"We share a refusal to see King’s dream extinguished."
You are invited to sign the Dream Coalition letter supporting the vision of MLK’s “I Have a Dream” speech. (I have already). dreamcoalition828.com/letter/
THREAD, with further invitation, and excerpts.
You are invited to a livestream discussion:
Woke or Still Dreaming? A Dialogue on King’s “I Have a Dream” Speech, Social Justice Ideology, & the Future of Liberalism.
"dreamcoalition828.com
Sponsored by Institute for Liberal Values (ilvalues.org) & @FreeBlckThought
Excerpts from the Letter:
"Today, both King’s dream and the American Dream are under assault by a set of ideologies obsessed with race, hostile to merit, contemptuous of our country’s founding ideals, and destructive to our common humanity."
"A small but vocal minority have employed these illiberal and divisive ideologies to capture our schools and universities, coopt our workplaces, and sway our government."
"Amplified by the undemocratic power of social media, and masters of intimidation, these ideologues have succeeded in bullying the majority of Americans into silence. And with the acquiescence of silence, they have set us on the path to extinguishing King’s dream."
"While we differ in background&upbringing & vary in political affiliation&religious beliefs, we share a common sentiment and resolve. We share an unwillingness to stay silent. We share a commitment to fight for free expression. We share a refusal to see King’s dream extinguished"
"We share these dreams.
We share the dream of preserving the values embedded in our country’s founding documents and animating the original civil rights movement, and we reject the belief that these values are inherently racist or are the product of racism."
"We share the dream that our children be taught the moral complexities of history and that they and their teachers be encouraged to speak openly and freely in the classroom,"
"and we reject the climate of indoctrination, intimidation and fear that has become pervasive throughout our public and private education system."
There's more, those are just excerpts.
END
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Shall we "follow the science"? A short thread of sources on Things That Do Not Work* to Increase Social Justice:
Trigger Warnings
Diversity Trainings
Implicit Bias Trainings.
*=Tests of their effectiveness fail to show any.
1/n
Trigger Warnings Do Not Work.
and likely cause more harm than they prevent (which is not hard, because they prevent hardly any harm).
New post just promoted to Essential Read under Replication Crisis at Psych Today***: psychologytoday.com/us/blog/rabble…
***They either censor/edit my stuff or love it. More love than censorship, so I can't complain too much.
BUT: 1/2
If you click the image, under key points, it says this:
"An experimental manipulation in the study altered many dependent variables, making it unclear if the results are due to mindset differences."
That is NOT me, an editor added it. It is AMUSINGLY wrong.
(need 1 more tw)
2/3
AND I CANNOT REVISE IT. (email to editorial staff is out). A manip that altered many DV's would be good. BUT its wrong. The experimental conditions manipulated a ton of things all at once, making it hard to attribute results to mindset (or anything else).
Read post for details.
Remember when Jeffrey Sachs argued that: 1. There is no free speech crisis on campus
& (sic) 2. The (nonexistent) free speech crisis was over?
No? (see below).
Thread 1/n
W/(dare I say it?) data that "disrupts" that narrative or (dare I say it?) a "close look at the evidence."
First, let's dispense with the "crisis" narrative. The term is both subjective and extreme. Has climate change turned the world into a flaming pit of Hell? Is Covid the worst plague humanity has ever seen?
No? So we're all good, right?
Sachs has also claimed "its not my fault, I did not provide the titles, the editors did it!" This is true, but so what? Why did the editors give it those titles? Because they believed the titles captured the thematic points of the articles.
Why Some Social Scientists (& Natural Scientists Who Dabble in Social Sci) Who Embrace Empiricism, Skepticism, Falsification, & Ruling Out Alternative Explanations in Their Scholarship Jettison All That For Social Justice
Thread
1/n
DISCLAIMER: This thread is NOT about social scientists who prioritize activism/social justice/"disrupting" whatever they want to disrupt over truth. I write about that all the time (screenshots shown). This thread is NOT about those people.
This thread is about the others, such as: 1. Professors of Medicine denouncing papers reviewing evidence showing affirmative action is ineffective.
Can't make this up. Given that "microaggressions" are defined exclusively or heavily in terms of subjective perceptions held by alleged targets, Haverford can punish people based on accusations alone (if microaggression=perception then accusation=guilt).
Thread 1/n ending in END
"But Lee, this is just another one of your wild takes," I can hear them denouncing me already. Let's see.
How did Nadal (the researcher, not the tennis player) measure "microaggressions"?
Did he assess the behavior of racists? No.
Did he assess behavior of anyone? No.
He assessed people's perceptions of what constituted microaggressions. Here are items from his questionnaire:
@RhiannonDauster@MGalvanPsych Nah. Just a social psychologists who knows where the skeletons are hidden and who has the skillsets to check under the hood to see how the sausage, whoops, I mean "consensus" is made.
@RhiannonDauster@MGalvanPsych The Sordid History of "Consensus" in Social Psychology
A Thread 1/n ending in END
A Priori: When IS social science credible?
This is when:
@RhiannonDauster@MGalvanPsych Notice the absence of "Majority Vote." Scientific facts/truths are not established by "consensus."
Claims that "X should be believed because consensus" are social conformity moves, and should be a HUGE red flag that maybe "They do not have the evidence."