Politics Random, Random

[mmmm8]

Now, about Pinker.

No one is perfect. Including Pinker. Dawkins has his well-documented issues. Sam Harris is riddled with all sorts of problems. We can admire these big brains for what they get right while also raising our eyebrows when they say something like this. No one should be put on an unquestionable pedestal, and when they step far outside of their realm of expertise, such as this case, we most certainly should not greet their words with deference on a bended knee. They have earned our respect, but they haven't earned that.

I completely agree with this high-level but I do think sometimes it undermines their actual work when they come out with not just a stupid thought but something THAT blatantly racist and then not only state the thought but position themselves to be an activist about it. It makes me question the efficacy of their work, particularly when their work has to do with the related issue (i.e. Pinker and psychology/sociology).

[ponchi101]

Has anybody visited the website? Read their Mission and Values?
Like in so many occasions, the tweet is being taken as if nothing more has been said. And although it does come from Pinker (the tweet), he is not alone in that organization. There are other very interesting people there. And the statement is not his, it is the organization's statement.
And, sorry. Pinker is not stepping out of his realm of expertise. The Blank Slate deals very much in this subject, as does Enlightenment Now.

[mmmm8]

Has anybody visited the website? Read their Mission and Values?
Like in so many occasions, the tweet is being taken as if nothing more has been said. And although it does come from Pinker (the tweet), he is not alone in that organization. There are other very interesting people there. And the statement is not his, it is the organization's statement.
And, sorry. Pinker is not stepping out of his realm of expertise. The Blank Slate deals very much in this subject, as does Enlightenment Now.

I have visited it now... I find the mission statement and their other philosophical musings contradictory and (inadvertently?) showing racism and some other isms, particularly in the suggestion that members of disadvantaged groups who fight for social justice don't know what's best for them. I also find the capitalization of "Critical Social Justice" really pretty frustrating because they're making it out to be some sort of organized movement that's the enemy of humanism....

Looks like Pinker isn't directly associated with them...

I was actually saying this IS in Pinker's realm of expertise which is why his other work can be judged more harshly because of this (whereas, say, Wagner's anti-semitism doesn't reflect on the quality of his music).

[ponchi101]

In the WHO WE ARE section he is listed as an academic affiliate. He is not listed as part of the CW team.

[dryrunguy]

I'd like to point out that NOT ONE person of color is represented on the CW Team at their website. I see a few on their academic affiliates, but the paucity of people of color within the core organization itself pretty much tells me everything I need to know.

And for the record, just because a person is an academic with expertise in psychology and sociology does not by any stretch of the imagination suggest that a person is an expert in system racism or any of the other isms social justice is really about. Social justice grew out of many other social movements, including suffrage, civil rights, LGBT rights, feminism, etc. Each one of those movement encountered resistance, including resistance from those within the academic community. Each one of those movements was met with "I support equal rights for all, but now you've gone too far!" The best case in point... Feminism by and large rejected intersectional feminism (routinely beginning their statements with phrases like, "As a feminist scholar, I [finish with dismissive statement...]" to protect White Feminism. Acknowledging the lived experience and lived expertise of women of color (and transwomen) was too inconvenient and simply asking for too much.

And that is exactly what is happening here. The very fact that they lump social justice, political correctness, and cancel culture together--each one of those being dog whistles in and of themselves for certain audiences--is far too telling. Furthermore, the impetus for this group, according to their own words on their own website, was the aftermath of George Floyd's death.

Um, no thanks. I'll pass.

[ponchi101]

If you look at the ACADEMIC AFFILIATEs, you find: 4 POC, both men and women. 1 person of Asian ascent. 5 more women. Lack of diversity this group does not have.
Let me ask you a serious question. I promise I am not putting you on. Assume I accuse you of being ANTI-Feminist because you ARE NOT supporting an organization in which 5 of the 6 main personnel (including the founder and leader) are women. Personally, we know that is ludicrous (we are well aware of where you stand there). We would make that call based simply in the statement you are making above, as opposed to looking at the entire story of your statements and the logic of your postings. Wouldn't that be unfair?
Look at the Tweets that started this conversation. None (there were very few) said anything about the STATEMENT that was posted; they all focused on Pinker's status and comfortable life. That is usually a clear sign of not having a real position: attack the person, not the statement.

