SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Charles Murray, controversial author of The Bell Curve, which promoted links between intelligence and race, was shouted down by protesters at Middlebury College last Thursday. PBS reports:
Murray had been invited by Middlebury's student group affiliated with the American Enterprise Institute, a think tank at which Murray is a scholar. [...] Prior to the point when Murray was introduced, several Middlebury officials reminded students that they were allowed to protest but not to disrupt the talk. The students ignored those reminders and faced no visible consequences for doing so. [...]
After the students chanted for about 20 minutes, college officials announced that the lecture would not take place but that Murray would go to another location, which the college didn't name, and have a discussion with a Middlebury faculty member — livestreamed back to the original lecture site.
According to Middlebury officials, after Murray and the professor who interviewed him for the livestream attempted to leave the location in a car, some protesters surrounded the car, jumped on it, pounded on it and tried to prevent the car from leaving campus.
Other sources note that political science professor Allison Stanger, who agreed to moderate the discussion, was attacked while accompanying Murray to the car, ultimately requiring treatment at a hospital for neck injuries caused by protesters pushing her and pulling her hair.
Murray himself later gave an account of his experience on the AEI blog. He emphasized that Middlebury's administration and staff displayed in exemplary ways their encouragement of free speech:
Middlebury's stance has been exemplary. The administration agreed to host the event. President Patton did not cancel it even after a major protest became inevitable. She appeared at the event, further signaling Middlebury's commitment to academic freedom. The administration arranged an ingenious Plan B that enabled me to present my ideas and discuss them with Professor Stanger even though the crowd had prevented me from speaking in the lecture hall. I wish that every college in the country had the backbone and determination that Middlebury exhibited.
But Murray notes that the outcome was very different from his previous controversial appearances:
Until last Thursday, all of the ones involving me have been as carefully scripted as kabuki: The college administration meets with the organizers of the protest and ground rules are agreed upon. The protesters have so many minutes to do such and such. It is agreed that after the allotted time, they will leave or desist. These negotiated agreements have always worked. At least a couple of dozen times, I have been able to give my lecture to an attentive (or at least quiet) audience despite an organized protest.
Middlebury tried to negotiate such an agreement with the protesters, but, for the first time in my experience, the protesters would not accept any time limits. [...] In the mid-1990s, I could count on students who had wanted to listen to start yelling at the protesters after a certain point, "Sit down and shut up, we want to hear what he has to say." That kind of pushback had an effect. It reminded the protesters that they were a minority. I am assured by people at Middlebury that their protesters are a minority as well. But they are a minority that has intimidated the majority. The people in the audience who wanted to hear me speak were completely cowed.
The form of the protest has been widely condemned even by those who vehemently disagree with Murray, as in the piece by Peter Beinart in The Atlantic that claims "something has gone badly wrong on the campus left." He argues strongly that "Liberals must defend the right of conservative students to invite speakers of their choice, even if they find their views abhorrent."
Meanwhile, student protesters have responded with their own account, disclaiming the hair-pulling incident as unintentional and "irresponsible" but condemning the Middlebury administration for their "support of a platform for white nationalist speech." They further claimed "peaceful protest was met with escalating levels of violence by the administration and Public Safety, who continually asserted their support of a dangerous racist over the well-being of students."
Personal note: My take on all of this is that the actual subject of Murray's Middlebury talk has been lost in the media coverage, namely his 2012 book Coming Apart, which (ironically) is a detailed discussion of the problems created by a division of the intellectual elite from the white working class. He explicitly dilutes his previous connections of social problems with a black underclass by noting that many of the same issues plague poor white communities. While his argument is still based on problematic assertions about intelligence and IQ, the topic of his book seems very relevant given recent political events and issues of class division. There's some sort of profound irony in a bunch of students at an elite school refusing to allow a debate on the causes and results of division between elite intellectuals and the (white) working class. I personally may think Murray's scholarship is shoddy and his use of statistics frequently misleading (or downright wrong), but I don't see how that justifies the kind of threats and intimidation tactics shown at this protest.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Thursday March 09 2017, @01:56AM (7 children)
Look at the headline. Let us start the questioning of assumptions right there. "Controversial author..." Why? What could possibly be controversial about stating the bleeding obvious?
Call out when I say something "controversial":
Every human has unique DNA which makes them unique.
Because of the basic operations of heredity, which are thought to be fairly well understood by science, closely related groups of humans share more DNA in common than less closely related groups. For a small fee you can have your DNA scanned and your origins plotted with a fair degree of accuracy based on this fact.
Humans vary in more ways than we currently understand, but are known to vary in superficial ways like skin, eye, hair color and type but also in disease resistance / susceptibility, strength, dexterity, agility, lactose tolerance into adulthood, etc. As we move up from families to larger groups we find these tendencies cluster to varying degrees, in ways strongly implying a generic factor at work. When mapped many of these look very similar to the plots of geographic origin above.
While "intelligence" might be too broad a brush, it is inescapable that mental capabilities vary by individual and it either clusters in groups similar to how the other traits do or we have incontrovertible proof for the existence of God. There is simply no other plausible explanation for why individuals can vary in mental ability while any larger grouping of humans must average out exactly alike by any measure of mental ability we can devise.
