Open-Minded Liberals at it again

[Vlad]

(12-29-2017, 02:49 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: WTF! 

Sorry if that offended you, but there was nothing false, or erroneous about what was said.
If you could come up with a theory in response to Dills question I would like to hear it.

[Vlad]

(12-28-2017, 08:49 PM)GMDino Wrote:



 

Triggered? You seem to have lost track of the thread topic.

You spend an extraordinary amount of time here, so perhaps you have the time to read the opinions of Johnathan Haidt, a lifelong liberal academic.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/jonathan-haidt-on-the-cultural-roots-of-campus-rage-1491000676

Trigger this:

When a mob at Vermont’s Middlebury College shut down a speech by social scientist Charles Murray a few weeks ago, most of us saw it as another instance of campus illiberalism. Jonathan Haidt saw something more—a ritual carried out by adherents of what he calls a “new religion,” an auto-da-fé against a heretic for a violation of orthodoxy.

“The great majority of college students want to learn. They’re perfectly reasonable, and they’re uncomfortable with a lot of what’s going on,” Mr. Haidt, a psychologist and professor of ethical leadership at New York University’s Stern School of Business, tells me during a recent visit to his office. “But on each campus there are some true believers who have reoriented their lives around the fight against evil.”

These believers are transforming the campus from a citadel of intellectual freedom into a holy space—where white privilege has replaced original sin, the transgressions of class and race and gender are confessed not to priests but to “the community,” victim groups are worshiped like gods, and the sinned-against are supplicated with “safe spaces” and “trigger warnings.”

The fundamentalists may be few, Mr. Haidt says, but they are “very intimidating” since they wield the threat of public shame. On some campuses, “they’ve been given the heckler’s veto, and are often granted it by an administration who won’t stand up to them either.”

All this has become something of a preoccupation for the 53-year-old Mr. Haidt. A longtime liberal—he ran a gun-control group as an undergraduate at Yale—he admits he “had never encountered conservative ideas” until his mid-40s. The research into moral psychology that became his 2012 book, “The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion,” exposed him to other ways of seeing the world; he now calls himself a centrist.

Paul Gigot says there is a clear disconnect between Wisconsin and New York City. In 2015 he founded Heterodox Academy, which describes itself as “a politically diverse group of social scientists, natural scientists, humanists, and other scholars” concerned about “the loss or lack of ‘viewpoint diversity’ ” on campuses. As Mr. Haidt puts it to me: “When a system loses all its diversity, weird things begin to happen.”

Having studied religions across cultures and classes, Mr. Haidt says it is entirely natural for humans to create “quasireligious” experiences out of seemingly secular activities. Take sports. We wear particular colors, gather as a tribe, and cheer for our team. Even atheists sometimes pray for the Steelers to beat the Patriots.
It’s all “fun and generally harmless,” maybe even healthy, Mr. Haidt says, until it tips into violence—as in British soccer hooliganism. “What we’re beginning to see now at Berkeley and at Middlebury hints that this [campus] religion has the potential to turn violent,” Mr. Haidt says. “The attack on the professor at Middlebury really frightened people,” he adds, referring to political scientist Allison Stanger, who wound up in a neck brace after protesters assaulted her as she left the venue.
The Berkeley episode Mr. Haidt mentions illustrates the Orwellian aspect of campus orthodoxy. A scheduled February appearance by right-wing provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos prompted masked agitators to throw Molotov cocktails, smash windows, hurl rocks at police, and ultimately cause $100,000 worth of damage. The student newspaper ran an op-ed justifying the rioting under the headline “Violence helped ensure safety of students.” Read that twice.

Mr. Haidt can explain. Students like the op-ed author “are armed with a set of concepts and words that do not mean what you think they mean,” he says. “People older than 30 think that ‘violence’ generally involves some sort of physical threat or harm. But as students are using the word today, ‘violence’ is words that have a negative effect on members of the sacred victim groups. And so even silence can be violence.” It follows that if offensive speech is “violence,” then actual violence can be a form of self-defense.

Down the hall from Mr. Haidt’s office, I noticed a poster advertising a “bias response hotline” students can call “to report an experience of bias, discrimination or harassment.” I joke that NYU seems to have its own version of the morality police in Islamic countries like Saudi Arabia. “It’s like East Germany,” Mr. Haidt replies—with students, at least some of them, playing the part of the Stasi.

How did we get here, and what can be done? On the first question, Mr. Haidt points to a braided set of causes. There’s the rise in political polarization, which is related to the relatively recent “political purification of the universities.” While the academy has leaned left since at least the 1920s, Mr. Haidt says “it was always just a lean.” Beginning in the early 1990s, as the professors of the Greatest Generation retired, it became a full-on tilt.
“Now there are no more conservative voices on the faculty or administration,” he says, exaggerating only a little. Heterodox Academy cites research showing that the ratio of left to right professors in 1995 was 2 to 1. Now it is 5 to 1.
The left, meanwhile, has undergone an ideological transformation. A generation ago, social justice was understood as equality of treatment and opportunity: “If gay people don’t have to right to marry and you organize a protest to apply pressure to get them that right, that’s justice,” Mr. Haidt says. “If black people are getting discriminated against in hiring and you fight that, that’s justice.”