One more. You claim: "just because a person is an academic with expertise in psychology and sociology does not by any stretch of the imagination suggest that a person is an expert in system racism or any of the other isms social justice is really about". Sure. And it does not discredit them from being an expert either. It cuts both ways. These are some of the credentials of this group:
"...With an academic background in late medieval/early modern women’s religious writing"
"...would like to discover alternative solutions to social justice issues to help individuals to build more compassionate, understanding, and unified workplaces"
"...is a licensed clinical social worker in private practice in the Washington D.C. area"
"...While in Parliament, she focused on furthering the integration of non-Western immigrants into Dutch society, and on defending the rights of Muslim women."
"...Born in Pakistan, xxxxx spent her early youth as a practicing Muslim, leaving religion in her late teens. Since 2016, she has advocated for the acceptance of religious dissent as Executive Director of Ex-Muslims of North America"
"...Recent observations of contemporary social justice activism have taught xxx that much anti-racist activism is either the effect of pre-established disempowerment or the cause of further disempowerment of the very groups such activism is meant to benefit"
"...As a journalist, she writes about the science and politics of human sexuality and gender, free speech, and censorship in academia."
"...Her books include Modern Motherhood and Women’s Dual Identities: Rewriting the Sexual Contract "
"...urges the importance of compassion, curiosity, and honesty in order to understand not only those we disagree with better but ourselves."

These people do not sound like our enemy. At worst, they are simply presenting a different view. At best, they make sense and have a point.

[Suliso]

I find it difficult to disagree with ponchi here, albeit admittedly I can't be bothered to delve into qualifications and policy statements of this particular organization.

[Suliso]

Having written the post above I realized that I have heard of one of the people involved. Sarah Haider is a rather prominent atheist activist of Muslim descent.

If you wish you can read a recent interview with her here: https://free-thought.ch/news/2020-03-01 ... rah-haider

But let me also post an answer to one question in full (because I like the answer obviously). Do note (in case it matters to you) that the answer is from a Pakistani woman not a white American man.

How do politicians react to your commitment to apostates?

Historically, godlessness has always been a left-wing issue in the US, and it still is today. But the concerns of ex-Muslims occupy a very strange place. Our concerns receive real attention from only two groups: atheists and xenophobes. 95% of our ex-Muslim supporters position themselves centre-left. But unfortunately we receive hardly any encouragement from this part of the political spectrum.

Part of the reticence may be due to the fact that the USA is still a very religious country. However, membership in religious communities is declining, and faithlessness is slowly becoming socially acceptable in politics as well. And the knowledge about the difficult situation for ex-Muslims is constantly increasing. On the other hand, identity politics is becoming increasingly important.

Representatives of identity politics often regard religiousness as an unchangeable characteristic. Yet by our mere existence we ex-Muslims prove that one’s world view is something dynamic and that you can pursue a whole bouquet of ideas. By the way, it will be exciting to see what influence the gender debate will have on identity politics, which in many respects starts out from the immutability of characteristics, but emphasises fluidity in gender.

A further challenge is the tendency in the West to see the West as being shaped by reason, while the East is seen as a place of cultural tradition and superstition. This is what people on both sides of the political spectrum do, but the left is hardly aware of it. Representatives of the Democrats hardly entertain the idea of defending the rigid dress code of Mormons. Anti-women customs were omnipresent in Victorian culture, but no one is demanding that we should continue to follow them. Regarding the hijab, on the other hand, many on the left argue that veiling is a legitimate element of Muslim culture, that it is part of the tradition and should therefore be considered important today.

Many activists on the left assume that the injustices in Muslim countries are primarily or even exclusively a consequence of Western intervention, which is regarded as a kind of original sin. This reductive explanation only holds if these countries are understood as being shaped by tradition, and not by reason and by inhabitants with their own individual will to act. This is ultimately just as racist as when Muslims on the political right are portrayed as uncivilised barbarians who are incapable of forming functioning societies.

The open racism from the right often leads to a further insinuation on the left: that ex-Muslims only give up their religion because it has such a bad reputation as a result of right-wing hatred. That is outrageously presumptuous, ex-Muslims are simply not perceived as autonomously acting people.