So, assuming we are rational scientists who believe in Darwin's Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection and not theologians, we are now discussing HOW MUCH of any measured difference is genetic and how much environmental, cultural, etc.
We do not have a lot of actual facts to drive any discussion since political correctness "discourages" Science from asking questions in this area. We should correct this oversight because knowledge is better than either ignorance or rigid dogma.
So where is the controversy in stating the obvious?
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday March 09 2017, @04:58AM (6 children)
Because, you disingenuous shitstack, too fucking many people will make the leap from "This group as a whole has a lower IQ than that group as a whole" to "The first group is life unworthy of life."
And you know this. And we know you know this. And you know we know you know this. And we also know where you stand on this.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Thursday March 09 2017, @06:28AM (1 child)
So because stupid people might do stupid things, some knowledge is simply too dangerous to explore or even admit the possibility of existing. Is that really your position? Because it pretty much confirms every stereotype about progressives and their hatred of any Truth that conflicts with Party Dogma.
So tell us, how many other fields of Knowledge do you place in the Forbidden Section of the library? And who the fuck made YOUR band of malfunctioning misfits the ones who decide what things may not be known? Note that you are worse than the fundies, they raise ethical objections to embryonic stem cell research because they believe it requires killing. They do not object to adult stem cell research since it lacks that issue. You on the other hand wish to forbid research conducted by methods you consider unethical, you object to any attempt to acquire knowledge of the forbidden topic then double down and attempt to even forbid any public admission the field of research even exists... while you privately admit it IS a legitimate field of scientific inquiry. It is just forbidden because. Because! damnit!
Sorry, your feelz isn't a good enough reason. Knowing the Truth on this issue would be very useful in deciding on policy.
If races differ in both physical and mental ability then affirmative action programs designed to ensure every field of endeavor is equally (or higher for women and minorities of course) represented by every identifiable (read as "can organize a political group') racial group is insane and doomed to failure after causing untold human misery. On the other hand Dr. King's idea of judging people on their abilities and character works just fine even if it makes Progressives have sadz.
Africa is a hellhole. The North end can be explained sufficiently by the inherent insanity of Islam. Culture, not biology. But what of the rest? No post colonial African country can be said to be a success story. Some are surviving, a few might even 'make it' with some luck, but most are failing or failed states. Whether it is a cultural problem, basic biology or one driving the other is all the difference between solutions that might work vs ones assured to fail. And blaming it all on IQ is simplistic. The Western Civ we keep pushing on them sorta works for Western Europeans, there are many possible differences in mental function that could explain why it appears utterly unsuited to Africans. And we haven't even tried to find the answer, as the bodies keep piling up.
But we are currently forbidden from asking such questions. We are forbidden from even admitting such a question is possible to ask. We are required to believe every human population is exactly the same from the neck up, they think the same way, they want the exact same things, they dream the same dreams. We must give witness to the Party Truth, that an average Chinaman (honed by a few thousand years of Chinese civilization) and an African Tribesman (forged by eons of being an apex predator in a daily struggle with nature), if provided a proper Harvard education of course, desire exactly the same future for their children. Of course the unstated but real heart of the matter is that they are exactly like YOU, they all want to join you in a big group hug and sing _We are the World_ with you. But is it true? How many more millions will Progressives sacrifice on the altar of their feelings for their sin of failing to meet your expectations?
Your tribe preaches "Celebrate Diversity" while insisting there really isn't any worth noticing or studying. But what if there really is? What if we all think differently? Is that world more interesting than the drab monochrome, one size fits all, one you want to live in? Shouldn't we be allowed to find out which world we really live in?
(Score: 3, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday March 09 2017, @07:52PM
I didn't even read past the first couple of sentences; it's exactly what I predicted you'd write.
Unfortunately, Mr. Morris, there are people who take knowledge like this and use it for wrong ends. That does NOT mean it ought to be censored; personally I think it ought to be widely published, *with a big honking disclaimer on it,* and released alongside laws that specifically say "Now listen, fuckwits, a human's worth is not determined by intelligence. This stuff you saw here? You are not to use it to discriminate and all holy hell will break loose and ride right up your ass if you do: see the following clauses..."
You want so, SO badly to make me look censorious. if you've seen my post history you know I'm against that; I'd rather ridicule people like you than censor you. Sorry this doesn't fit your...what's that word you use again? Ah, yes, "narrative."
Then again, you're the kind of deluded sociopathic chromosomal disaster who thinks "cuck" is a cogent argument. Or that people with half a functioning brain can't see through your projection, misdirection, and spin.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday March 14 2017, @02:52PM (3 children)
When you object to everything jmorris says, whether there's actually anything wrong with it or not, you just train people to tune you out when you curse and swear and call him names.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday March 14 2017, @05:18PM (2 children)
Eeeeeexcept if you actually SEE my post history you'll see I've modded him UP several times when he said something worthy of an upmod. The problem is the guy's so far out to lunch he's not even a stopped clock that's right twice a day; his hands are running backwards and off-sync.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday March 14 2017, @06:44PM (1 child)
So if he's not even right twice a day, you're saying you've been modding up comments unworthy of upmods?
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday March 14 2017, @08:43PM
No, sir hydrogenated fats; I think I've given him maybe 3 or 4 upmods over the entire history of my residence on the site. What do you think you're gaining by deliberate misunderstanding of what I'm typing to you?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...