The intellectual dark web

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Can you point me to any that I can get from Chapters? If Richard Dawkins can present the arguments supporting evolutionary biology in clear and plain language accessible to the average person, and Neil deGrasse Tyson can do the same for astrophysics, then surely critical race theory can be just as accessible.

https://www.chapters.indigo.ca/en-ca...ory#internal=1

My point, in any event, was simply to rebut this idea that all of the ideas that are currently derided as “identity politics” emerged without any basis in serious, peer-reviewed academic work. That isn’t true.

I am now 15 years removed from an illustrious undergraduate social science career. I now slog away in a profession that much more closely resembles a trade than academia. So I am by no means an expert. I don’t read academic journals. I don’t pretend to. I have no idea who’s hot and who’s not in critical theories of history, economics, literature, etc, etc. I don’t even know who’s hot in the world of critical theories of justice. I haven’t bothered with that since Dworkin. I’m too tired to really care. But, I presume that the old adage of “publish or perish” is alive and well and that therefore there are throngs of wager Petersons out there only too happy to challenge the utility or legitimacy of “identity politics”. I quick read of the Wikipedia article on “identity politics” seemed to unearth a slew of such critics.

As I said, I’m no expert. I could easily be wrong. I just haven’t really seen a compelling case yet.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

I think he is right, people are giving up religion without fully understanding all the other aspects of it that go along with it. Things like culture, community, ritual and structure. While I fully endorse a society that moves further away for religion, I think there are some unintended voids that need to be addressed or filled - things that atheism will never fully be able to fulfill.

Exactly. Social justice politics are one way people are filling that void. White nationalism is another. We need to find a way to address the needs religion addresses without falling prey to dogma, tribal identity, and other illiberal credos.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

What a cop-out. Intellectuals have publicly debated every matter under the sun, from evolution to the big bang theory.

And the issues we're talking about aren't obscure matters like the behaviour of quarks. Institutionalising racial and gender identities in education, politics, and law is a fundamental change to those institutions. The absence of public debate on this fundamental change is fuelling powerful resentment.

But the institutionalization of racial and gender identities in politics and law have been, and continue to be, hotly debated in courts, tribunals, legislatures, newspapers, and even hockey forums.

It is perfectly reasonable that people challenge or disagree with this institutionalization. I just don’t think that there are significant limits on their ability to do so or venues in which to do it.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Exactly. Social justice politics are one way people are filling that void. White nationalism is another. We need to find a way to address the needs religion addresses without falling prey to dogma, tribal identity, and other illiberal credos.

Fair point, but by the same token, we also have to be able to ask “why do black males (or indigenous females or other marginal groups) have, on aggregate, such bad outcomes in our society and what should we do about it?” without being dismissed as a “social justice warrior”.

It seems a delicate balancing.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Exactly. Social justice politics are one way people are filling that void. White nationalism is another. We need to find a way to address the needs religion addresses without falling prey to dogma, tribal identity, and other illiberal credos.

Is the problem the fact that the left has dismissed religion outright based on one issue? (abortion). And thus dismissed along with it all the good things that religion has?

Because religion isn't a race issue correct? I think more Blacks in the US believe in God than Whites.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Fair point, but by the same token, we also have to be able to ask “why do black males (or indigenous females or other marginal groups) have, on aggregate, such bad outcomes in our society and what should we do about it?” without being dismissed as a “social justice warrior”.

It seems a delicate balancing.

It is a balance for sure.

I'll take the other side. First we have to define what's a bad outcome? Is it education measurements? Is it job force? Is is average annual income? Is it prison stats?

Then we have to define if there is help available right now and are people using it? Are quotas good or bad? Should they last 30 years, 100 years or forever?

Can this be done without being labeled a racist?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

There are all sorts of politics blogs where identarian columnists make simplistic moral judgements and opine snarkily.

Originally Posted by rubecube

He's probably familiar with the ones his favourite critics will cherry-pick segments from.

Apparently not just in politics blogs...

Originally Posted by Makarov

Fair point, but by the same token, we also have to be able to ask “why do black males (or indigenous females or other marginal groups) have, on aggregate, such bad outcomes in our society and what should we do about it?” without being dismissed as a “social justice warrior”.

It seems a delicate balancing.

It's really not that delicate a balance, though, is it? If you come to the table with empirical data about the reality that, in your example, black males have bad outcomes in society and talk earnestly and non-dogmatically about the sources of those issues, it's not like anyone reasonable is going to call you a SJW for noticing that white racism and the legacy of historical power structures are among those sources. That line comes when you present dishonestly parsed data in support of the notion that white racism is the only source of the problem worth talking about, or characterize anyone who wants to talk about the nuances as a racist for distracting from the problem of white supremacy as if there were no cultural issues at play whatsoever that aren't the direct result of systemic oppression.

In other words, Cliff is actually asking for someone to ask, and answer, your question... but to do it candidly and honestly without self-righteous moral grandstanding. That appears to be a bridge too far for the identity politics crowd at this point, a challenge they're unable to answer for the reasons I was talking about earlier.

