Just a warning. My "Oooops." is very powerful. You might want to take a few steps back to keep yourselves safe given this "Oooops." is virulently defending censorship."
Don't blame me if the silly string hits you.
Yours,
Woke Sauron
Missing an opening quotation mark in the above tweet, sorry.
The long and very humorous (on my part, not on Crimson's) back-and-forth below this thread made my Saturday afternoon, to be honest. It was so funny. Quite a few people joined and I wondered if I should feel sorry for making such persistent fun of Crimson's responses.
But remember, I started my thread as a side-show to this conversation. And Crimson came out swinging with attempted denigration against me early on.
A few days ago, in this thread on #EricKaufmann's #AcademicFreedom report, I thought I would let other points slide in favour of this point: that the upper end of this 7-18% of NA faculty who he says support academic freedom violations is inflated by bad survey design. 1/
But my mind gets stuck on certain issues sometimes and this time it kept reminding me of what I didn't elaborate. So here goes: the lower end of this figure of 7-18% of NA faculty is inflated, too, by the choices Kaufmann made in processing his survey results. Let me explain. 2/
Here are two of the questions that led to the 7% lower edge of that range. You'll note that half the participants were given option A and the other half option B (or so I presume). 3/
I would like to come to a place where those who keep espousing the principle of "only ever talk about the data, not about the people who handle it" change their tune, you know? Reputation matters. People who through past discussion have shown themselves more trustworthy. . .
. . . in their production of quantitative work and its interpretation tend to produce more trustworthy interpretations. It matters to know that and to talk about it.
This part is really important: “Mr. Galloway’s dismissal was also because of financial misconduct, dishonesty in the investigation of the complaint, alcohol consumption with students, and a previous instance of sexual relations with a student.”
Top of the report is a set of questions for which he received answers from 803 US scholars in social sciences & humanities. Here are questions 1-3 along with the graph representing the answers. In the report, the answer key is: 1. support, 2. oppose, 3. neither, 4. don't know. 2/
Participants were given 1 of 2 versions of each question with either students or admin campaigning. There is a difference between the two. We might question answers being lumped together into "students/the administration" as well as the very odd "find work elsewhere" phrasing. 3/
The article, "a welcome counterblast" according to noted historian Niall Ferguson, objects to the hate crime law and its use of the verb "stir up" with the following argument.