Hey Jon, take that Twitter break you keep telling us about. Don't you have victim-blaming pseudo-science about slutty lipstick wearers to publish? Or is picking on student journalists who have already endured the BS from your Aussie colleague your bag now?
And, FWIW, one reason we go after Quillette so much, in addition to platforming eugenicists and publishing Heying's AEI application, is b/c you and @clairlemon regularly act like bullying buffoons and encourage *bigoted and nasty* trolls to harass those you don't like.
I wonder how many troll armies are regularly unleashed to gaslight, harass, and otherwise act like the useless basement-dwelling buffoons they are by the *editors* of *other publications*.
Just so we're clear, subtweeting is completely legit, and not a sign of "cowardice." And tagging in those not originally tagged is super ridiculous.
"Hey, friends, let's talk about this article we just read. But wait! We first need to call the author and have them listen in on speaker phone, or else we'd be COWARDS."
"But wait, someone with a paper bag over his head (somehow I know it's a "him") is peering in through the window and loudly demanding we back up our discussion with links! Someone find the links now! Quick! He NEEDS them!"
I obviously think more people should be educated in the humanities. But we need more science literacy too. Recent days have shown the importance of spotting BS arguments hiding behind the veneer of "science" (evolutionary biology, for example).
Every movement has its court hacks and quacks, just like both sides in a trial have "expert" witnesses. Some of them are even lucky enough to land that American Enterprise Institute gig they so crave.
When the average misogynist writes an article blaming lipstick or tube tops for male sexual misconduct, it only preaches to the knuckle-dragging choir. When a biologist does it, feigning that the conclusions are "science-based," it might actually change some minds. That's too bad
To clarify: *I* wasn't claiming to provide any graphs. Jeepers. Also, I *don't* think all the members of this group are themselves necessarily racist, sexist, xenophobic, etc. (Though some, like Charles Murray, *are*). Some seem to be the opposite, in fact. BUT, 1/
By rejecting and ridiculing entire fields of study b/c they're "intersectional" or "Social Justice oriented" or "politically correct," fields that do so much important work to inform how we deal with these issues, 2/
the IDW encourages followers to take *anti* intersectional/SJW/PC views reflexively and unthinkingly, which plays into the hands of those who *are* racist, etc. such as Murray (and Molyneux et al.). Some IDW's realize this. All of them need to combat it openly, IMO. 3/3
More and more, the entire IDW/Quillette/Heterodox/etc. movement strikes me as no more than a dressed-up attempt at reassuring people that their prejudices (whether racism, sexism, classism, xenophobia, etc.) are actually ok, even right. And here are some graphs to back it up. 2/
Some members of or adjacent to this movement are more guarded about it - even nuanced - than others, but the upshot is largely the same: Immigrants really *are* bad for society. There really *are* IQ differences between races that justify policies. Men really *do* code better. 3/
I took this at the Tyne Cot Cemetery in Belgium (near Passchendaele). The designation "soldier of the Great War" indicates that a body is buried here, but was too ruined to be identified. It's a good image on which to center my thoughts on why I do what I do as a scholar. 1/
The motto of Remembrance Day in Canada is "Lest We Forget," meaning that we hold these annual observances on Nov. 11 so we don't forget the sacrifice these soldiers made for us. 2/
Herodotus, setting out the rationale for his history, said that he wanted the great deads of both Greeks and non-Greeks to be remembered, so from its early stages a great deal of history writing and history thinking had been about remembering, not forgetting. 3/
So, I'm not blaming them directly, but since I've gotten so much, ahem, attention from Taleb and Quillette, I've just now starting getting comments and snarky retweets from actual National Policy Institute supporters and other white supremacists. Coincidence?
Know how many white supremacists endorse my ideas? None. I'm cool with that.
For a sampling of @QuilletteM's robust intellectualism here are two recent articles. 1. An *undergraduate* laments the decline of the academy because his professors *had standards and guided his research*. Also, he got a bad mark. quillette.com/2018/06/17/my-…
And 2: A first-year grad student laments the decline of academia b/c not everybody wholeheartedly agreed with and congratulated her on the opinions she had before coming to grad school. quillette.com/2018/07/02/thr…
Bonus round: self-proclaimed eugenicist simply can't fathom why anyone would protest him. Must be b/c the left hates honest inquiry. conatusnews.com/anomaly-academ…
I *do* read the original texts. In the original languages. I teach my students to do the same. But I also have studied the texts, studied others who have studied the texts, earned a PhD, published peer-reviewed scholarship. It's called being an academic. It's why I'm a professor.