Frankly if everyone could just approach issues of inequality the way the effective altruism movement approaches charitable giving, we'd all be better off.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Apparently not just in politics blogs...

It's really not that delicate a balance, though, is it? If you come to the table with empirical data about the reality that, in your example, black males have bad outcomes in society and talk earnestly and non-dogmatically about the sources of those issues, it's not like anyone reasonable is going to call you a SJW for noticing that white racism and the legacy of historical power structures are among those sources. That line comes when you present dishonestly parsed data in support of the notion that white racism is the only source of the problem worth talking about, or characterize anyone who wants to talk about the nuances as a racist for distracting from the problem of white supremacy as if there were no cultural issues at play whatsoever that aren't the direct result of systemic oppression.

In other words, Cliff is actually asking for someone to ask, and answer, your question... but to do it candidly and honestly without self-righteous moral grandstanding. That appears to be a bridge too far for the identity politics crowd at this point, a challenge they're unable to answer for the reasons I was talking about earlier.

Frankly if everyone could just approach issues of inequality the way the effective altruism movement approaches charitable giving, we'd all be better off.

Well, we all agree then.

I still think Peterson is one of the worst offenders when it comes to “self-righteous grandstanding”, but that’s just my two cents.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Makarov

https://www.chapters.indigo.ca/en-ca...ory#internal=1

My point, in any event, was simply to rebut this idea that all of the ideas that are currently derided as “identity politics” emerged without any basis in serious, peer-reviewed academic work. That isn’t true..

Thanks.

I'm long removed from university as well. However, there are people working in it today who say the shroud of orthodoxy has descended on whole fields. Jonathan Haidt started the Heterodox Academy to combat what he and many other academics see as an ideological conformity on modern campuses which hamstrings the practice of disconfirmation that's necessary to arrive closer to the truth.

The example Haidt cites is multi-variant studies that look at the economic outcomes of Americans. While the studies are done, and the data is collected, the findings are subject to fierce social sanction in the university if they challenge the sacred social values of the dominant ideology on the campus. So when studies find single-parent households correlate strongly to poverty, and race shows a much weaker correlation, the former is ignored or suppressed, and the latter is highlighted. This is because the dominant political ideology in the social sciences and humanities today is social constructionism, which posits that differences in status and power are due exclusively to oppressive social structures. Biology, sub-culture values, individual choice - dismissed out of hand. The only thing worth talking about in culture and politics is the power structure - the hierarchical, patriarchal, colonial, oppressive power structure. To talk about choices around marriage, child-rearing, etc. in regards to poverty is victim-blaming, and completely beside the point - the only thing worth talking about is oppressive social structures. Social constructionism is not a scientific model, but rather a dogmatic lens with which its adherents regard society.

Pinker has reported similar hostility to his data-based approach to social analysis from many academics in the social sciences and humanities. His data-rich book showing the effect of innate traits and impulses on behaviour, the Blank Slate Myth, provoked a firestorm of hostility among the academic left. Sacred social values and ideological narratives trump data. Which is bad science.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Is the problem the fact that the left has dismissed religion outright based on one issue? (abortion)

Seriously?

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Fair point, but by the same token, we also have to be able to ask “why do black males (or indigenous females or other marginal groups) have, on aggregate, such bad outcomes in our society and what should we do about it?” without being dismissed as a “social justice warrior”.

See the example Haidt provides. He goes into more detail in this CBC story on the politics of the modern campus (FFWD to 41:40 for the example, though the whole story is worth listening to).

There are several factors that contribute to those bad outcomes. Systemic oppression is one of them - the only one social justice warriors will recognize. Ignoring the other factors is not a good way to address those outcomes. The world is complex, and doesn't fit into the stark moral paradigm that motivates social justice activists.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Is the problem the fact that the left has dismissed religion outright based on one issue? (abortion). And thus dismissed along with it all the good things that religion has?

Because religion isn't a race issue correct? I think more Blacks in the US believe in God than Whites.

I think it's more than abortion. The Democratic Party in the U.S. has more or less abandoned its working-class roots, and its public face, at least, is now the university educated coastal elites. Those people are not very religious. But it's probably not a coincidence that the population that has seen the most dramatic reduction in traditional religiosity - the young, progressive, and university educated - is also the population that has taken most enthusiastically to identarian social justice, which fills many of the same social functions.

Those coastal progressives have to be careful not to let their echo-chambers fool them into thinking everyone on the left is as contemptuous of conventional religion as they are. As you point out, Black Americans and Hispanics are notably more religious than white Americans on average. Catholics were long one of the core components of the Democrat coalition, but Trump turned that around in the last election and won the Catholic vote.

[photon]

I never said public debate didn't have any value.

Your own source talks about debate as public engagement, educating the public, ensuring actual scientific viewpoints are represented to combat the garbage and ignorance.