Today justice means equal outcomes. “There are two ideas now in the academic left that weren’t there 10 years ago,” he says. “One is that everyone is racist because of unconscious bias, and the other is that everything is racist because of systemic racism.” That makes justice impossible to achieve: “When you cross that line into insisting if there’s not equal outcomes then some people and some institutions and some systems are racist, sexist, then you’re setting yourself up for eternal conflict and injustice.”

Perhaps most troubling, Mr. Haidt cites the new protectiveness in child-rearing over the past few decades. Historically, American children were left to their own devices and had to learn to deal with bullies. Today’s parents, out of compassion, handle it for them. “By the time students get to college they have much, much less experience with unpleasant social encounters, or even being insulted, excluded or marginalized,” Mr. Haidt says. “They expect there will be some adult, some authority, to rectify things.”

Combine that with the universities’ shift to a “customer is always right” mind-set. Add in social media. Suddenly it’s “very, very easy to bring mobs together,” Mr. Haidt says, and make “people very afraid to stand out or stand up for what they think is right.” Students and professors know, he adds, that “if you step out of line at all, you will be called a racist, sexist or homophobe. In fact it’s gotten so bad out there that there’s a new term—‘ophobophobia,’ which is the fear of being called x-ophobic.”
That fear runs deep—including in Mr. Haidt. When I ask him about how political homogeneity on campus informs the understanding of so-called rape culture, he clams up: “I can’t talk about that.” The topic of sexual assault—along with Islam—is too sensitive.

It’s a painfully ironic answer from a man dedicating his career to free thought and speech. But choosing his battles doesn’t mean Mr. Haidt is unwilling to fight. And he’s finding allies across the political spectrum.
Heterodox Academy’s membership has grown to some 600, up about 100 since the beginning of March. “In the wake of the Middlebury protests and violence, we’re seeing a lot of liberal-left professors standing up against illiberal-left professors and students,” Mr. Haidt says. Less than a fifth of the organization’s members identify as “right/conservative”; most are centrists, liberals or progressives.

Balancing those numbers by giving academic jobs and tenure to outspoken libertarians and conservatives seems like the most effective way to change the campus culture, if only by signaling to self-censoring students that dissent is acceptable. But for now Heterodox Academy is taking a more modest approach, focusing on three initiatives.

The first is its college guide: a ranking by viewpoint diversity of America’s top 150 campuses. The goal is to create market pressure and put administrators on notice. The University of Chicago currently ranks No. 1—rising seniors, take note.

The second is a “fearless speech index,” a web-based questionnaire that allows students and professors to express how comfortable they feel speaking out on sensitive subjects. Right now, Mr. Haidt says, there are a tremendous number of anecdotes but no real data; the index aims to remedy that.
The third is the “viewpoint diversity experience,” a six-step online lesson in the virtue and practice of open-minded engagement with opposing ideas.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(12-29-2017, 03:00 PM)Vlad Wrote: Sorry if that offended you, but there was nothing false, or erroneous about what was said.
If you could come up with a theory in response to Dills question I would like to hear it.

Not offended at all.  Not really sure what the point would be in arguing with you. Lets be honest I don't think we'll be changing eithers mind anytime soon.  And I'm sure that we are both embarrassed that the other exists in this country.  I know I am 

[GMDino]

(12-29-2017, 01:24 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Did we really bump a 9 month old racist thread?

Bumping was my fault.  The OP was about Milo and there was some new info about his lawsuit.

No one seems to care and now we are celebrating the scientific genius of Jimmy the Greek.  

[*bfine32*]

(12-29-2017, 01:24 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Did we really bump a 9 month old racist thread?

Review the OP. The thread is not about race. But it is typical Liberal motive to label everything as such.

(12-29-2017, 01:51 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: I'm following the conversation here and I am not convinced that "racist" is applicable. For one thing, I don't believe that having racial misconceptions or stereotypes always equates to being a racist. I believe it may also sometimes have to do with lack of exposure to or contact with another race (i.e. ignorance of another race).

Actually the comments about Blacks being superior athletes could only be considered racist (the doctrine that one's own racial group is superior or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others) if a black man said it. Whitey saying it is actually the opposite of being a racist

[Bengalzona]

(12-29-2017, 04:20 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Actually the comments about Blacks being superior athletes could only be considered racist (the doctrine that one's own racial group is superior or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others) if a black man said it. Whitey saying it is actually the opposite of being a racist

Some folks have a broader definition of racism and include anyone saying any race is superior in some way.

For example, some people from Asian descent get offended when other races claim Asian's are smarter than other races. They claim it creates unrealistic and unfair expectations on them in school. I even heard a black guy complain once about unrealistic expectations because black men are rumored to have big ****s. I didn't say anything, but I think that if I were him in that situation then I probably wouldn't have said anything about that.

