

were they guaranteed rights as citizens?

No, but what else should we call them? Culturally speaking they were/became Americans.

isnt 'original' original sin via women?

children getting the evil beaten out of them couldn't really have been practiced since formal and organized education didn't occur until what, late 18th century just land owning male children? then progressed from there

I was referring only to original sin, I don't know much about the history of child abuse. But original sin, in its original form, isn't "via women"--it was the innate sinfulness borne in every human because of Adam and Eve's transgression, collectively. The appeal to original sin as justification for the disenfranchisement of women happened later.

of course but this is a different response

Was she implying that it originated with slave owners? It doesn't look that way.

in soft science humanities? do you really believe this?

Yes, I do. Do either of you publish in humanities journals? I have. I've never felt compelled or pressured to write this way.

The point is that the majority of employed humanities scholars don't write this way. Obviously those in specific studies like race or gender probably do; but it's ignorant to cast this net across the entire humanities.

 

[Dak]

No it doesn't, unless I'm reading "ladder" differently. Do you honestly still believe this? You can be just as, if not more, successful in academia and avoid this kind of language entirely.

In academic areas outside of the social sciences/humanities one can avoid this language. But if you try to avoid it - even in it's most benign forms of language about "socioeconomic inequalities" - in the social sciences/humanities, it will potentially be a problem.

 

[Einherjar86]

No, that is not true except for (possibly) specific departments.

Socioeconomic inequalities can be discussed without the kind of inflammatory rhetoric she's using in this NYT op-ed. If you're saying that most in the humanities won't reduce inequality to personal responsibility, well then yeah--because that would be inaccurate and absurd.

 

[rms]

No, but what else should we call them? Culturally speaking they were/became Americans

African slaves?

it was the innate sinfulness borne in every human because of Adam and Eve's transgression, collectively. The appeal to original sin as justification for the disenfranchisement of women happened later.

when did original sin not involve women's temptation of the snake? not a religious scholar but I thought it always was that man has sin because Eve listened to the snake

Yes, I do. Do either of you publish in humanities journals?

Obviously those in specific studies like race or gender probably do

you're comparing yourself and your field to race/gender dominated fields and you think this is a legitimate comparison?

I wouldn't even consider English a soft science like sociology or gender/race studies

 

[Einherjar86]

African slaves?

In that article, she was talking about slaves here for generations, i.e. slaves who never saw Africa.

when did original sin not involve women's temptation of the snake? not a religious scholar but I thought it always was that man has sin because Eve listened to the snake

That's the misogynist interpretation, and I'm not entirely sure when it came about. As far as Augustine was concerned, it just had to do with both Adam and Eve eating the fruit. The temptation itself wasn't sinful, it was the consumption of the fruit on the Tree of Knowledge.

you're comparing yourself and your field to race/gender dominated fields and you think this is a legitimate comparison?

I wouldn't even consider English a soft science like sociology or gender/race studies

Well, English is grouped within the humanities, and elements of race/gender studies often cross over into it. But I very rarely see the kind of inflammatory rhetoric that appears in that op-ed.

Historically, English has seen some crossover with cultural studies, in which you can find more politically fired fields. And there have been politically motivated English scholars; but on the whole, you don't find this kind of rhetoric in scholarly publications. It's a mass media phenomenon, even if its attitudes derive from academic ideas.

 

[rms]

slaves who never saw Africa.

I don't think she makes that distinction anyways, she is rather careless if not just wrong with her historical phrasing. but it doesn't change the fact they had no nationality, they were not citizens of the U.S.

If your argument is that you can culturally belong to another nation-state then that is going to complicate labels for all colonized and subordinate people throughout the last few centuries if not even before then

and the cultural labels that would apply to these african slaves would be french, spanish, native american, english and german in the north etc...

 

[Dak]

No, that is not true except for (possibly) specific departments.

Socioeconomic inequalities can be discussed without the kind of inflammatory rhetoric she's using in this NYT op-ed. If you're saying that most in the humanities won't reduce inequality to personal responsibility, well then yeah--because that would be inaccurate and absurd.

Sure, the inflammatory rhetoric is pretty limited to the departments you already identified, but the current trend is to try and absolve everyone of everything (using varied language but essentially sharing similar themes) unless they are a rich white male. This is stupid (I use this word knowing how overused this word is, but I use it with specific intent) and absolutely counterproductive to improving outcomes.

 

[Talos of Atmora]

Honestly, I feel this kind of rhetoric infantilizes people. There's no "liberation" involved here. If the information regarding physical abuse of children was out there and these parents really wanted the best for their children, maybe they'd care enough to look. To excuse such behavior from anyone and blame it on other races' past transgressions is preposterous.

 

[Einherjar86]

I don't think she makes that distinction anyways, she is rather careless if not just wrong with her historical phrasing. but it doesn't change the fact they had no nationality, they were not citizens of the U.S.

If your argument is that you can culturally belong to another nation-state then that is going to complicate labels for all colonized and subordinate people throughout the last few centuries if not even before then

and the cultural labels that would apply to these african slaves would be french, spanish, native american, english and german in the north etc...

I don't have an argument, I'm just interested in the assertion that slaves weren't American because they weren't legal citizens. I don't know if I want to say they definitively are citizens just by being raised in this country, but I'm not sure you can say they're not American either. I mean, "American" can be defined multiple ways. Trying to pin down categories like this is never theoretically helpful, only practically useful. And in the case of slavery, I'm okay being impractical.

Sure, the inflammatory rhetoric is pretty limited to the departments you already identified, but the current trend is to try and absolve everyone of everything (using varied language but essentially sharing similar themes) unless they are a rich white male. This is stupid (I use this word knowing how overused this word is, but I use it with specific intent) and absolutely counterproductive to improving outcomes.

This is simply not accurate Dak, I'm sorry. Back in January I had a conversation with a friend of mine--a grad student in anthropology, one of the most left-wing fields. Furthermore, this friend is Latin American and actually rushed to become a legal citizen once Trump was elected. He and I had a conversation about this very issue, and about how studies in socioeconomic differences or systemic variances are not justifications for absolving people of responsibility. This is a purely political perspective that does little justice to the information revealed. Can those who suffer from economic inequality improve their station by altering their behavior? In some, if not many cases, probably; but this doesn't change the fact that there are still systemic issues to be addressed and at least acknowledged as existing.

I realize that this is an anecdotal remark, but he's one of the most liberal people I know and the general tone of our discussion holds true among many relationships I have with other scholars (not all, but many, particularly older scholars). It doesn't have to be blaming rich whitey when a sociologist discovers discrepancies in child abuse between blacks and whites, or rich and poor; but it also doesn't mean that the quality of being black or being poor tends, inherently, to be accompanied by a tendency toward child abuse. Your resistance to what she's saying is as unattractive as her argument because you want to lay the issue entirely on individual/personal responsibility, when the complicated truth is that it's probably some mixture that varies from person to person.

 

[Dak]

I recognize there's some mixture. But I have a problem with this default assumption that discrepancies between any sort of contrived groupings is problematic in itself, never mind that the presence of a discrepancy tells you nothing about "fault", yet "systemic factors" are immediately assumed.