The thing is, just "reading the original texts," with no context, no background, and without being challenged to delve deeper or think differently is *easier* than what I do, and try to teach my students to do.
It's easier to thump your chest and imagine yourself a new Achilles. It's easier to curl up and masturbate to a Frank Miller comic about Sparta. It's harder to be challenged to see these things in a different, more complex, and truer light. *You* are lazy anti-intellectuals
To those responding to this tweet along the lines of "multiethnic states never work!", ahem, the Roman Empire? To those responding "sounds great to me!", it's cute that you think you'd be among the enfranchised.
Since so many @nntaleb followers dispute my indisputably factual statement (at least the ones that don't actively *celebrate* xenophobia and misogyny, of whom there are many among his fans, it seems), let me clarify.
And make no mistake, so many people want these kinds of policies in the US, but also in Canada. In practical terms, where do you really think all the "they must adapt to Canadian values" rhetoric leads?
And so, if this legal segregation of minority groups is a "Danish value," then Danish values suck. Same goes for "American values" and "Canadian values". How about we try human values? Or humane values? Or compassionate values?
This is a "pox on all your houses" take. And it's meant to justify the support of its author, @matthewschmitz, and his magazine, @firstthingsmag, a conservative Catholic publication, of Trump. Here's what I mean: 1/
The article appears to take a neutral stance, just laying out the different "family values" held based on class, arguing that Trump's "family values" align well with those of non-elites, whether religious or not. 2/
But here's the key passage: "Just as a Catholic priest at a wealthy parish would be accustomed to overlooking his parishioners’ discreet reliance on contraception (a respectable practice his Church condemns as immoral)..." 3/
Keeping your "personal political beliefs" out of your job is an absurd concept, and is just one more capitalist maxim we should question.
I'm lucky enough to have a job in which I'm free to deal with political and other issues of importance. But the idea that *any* job should force employees to be mindless automatons is inhumane. Selling tea to a MAGA guy is *not* more important than doing the right thing.
And calling out someone for wearing a MAGA hat - which is an unambiguous symbol of cruel bigotry, misogyny, etc., and is only worn to intimidate and mock - is absolutely the right thing to do. Just like calling out Confederate paraphanalia and other symbols of bigotry.
It's a tough couple of days for "justice" when SCOTUS upholds a racist travel ban, strikes down worker rights, and will soon lose Kennedy. As a Canadian bonus, *another* Canadian jury has acquitted *another* man for killing an indigenous person *over a car*.
Since Hammurabi, codes of law are supposed to be a bulwark in defense of the minority/marginalized against the majority/powerful, so the strong can't oppress the weak.
Well, perhaps here's *another* thing the "Enlightenment* might not have made better. Since Locke, laws seem more geared to protect the property and interests of the powerful *against* the weak. Or am I wrong?
Anyone else think that the fact we can regularly tell how the supreme court will vote on any given matter *ahead of time* because of partisan lines is evidence of a broken system (no matter who holds the majority)?
This is a kleroterion, or lottery machine, from the Athenian Agora, which was used to select jurors *randomly* to prevent any outside influence on the verdict. For that matter, government offices were filled randomly in this way too.
If one of *the main perks* of being elected president is the ability to select a supreme court justice, there is obviously no separation of powers between the executive and judiciary. Add that justices are appointed *for life*, we're left with 9 black-robed tyrants.
Forget "respectability politics," forget the "politics of division," forget "civility." Let's denormalize these folks and their ideas every single chance we get, including throwing them the hell out of restaurants. Like we should have done *from the very beginning*.
We don't need to ask, like I do in the case of the Civil Rights movement, "what would I have done?" We have the chance to do something and show our true colors *right here and now*. Don't find yourselves explaining to your children that you sat on your hands.
And just as important (or more so, depending on the context), denormalize and call out the journalists and talking-heads that do the normalizing. Kicking Sanders out of a restaurant isn't what "gave us Trump." Equivocating and cowardly pundits did. And will continue to do so.