So, political work is extremely challenging, ex-Muslims often do not fit in with either the left or the right, and our two-party system makes it even more difficult to be heard.

[dryrunguy]

These people do not sound like our enemy. At worst, they are simply presenting a different view. At best, they make sense and have a point.

Agree with this 100%.

As for the question you posed to me, I would, indeed, be anti-feminist if I dismissed this organization BECAUSE so much of its executive leadership consists of women. But this group's primary purpose is not to promote feminism (nor would I bet they are particularly interested in intersectional feminism, though I could be completely wrong about that). Instead, their primary purpose is to invalidate social justice activism that isn't done the way they like; to advance the myth of political correctness; and to lament the degree to which they have been "injured" by cancel culture. I just can't get on board with that.

But that is not to say that these people do not possess extraordinary academic credentials. Of course they do. But their only academic credentials in the field of social justice are writing paper after paper trying to dismiss and silence it. Essentially, they want to "cancel" social justice activism that inconveniences them or reduces their social or academic power.

::

M8 made a great point before that I don't want to get lost. This tiny group of white people leading this organization want me to believe they know what's best for people of color and ending systemic racism than people of color themselves. I am highly suspicious of any man who claims to know what's best for women--better than women. I'll be suspicious of any white person who claims to know more about racism than people of color. I'll be suspicious of any cisgender person who claims to know more about transgender issues than transpeople themselves. You can study something to death, and academic study has value. No question. But academic study cannot replace the value gained via lived experience. Empathy helps, but it only gets you so far.

::

I'll close with this. I'm sure I have used this phrase before in the TATosphere, but here it goes again. From the hand of Hanna Rosin who wrote an exceptional piece following that Catcalling video we discussed years ago: "Activism is never perfectly executed." That's true for social justice warriors; it's also true for those who oppose them and everyone in the middle. CW is probably yet another example of that principle in real-time practice. I don't think any of them are bad people. And we know they care about racial inequality and want to address it--that's noble.

But when they insist it be done on their terms? Again, no thanks. I'd rather send money to the Black Girl Dangerous blog.

[ponchi101]

It is one area in which you and I disagree, and I once used myself as an example: I cannot be deemed the final judge about things Venezuelan simply because I am one. That same fact may stop me from completely being properly focused and seeing options in an unbiased way.

And reading their website I did not get the feeling that they "insist" things must be done on their terms.
I guess there is a lot to sleep over, and give it time to marinate.

[dryrunguy]

It is one area in which you and I disagree, and I once used myself as an example: I cannot be deemed the final judge about things Venezuelan simply because I am one. That same fact may stop me from completely being properly focused and seeing options in an unbiased way.

And reading their website I did not get the feeling that they "insist" things must be done on their terms.
I guess there is a lot to sleep over, and give it time to marinate.

Marinating is good.

I'll just add one ingredient to your marinade that I thought about getting into before--but held off... And that's about the inherent flaws/shortcomings of academia. They are profound, in large part because mainstream academia hasn't even bothered to study many of the issues of profound importance to people of color or other marginalized groups. Yes, academia has done a fine job with poverty, health disparities, and some issues. But things like institutional/systemic racism, the unique challenges facing women of color, the unique plight of LGBT people of color... Mainstream academia could not possibly care any less. The only people trying to study those issues are people of color who struggle to get funding, struggle to get published, and struggle to get heard. And White Academia has done virtually nothing to support this area of research.

That would be another reason why I am skeptical of academics who throw around terms like "scientific" and "evidence-based" when it comes to matters where they have never expressed an interest in increasing the body of evidence, supporting the increase in the body of evidence, and instead chose Fast Forward to dismiss it. That's a thing.

[ti-amie]

Homeland security bulletin warns Americans about violence by grievance-fueled domestic extremists

By
Nick Miroff
Jan. 27, 2021 at 12:54 p.m. EST

The Department of Homeland Security issued a warning Wednesday to alert the public about a growing risk of attacks by “ideologically-motivated violent extremists” agitated about President Biden’s inauguration and “perceived grievances fueled by false narratives.”

DHS periodically issues such advisories through its National Terrorism Advisory System, but the warnings have typically been generated by elevated concerns about attacks by foreign governments or radical groups, not domestic extremists.

In a statement, the department said the purpose of the new bulletin was to warn the public about a “heightened threat environment” across the United States “that is likely to persist over the coming weeks.”

