This is confused. If by "racist" we mean having an unjustified racial bias, there are many studies showing liberals are generically racist in an anti-white direction. A similar level of evidence does not exist for conservatives. Granted, you might claim Trump and co are racist even if most conservatives are not. Supposing that is true for the sake of argument, only calling the right racist is still misleading and frames the issue in a confused way.
(In the present case this is relevant because lots of the attacks on Stancil are obviously motivated by anti white racism)
Political bias has caused a clear decline in academia's quality. To reverse this, academics would have to do some smart and truth seeking things. For that to happen, we'd need to have more academics who are not dogmatic leftists. The right increasingly consisting of uneducated...
...people, people with low IQs, etc. makes that less likely to happen. To fix academia, we'd want a trend in the opposite direction.
In response to how bad academia, and so the media, has gotten, alternative media has become more popular. It gets some things right in...
...virtue of denying whatever mainstream institutions say, but it's highly unreliable. More importantly, while academia could be fixed by smart people doing smart things the same is not true of alternative media where people succeed based on attracting a mass audience. Of...
The idea that you can "expose yourself to intense suffering to toughen yourself up" is one influential idea that is pretty plausibly wrong. First, there's the research on self control training where people practice doing one hard thing and then we...
...see if an increase in their tolerance for that thing transfers over to an increased tolerance for doing other hard things. Generally, it does not. Sometimes, the opposite happens.
Then, there's all the literature in developmental psychology about what happens to people...
...who have tough upbringings. We know that such people generally have pathological outcomes and underachieve. How causal this is, that is up for debate, but there's no evidence at all that such environments make people better.
This reminds me, I think people don't talk enough about differences in sensation seeking. Roughly, some people get easily bored if extreme things are not happening, externally or internally, and so are frequently chasing a desire to make them happen. Often, such people like...
...doing this in groups because this lessens their feeling of individual agency, which is also exciting.
In part, people will probably tend to be high in sensation seeking if they are unable to pay close attention to stimuli that doesn't capture their attention with force...
...and if they're unable to think interesting thoughts. So, being dumb is probably relevant.
Group differences in this are very obvious. Kids and teenagers are really sensation seeking. There's the typical black > white > asian pattern.
The most obvious argument for censorship is that when people who are smarter, more educated, and spend more time thinking about politics, than the masses, say that a significant number of the masses are dangerously wrong about something our priors should favor elites being...
...right over the masses.
The most obvious argument against "doing your own research" is that however much research you do, the experts will have done far more, so if you end up disagreeing with them you will probably be wrong.
In recent years, people have talked a lot...
...about expert fallibility, myself included, but generally people react to this in an irrational seeming way. Finding out that tons of people spending decades researching topics still often get things wrong should decrease your confidence in your ability to form true views by...
I am a fan of Sailer as well. I somewhat disagree with his take on the history of the left, but it is important to note that this is a standard take in American political history, many mainstream books will tell you about the old protestant left, and it's been common on the...
...far right for years in Nrx circles, and Paleo ones before that. Given this, I don't think it's justified to conclude that Sailer being part Jewish is the cause of him holding these views. Also, the antisemitic attacks from Groypers on Sailer recently have obviously been bad.
Anyway, it is true the the progressive left was overwhelmingly protestant in its first iteration. Moreover, early progressives advocated for many things that are mirrored in the modern left: the power of unions, women voting, universal education, various business regulations...
Because women, but specifically young women, moved way to the left in many countries in the 2010s, it seems plausible that social media is a big explanatory factor. And it seems plausible that the thing women find on social media that moves them to the left is the posts of men...
...who obviously hate women and who are conservative, or at least anti-left. My guess is this is not true of most conservative men, but it is true of some of them and they, like many anti-social groups, like to be loud on the internet. Probably, they were on the right before...
...the internet, but they couldn't as easily make their views known and so women didn't react to them as strongly. Since feminism is left wing, it is not surprising that people who hate women would tend to be right wing since hating women is one, but obviously not the only...