"When he weaves in the laws of the land, and the justice of the gods that binds his oaths together, he and his city rise high. But the city casts out that man who weds himself to inhumanity thanks to reckless daring."
-The Chorus in Sophocles, "Antigone"
"But if the will of the people, the decrees of the senate, the adjudications of the magistrates, were sufficient to establish rights, then it might become right to rob... if such conduct were sanctioned by the votes or decrees of the multitude."
-Cicero, "The Laws."
"You shall not wrong an alien, or be hard upon him; you yourselves were aliens in Egypt. You shall not ill-treat any widow or fatherless child. If you do, be sure that I will listen if they appeal to me; my anger will be roused."
In this latest piece from @QuilletteM, author Jonathan Anomaly argues that the university is now dominated by left-wing cultists, as evidence for which he cites a protest to a public talk he gave. He doesn't actually say *what* the substance of the talk or its opposition was.
His 2017 article, "Race Research and the Ethics of Belief" caught my eye. In it, he tackles whether the harms of engaging in race research outweigh the benefits. He concludes that it need not, specifically since the pursuit of truth is good, as is better medical diagnosis.
In addressing the security fees a university assessed you-know-which "free-speech" advocate to bring in you-know-which racist scumbag, Mercer argues that it would be in the university's "best interests" to pick up the tab. 2/
Failing that, though, Mercer says it's the responsibility of *all of us* to provide security for such events by financially backing a robust police presence to "maintain order" and ensure the you-know-which racist scumbag gets to speak in peace, wherever the hell she wants. 3/
I've seen a lot of statements from bigots along the lines of "white nationalism isn't white supremacy," or "what's wrong with celebrating European culture and heritage?," etc. They hide behind such rhetoric to oppose immigration and multiculturalism, and be general a-holes. 1/
I'm a Classics professor. I teach and publish on Athenian democracy, ancient warfare, Homer's Iliad, Greek ideas of freedom, war monuments ancient and modern, and so on. I also teach the Western Civ survey, and have taught the rise of Christianity. I know Europe and the West. 2/
You know how I know that all these "Western chauvinists" and "Euro-Canadian" activists are nothing but ignorant and frightened racists who hate non-white people? Because *they neither know nor understand nor practice the "heritage" they claim to defend.* 3/
Socrates was convicted largely b/c of rumours circulating among people who didn't know him, but propagated by those who *did* know him and knew the rumours to be untrue. "Journalists" and politicians - who *know* the truth but don't care - did same thing this week to @NoLore.
These "journalists" and politicians claim to be reflecting the views of "everyday hardworking Canadians," and those outlets that were fairer to Loreto, like the CBC, were called out as being "out of touch" with said Canadians, etc. This rhetoric needs to be called out as BS.
As if it's the job of journalists and politicians to pander to and incite the mob, rather than use their platforms responsibly to *set the tone of the conversation.* Piling on Loreto, by *those who know better*, is mere demagoguery, and an abdication of public responsibility.
"I had hoped Faith Goldy would spark that discussion and have her views openly and freely engaged with and deconstructed." You're right, @newworldhominin: Goldy's views aren't well known, widely disseminated, and freely available online. Oh wait; they are. macleans.ca/opinion/why-i-…
Note the narcissism: *I* wanted to hear Goldy. Other students who felt *silenced* wanted to hear Goldy. Etc. You know what? Promoting a public figure to tell members of your own school and community that they're ruining Canada b/c *you're* curious sucks, Lindsay.
And what the hell is this? "“Hey hey! Ho ho! White supremacy’s got to go!” the gender-ambiguous speaker yelled into the microphone." Nice dig.
How to enable racism in 4 acts. 1. Tone-police and quibble with someone Tweeting against a virulently racist event on a Canadian university campus, targeting students at that very campus. Say *nothing* against the racism itself.
2. Draw the original anti-racist into a Tweet-off with a known and notorious racist like @charlesmurray. Then try to get a "gotcha" tweet by taking the original anti-racists first tweet to Murray out of context. This is the @BennSteil method.
3. Retween @bennsteil's out-of-context "gotcha" quote, with even less context, in order to own the libs,. Again, don't even *mention* the original racism about which the anti-racist was tweeting, let alone actually *condemn* the racism. This is the @jamestaranto technique.