Archives For November 30, 1999

You can make of the recent transformation of the United State’s morality what you may, however I can only deduce that it doesn’t bode well for the future. I did find the low approval of extramarital affairs to be interesting as I thought it would be higher. The fact that these acts are rapidly becoming morally permissible in the minds of the people  is pretty incredible and even more incredible are that these changes are occurring in less than two decades. Perhaps at the very least people can now visibly recognize that there is not a clear consensus on several contentious moral issues.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/210542/americans-hold-record-liberal-views-moral-issues.aspx?g_source=Social+Issues&g_medium=newsfeed&g_campaign=tiles

Some important points were brought up in this article which highlight the overarching problems with the politicization of science. Science is not a religion or belief system but a method by which we utilize our intellect to better understand the physical world. It is not a method for establishing morality nor is it an authority in the realm of politics. It truly appears that these pseudo-pop-scientists are content to promote political advocacy by masquerading as a scientific authority whose claims must be revered. I agree with the conclusion that if these “scientists” continue to discredit science in the same vain that the media has been discredited then we are in for some serious trouble.

https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2017/04/the-real-anti-science

McWhorter hits the nail on the head when he surmises the trend of aggressive protests against college speakers as a gesture in the guise of action. People are far more concerned with the show aspect of protest than the injection of substance. Additionally McWhorter is right that the onus is on the universities to teach students that righteous indignation does not suffice in public discourse. They need to understand their antics will not be tolerated.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/05/01/the-know-nothing-campus-protest-movement.html?via=desktop&source=twitter

The Dartmouth came out with an interesting survey which measured the political landscape of the campus. Firstly the disparity between the comfort levels in a roommate’s political views is not surprising given the vast majority of students are Democrat leaning. It does show though the lack of political diversity on campus as well as the overemphasis Democrats place on being surrounded by like minded people. Simply put a Democrat it appears would be unable to set aside their political identity and coexist on common grounds. I was glad to see the students on the whole were supportive of speakers being allowed to speak on campus.

http://www.thedartmouth.com/article/2017/04/a-survey-of-dartmouths-political-landscape

One of the best summaries of the problems on college campuses. Free speech isn’t a public good: it’s an individual right. Opposition to freedom of speech is simply a denial of another person’s humanity.

http://reason.com/blog/2017/04/25/liberals-are-amazed-that-campus-free-spe

Cuiusvis homines errare; nullius nisi insipientes, in errore perseverare. Those are the wise words of Marcus Tullius Cicero  which are more poignant than ever when discussing today’s political discourse. As many who follow current events in the United States are aware this week the polarizing Ann Coulter made headlines as she was compelled by the powers that be into not conducting a guest lecture at the University of California at Berkeley. Naturally this has caused much turmoil between those on the right and principled liberals who value the American ethos found in the Constitution, and members of the progressive far left who believe certain ideas (not theirs of course) can be deemed hateful. With growing tensions in the community the school pulled out all stops to dissuade the event from happening citing past violence on the part of protesters as creating an unsafe environment. By declaring that safety is involved it gives the school the perfect alibi in the free speech debate without causing them to not appear against the principle and thus hypocritical. The local government of Berkeley has further shown its ineptitude by its insistence on not intervening in the situation and not performing its civic duties by protecting the rights of citizens in its jurisdiction. In other words Berkeley knows they are wrong but won’t do anything about it. The mayor of Berkeley has shown themselves to be ideologically aligned with those who infringe on the 1st amendment which is unbecoming of a public officer. The more troubling things I have been seeing though are the multitudes on social media who defend these actions due to a dislike of the individual speaker. This type of thinking is anti-enlightenment and has no place in American society and I shall explain why.

First I think I should go ahead and state that I in no way endorse the things Ann Coulter stands for or hold many of her political views. I was never a fervent Trump supporter and I don’t mind legal immigration unlike her. I also do have an affinity for the worlds game of football which I know she abhors. She is incredibly abrasive and I personally would not have gone to her lecture if given the choice. Those things being said, I still feel it is constitutionally imperative that her speech rights be protected and this scourge on the left is defeated. However I don’t believe violence to be the method to do so even if encountered with violence on the left.

This issue isn’t about protests. When people bring up the first amendment argument in defense of Ann Coulter’s right to speak at Berkeley it has nothing to do with not wanting other people to protest her coming. That is not the issue and a mere deflection from the heart of the matter which is that prohibiting others from going is criminal. You can protest outside the venue but what gives protesters the right to prohibit individuals from the right of entry into the venue? It appears some on the far left are unable to grasp that simple concept of not infringing on others right to assemble as well. Nobody is saying that the platform is part of the right. People are saying once the platform has been given then you need to conduct yourself in a civilized manner. Either attend the event and ask her questions or don’t attend at all. Rioting and becoming violent to prevent entry are not options.

I have seen some complain that this is simply a media spectacle and a right wing conspiracy. In some ways they are correct this is a media spectacle. The problem is the far left progressives are so obtuse and foolish that they are intent on falling right into the traps set by the right. Instead of behaving like mature adults with educations, they choose the barbaric route and in doing so turn Ann Coulter into a free speech martyr. It doesn’t even cross peoples minds that nobody would even know she went to Berkeley if the far left didn’t decide to shut down the event. Even the ACLU and Bernie Sanders are getting tired of this anti-constitutional tantrum nonsense on the left. You can’t complain about media manipulation when you walk right into the bear trap yet again. How can you refute the right wing claim of campus censorship with yet another public display of left wing condoned censorship? Remember what Cicero said, Cuiusvis homines errare; nullius nisi insipientes, in errore perseverare.

I don’t foresee these situations getting any better with both sides content to battle it out using violence if necessary. Its a sad state of affairs. The only bright side is it’s getting easier to identify those who believe in the Constitution and those who do when it suits their ideology.

 

 

Intersectionality sounds good in theory and appeals to the emotions. In practice it is no more than identity politics and ought to be fought at every turn.

http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/196754/intersectionality-makes-you-stupid

I agree with the premise of the article that a human society based on reason and objectivity simply isn’t feasible. Historical precedence such as the French Revolution leads me to believe this to be true. Science is a wonderful process which has accounted for the extraordinary progress by which humans have changed over thousands of years. It is not without its flaws which include human error in weighing results, inability to duplicate results, and external variables such as financial motivation. How does Tyson propose to account for the outside interests at work affecting scientific research in his governmental plan? Furthermore the scientific process does have its limitations such as not being able to objectively proclaim which human values are most important and therefore which action governments should take. In order to do so Tyson’s “rationalia” would need to be a totalitarian state. I’ll pass on the science worshiping totalitarian police state thanks.

http://www.popsci.com/neil-degrasse-tyson-just-proposed-government-that-doesnt-work

This research paper empirically espouses what I believed to be basic common knowledge which is the tendency for both conservative and liberals to be equally biased. From the study we can deduce that the myth of conservatives being more stooped in bias is largely perpetuated by liberals stranglehold on media and education institutions. Because these institutions are selective in hiring and require peer reviews to submit work they have become the perfect echo chambers for homogeneous ideological beliefs to thrive in this case liberal beliefs. The best solutions in combating scientific bias are to remove the safety blinders by seeking dissimilar fact sources, scrutinizing information from multiple sources, and to refrain from simply accepting fact on the basis that it confirms your bias.

 

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2952510

Highbrow Fascism on Campus