The bulletin is a lesser-status warning designed to alert the public about general risks, rather than an imminent attack linked to a specific threat.

“DHS does not have any information to indicate a specific, credible plot; however, violent riots have continued in recent days and we remain concerned that individuals frustrated with the exercise of governmental authority and the presidential transition, as well as other perceived grievances and ideological causes fueled by false narratives, could continue to mobilize a broad range of ideologically-motivated actors to incite or commit violence,” the statement read.

The most recent bulletins DHS has issued — both this month — warned the public about an elevated threat from Iran. No other bulletin in recent years has been issued to alert Americans about violence by domestic extremists.

“Throughout 2020, Domestic Violent Extremists (DVEs) targeted individuals with opposing views engaged in First Amendment-protected, nonviolent protest activity,” the bulletin states. “DVEs motivated by a range of issues, including anger over covid-19 restrictions, the 2020 election results, and police use of force have plotted and on occasion carried out attacks against government facilities.”

It added: “DHS is concerned these same drivers to violence will remain through early 2021 and some DVEs may be emboldened by the January 6, 2021 breach of the U.S. Capitol Building in Washington, D.C. to target elected officials and government facilities.”

The new bulletin will remain in place through April 30.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... story.html

[ti-amie]

Here are the top states for gun sales in 2020

State Total gun sales in 2020
Illinois 7,455,065
Kentucky 3,330,462
Texas 2,235,281
Indiana 1,935,587
Florida 1,912,204
California 1,601,054
Pennsylvania 1,452,921
Utah 1,216,773

https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/nic ... e.pdf/view

[ponchi101]

Marinating is good.

I'll just add one ingredient to your marinade that I thought about getting into before--but held off... And that's about the inherent flaws/shortcomings of academia. They are profound, in large part because mainstream academia hasn't even bothered to study many of the issues of profound importance to people of color or other marginalized groups. Yes, academia has done a fine job with poverty, health disparities, and some issues. But things like institutional/systemic racism, the unique challenges facing women of color, the unique plight of LGBT people of color... Mainstream academia could not possibly care any less. The only people trying to study those issues are people of color who struggle to get funding, struggle to get published, and struggle to get heard. And White Academia has done virtually nothing to support this area of research.

That would be another reason why I am skeptical of academics who throw around terms like "scientific" and "evidence-based" when it comes to matters where they have never expressed an interest in increasing the body of evidence, supporting the increase in the body of evidence, and instead chose Fast Forward to dismiss it. That's a thing.

Yes it is
I was very interested in your post. I find it, not an attack on academia, but certainly not supportive of the institution. So, I have two questions:
1. If we do not support "scientific and evidence based" analysis of the issues, and perhaps the reaching of conclusions based on those methods, what methods to use? Empirical? Non-evidence based? Assume that your assertion that "they have never expressed an interest" in these issues (bold above) is correct and true. If they are now expressing such interest, isn't that progress? Should we not, at least explore those venues?
2. What if this group is the one that is right? Or do we depart from the default mode that they are wrong, and CANNOT be correct? Wouldn't we be, in doing so, proving them right? The PC, CSJ position is so entrenched that we cannot even discuss (or they cannot offer) a position in which we question the actions innate to PC/CSJ? To me, it becomes borderline Gödelian: CW, an organization that questions Cancel Culture, has to be declared irrelevant a priori and their position must be cancelled and not heard of because they go against PC/CSJ/Cancel Culture as part of their platform.

I find academia to have something that very few other institutions can claim: a verifiable track record of progress over the time-span of its existence (universities since their foundations). If I were a betting man, I would not bet against our methods. So far, they have been very successful.

Off Topic

I left half the stew marinating some more. I am, to say the least, very interested in your position.

[ponchi101]

Here are the top states for gun sales in 2020

State Total gun sales in 2020
Illinois 7,455,065
Kentucky 3,330,462
Texas 2,235,281
Indiana 1,935,587
Florida 1,912,204
California 1,601,054
Pennsylvania 1,452,921
Utah 1,216,773

https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/nic ... e.pdf/view

Illinois has a population of 12.74 MM. So, roughly, 6 out of every 10 people in Illinois bought a firearm in 2020.
No reason for concern, right?