What it doesn't say is scientists think debate is a good way to arrive at correct conclusions. Science isn't performed through public debates where the audience votes at the end to decide if climate change is primary caused by human activities or if the Λ-CDM cosmological model best describes the observed universe.

Public debate (I'd call it discussion) for the kinds of social things you mention is important I agree, but since there's no mechanism for determining who was "right" and because the vast majority of people aren't going to have the time or information necessary to make a truly informed and meaningful judgment on the issue, it becomes a marketing exercise where the one with the better rhetorical tricks or charisma convinces the few people that aren't already ideologically entrenched.

The climate change 'debate' is the perfect example, because the vast majority of people that are 'against' it think the way they do not because of scientific evidence, but instead because of how much control government should have over people, but don't examine their own beliefs to that degree so they just end up at 'scientists are paid by the globalists to get fake results'.

But I think I understand what you're saying and more debate in society around the issues and changes that impact that society is good (and the quality of debate is lamentable). Where I maybe diverge is in where we determine what those changes should be.. there's not nearly enough 'evidence based policy' IMO. The evidence around what changes a policy would probably make doesn't originate in a debate, where a public debate is useful is for determining what values are more important and how much certain values should be taken into consideration over others when making a certain policy.

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

What a cop-out. Intellectuals have publicly debated every matter under the sun, from evolution to the big bang theory.

And the issues we're talking about aren't obscure matters like the behaviour of quarks. Institutionalising racial and gender identities in education, politics, and law is a fundamental change to those institutions. The absence of public debate on this fundamental change is fuelling powerful resentment. If the people championing these changes want to win public support, they need to step onto some kind of public stage and engage with their critics. If they don't, the backlash will be really ugly. The image I keep coming back to is the rattle-brained models in Zoolander having a gasoline fight.

Oh, and it seems most scientists disagree about the value of debate.

http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/02/1...nd-technology/

[icecube]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

See the example Haidt provides. He goes into more detail in this CBC story on the politics of the modern campus (FFWD to 41:40 for the example, though the whole story is worth listening to).

There are several factors that contribute to those bad outcomes. Systemic oppression is one of them - the only one social justice warriors will recognize. Ignoring the other factors is not a good way to address those outcomes. The world is complex, and doesn't fit into the stark moral paradigm that motivates social justice activists.

Systemic oppression, both historic and ongoing is BY FAR BY FAR BY FAR the biggest factor contributing to bad outcomes, hence why it gets the most focus. What else even comes close? Every example you can come up with is probably connected or strongly correlated. Poverty. Health outcomes. You name it.

What other factors come close that you think deserve equal focus?

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by icecube

Systemic oppression, both historic and ongoing is BY FAR BY FAR BY FAR the biggest factor contributing to bad outcomes, hence why it gets the most focus. What else even comes close? Every example you can come up with is probably connected or strongly correlated. Poverty. Health outcomes. You name it.

What other factors come close that you think deserve equal focus?

No it isn't. Otherwise there would be almost no whites experiencing poor outcomes in society. Which we both know isn't true.

Economic status is the single biggest factor in poor outcomes. It doesn't even come close.

[icecube]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

No it isn't. Otherwise there would be almost no whites experiencing poor outcomes in society. Which we both know isn't true.

Economic status is the single biggest factor in poor outcomes. It doesn't even come close.

I pose this question to you then. Why is it that black and indigenous people have such a lower economic status and in such massively disproportionate numbers?

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by icecube

Systemic oppression, both historic and ongoing is BY FAR BY FAR BY FAR the biggest factor contributing to bad outcomes, hence why it gets the most focus. What else even comes close? Every example you can come up with is probably connected or strongly correlated. Poverty. Health outcomes. You name it.

Do you have a source for this?

Originally Posted by icecube

What other factors come close that you think deserve equal focus?

It's not a matter of deserving. But from what I've read on the subject, these factors correlate strongly to social outcomes:

Marriage status of parents
Education of parents
Affluence of parents
Impulse control
Cultural valuation of education
IQ
Peer group

If you have the time, do give a listen to the CBC interview I linked to - it deals with some of this stuff.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

No it isn't. Otherwise there would be almost no whites experiencing poor outcomes in society. Which we both know isn't true.

Economic status is the single biggest factor in poor outcomes. It doesn't even come close.

But economic status is, in many cases, strongly correlated with race or gender etc (indeed, economic status is one of the classic measures of “outcomes”).

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Economic status is the single biggest factor in poor outcomes. It doesn't even come close.

Why do people treat this as if it's somehow disputed by the left or "SJWs?" It's incredibly disingenuous.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Do you have a source for this?



It's not a matter of deserving. But from what I've read on the subject, these factors correlate strongly to social outcomes:

Marriage status of parents
Education of parents
Affluence of parents
Impulse control
Cultural valuation of education
IQ
Peer group

If you have the time, do give a listen to the CBC interview I linked to - it deals with some of this stuff.

But those first three factors are strongly correlated with economic status and therefore, in some cases, also with race or gender etc.

So it all seems very complex to me...