But the question of the prevalence of black athletes in most pro sports is something that has been noted and discussed in many main stream media outlets. People know it exists and want to know why it is. It is a worthwhile topic for discussion, IMO.

[Dill]

(12-29-2017, 02:49 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: WTF! 

Couldn't have said it better.

[Dill]

(12-29-2017, 01:03 PM)hollodero Wrote: Hm, not really. Athletisism isn't the one major factor at soccer. Many great players aren't exactly model athletes (of course they aren't fat and they all are quite the sportsmen, but still). It's mainly a game of skill, being quick alone doesn't help much.

By all means, I always believed blacks are the superior athletes too. Maybe the term "athlete" isn't narrow enough, but the fastest sprinters are and were always black. I don't think that's coincidental.
That Africans can't compete in many sports probably has to do with training facilities and things like that (well, that was obvious).

If you are talking about professional soccer, I would have to disagree. You have to be FAR faster than average,in terms of acceleration, and have good endurance, to compete. One guy who is always outrun to the ball weakens they whole team system.  

But after that, then yes, it is a game of skill and smarts. And I would say often of skills acquired very young, and of competition and coaching. Which brings me to B-Zona's comment.

(12-29-2017, 11:13 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: I never believed in the whole "nature-vs-nurture" debate. I've always felt it was both. It is true that someone's genetics may provide them with certain advantages or handicaps in certain areas. But that could never be the sum total of why they achieve or fail as there is a plethora of examples of people with with certain handicaps or liabilities achieving and people with advantages failing.

I would add to this that national culture, opportunities, competing sports, social status, availability of great coaches--all these play role in why some nations are consistently better in soccer than others, even among those who have lots of manpower to draw on.

[Dill]

(12-29-2017, 01:02 PM)Vlad Wrote: Slavery maybe?
Could the reason that black Americans are superior athletes as opposed to their black African counterparts is because the American black is of a different species than those blacks from African countries?...that the average American black you meet is 24% white and not "pure" black.
Genome-wide ancestry estimates of African Americans show average proportions of 73.2% African, 24.0% European, and 0.8% Native American ancestry .
This partly due because of the effects of slavery in which black women were victims of rape by their white owners.
The second effect as a result of slavery is the breeding of a strong male slave with a strong female. Couple that with my first theory and was this the recipe for creating a race of "super athletes" ?? 
Remember Jimmy The Greek? He was fired for stating that black slaves were bred to produce stronger black slaves, which was true....and in his opinion this is why black athletes are very good.
This all just a theory, I don't know.
The fact remains that black Americans are exceptional in athletics. I don't care about other countries.

LOL what??? First off I don't know how you are using the term "species" here. Those humans called "black" are the same species as those called "white"--***** sapiens. And that is why they can interbreed--because they/we are the same species. I doubt if any individual "American black" I meet is 24% white. One may be 65% and another 9% and still another none.  Odd to even be discussing your alleged 24% as somehow hyper charging African genetic material to super athletic production not found on the African continent.

No one disputes white masters raped black slaves, etc. And they thought they had the right to do that because whites were better masters. Period. And no one disputes they "bred" human beings for strength. But once controlled breeding stops, so do its effects. Black men today aren't "stronger" because of some 1840 breeding program--unless you want to claim that freed blacks kept up the breeding protocols after slavery. Jimmy was fired because not only is it no longer ok to breed people, but also not ok to talk about them like animals.

Your mixed up theory of race mixing to account for super athletes follows a long-discredited way of ascribing human accomplishments and aptitudes directly to something called "race" and mixtures and gradations thereof. The genealogy of that race theory begins back in the days when, as you say, masters raped slaves and bred them for strength. It was called "science" then and justified those aforementioned practices as the earliest versions of identity politics. What is the use of such theory in current politics? Are some groups now trying to re-credit it as science?

[hollodero]

(12-29-2017, 07:30 PM)Dill Wrote: If you are talking about professional soccer, I would have to disagree. You have to be FAR faster than average,in terms of acceleration, and have good endurance, to compete. One guy who is always outrun to the ball weakens they whole team system.  

But after that, then yes, it is a game of skill and smarts. And I would say often of skills acquired very young, and of competition and coaching. Which brings me to B-Zona's comment.

Of course all soccer players are quite athletic and way above average. It's just that it's not pure athletizism that puts a certain player on top. Or said differently, it would make little to no sense to let soccer players compete in a 100 metres dash to determine who's the better player. Any slight advantage a black player might have in raw athletizism (at least when going for that) doesn't quite translate to the soccer field. Other factors are way more important.

I sure do not want to land on the wrong side of an argument and I sure don't want to have anything to do with what followed, but saing that blacks seem to have a slight advantage when it comes to trained athleticism (like seen in sprints - or the CB position - or such) to me isn't more racist or/and wrong as saying Japanese people are smaller than Swedes.