Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Bell Curve in contrary to the Party line, which is what colleges exist to teach. Banning opposing speech and thought is part of with Marcuse's Critical Analysis, the predominant philosophy in colleges today.
Banning opposing speech and thought is part of with Marcuse's Critical Analysis, the predominant philosophy in colleges today.
I was watching various Youtube vids the other day and there were some interviews on the Berkeley campus. One guy explained that free speech had its role in the past and it was useful as it led to us looking at all the ideas and figuring out the right direction for society to take and figuring out the truth and stuff. But free speech has served its purpose and is obsolete now as it can only be used to detract from the correct path through the use of hate, misinformation, and attempts to stir up trouble.
It reminded me of two things -- the way some people talk about unions ("served their purpose but not really needed now") and the way people talk about climate change and mitigation ("settled science and we know we have to drastically reduce carbon").
It struck me as the clearest explanation I've ever heard for why the 16-24 year olds who are against free speech feel that way. Horribly misguided, but quite clear. Next stop: banning free speech.
I was watching various Youtube vids the other day and there were some interviews on the Berkeley campus. One guy explained that free speech had its role in the past and it was useful as it led to us looking at all the ideas and figuring out the right direction for society to take and figuring out the truth and stuff. But free speech has served its purpose and is obsolete now as it can only be used to detract from the correct path through the use of hate, misinformation, and attempts to stir up trouble.
It reminded me of two things -- the way some people talk about unions ("served their purpose but not really needed now") and the way people talk about climate change and mitigation ("settled science and we know we have to drastically reduce carbon").
It struck me as the clearest explanation I've ever heard for why the 16-24 year olds who are against free speech feel that way. Horribly misguided, but quite clear. Next stop: banning free speech.
They have their conclusion already set and are now searching for ways to rationalize it. First they denied that they were against free speech, and now that they've lost that argument, time to own up to it and just market it as a good thing.
They have their conclusion already set and are now searching for ways to rationalize it. First they denied that they were against free speech, and now that they've lost that argument, time to own up to it and just market it as a good thing.
Indeed. A recent op-ed takes a slightly different but not dissimilar angle:
Free speech has always been a tactic used by the state to grant the illusion that all voices in this nation are valued.
We cannot let free speech become a tactic that asks oppressed people to tolerate their oppressors in hopes of peaceful compromise.
I do not understand how we can fill the streets demanding justice and then magically separate ourselves from the movement to protect conservative voices who want a soapbox and our death certificates.
I am here for the lives Milo Yiannopoulos and Ann Coulter want dead.
The concepts that America is great because of our ability to share perspectives and differing opinions, that UC Berkeley is beautiful because we can discuss and organize with opposite sides of the political spectrum… are bull****.
Not sure if I'm following the argument you two are having but people with symmetrical facial structures are generally deemed good looking.
Yes, sexual selection has certainly had an impact on human evolution. And the differing shapes of noses are thought to have evolved due to differing climates.
Just listened to the podcast hosted by Sam Harris. It was a really interesting listen. The takeaway that libs (and I am as liberal as they get ... but THINK) that is missed is the mis-application of affirmative action has rendered in more difficult to look at the capacity of the individual AND that there is more variation within a group than between groups.
Anyone who respects Sam Harris but thinks Charles Murray is a villain and the Bell Curve is pseudoscience really needs to listen to that. Harris lays it all out in the introduction, supporting all of Murray's controversial conclusions and calling him the most unfairly treated scholar in America.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
