6 ms·

You can't choose your skin color or where you were born, but you can choose your political beliefs. For that reason alone, I think statements like "My Facebook

You can't choose your skin color or where you were born, but you can choose your political beliefs. For that reason alone, I think statements like "My Facebook followers have incredible compassion for war victims in South Sudan, for kids who have been trafficked, even for abused chickens, but no obvious empathy for conservative scholars facing discrimination." miss the mark. Excluding people based on their beliefs is completely a judgement call about whether you think their beliefs are so far from your own that nothing productive can come from sharing a department with them. The feelings of the author (and me, and a lot of others besides) is that staunch liberals in academia might be flawed in excluding conservatives. But not because it's akin to racism, it's a different (and less objectionable) type of discrimination.

ktRolster 10y ago
I accept the author's thesis as correct, but this quote still made me laugh: “Why stop there [hiring conservatives]?” asked Steven. “How about we make faculties more diverse by hiring idiots?”
- rbcgerard 10y ago
  what's pretty ironic is that is typically the "conservative" argument against affirmative action...
  - pessimizer 10y ago
    Or rather, that it's the conservative argument against the "encouragement of diversity" defense of affirmative action. edit: Which, IMO, is a weak argument specifically designed to avoid mentioning reparations, which can make some of the nicest white people go feral.
    - GnwbZHiU 10y ago
      Conservatives are not against diversity.
thesimpsons1022 10y ago
good point. you can replace conservative with any other set of beliefs and see how absurd that statement is. I am not equating conservatives to the following groups but imagine if it said "....holocaust denying scholars.." instead. the saddest part is how it equates war victims and trafficked children to conservative scholars.
- PhearTheCeal 10y ago
  Any set of beliefs? So religious discrimination is OK now?
zeveb 10y ago
> You can't choose your skin color or where you were born, but you can choose your political beliefs. Can one? My political beliefs aren't my tastes: they are things that I believe. I can't choose what I believe to be true. Can you?
- orasis 10y ago
  With practice, one can objectify and analyze their beliefs. You can start to identify what lens is active that you're filtering reality through. I highly recommend such a practice as it will allow you to hold multiple conflicting beliefs simultaneously. If you'd like a taste at some of the advanced stages that are available with belief objectification, I recommend this short PDF: http://newpossibilitiesassociates.com/uploads/9_levels_of_increasing_embrace_update_1_07.pdf http://newpossibilitiesassociates.com/uploads/9_levels_of_in...
  - zeveb 10y ago
    > I highly recommend such a practice as it will allow you to hold multiple conflicting beliefs simultaneously. If two beliefs are mutually conflicting then at least one is wrong. If X^Y is false, then I don't want to believe that X^Y is true. That'd be insane!
    - mcphage 10y ago
      > If two beliefs are mutually conflicting then at least one is wrong. Not necessarily. Since you try bringing math in, then there are other possibilities—both could be consistent with your axioms. The continuum hypothesis is neither "true" nor "false", but rather independent of the axioms of ZFC. You are free to adopt it, or its negation, and proceed from there.
    - orasis 10y ago
      It may be insane to the typical person, but if you start to objectify the lens that is active, then you can see there are multiple conflicting truths. As an example: Belief 1: The floor I am standing on is real. Of course it is real. I can experience it right now. Belief 2: The floor I am standing on is not real. Of course it is not real. Most materials are empty space and our nervous system generates the experience of solidity. Besides, time doesn't exist as there is only this present experience so there is no container for material things to exist in. I regard both of these as true from different lenses. Is it insane? Maybe. But it also avoids a ton of existential angst.
teacup50 10y ago
Refusing to admit the possibility of being wrong, much less anyone that would tell you so, means you never will be. I'm not sure why you're downplaying this; in an academic setting, that seems just as objectionable as racism.
altoz 10y ago
> Excluding people based on their beliefs is completely a judgement call about whether you think their beliefs are so far from your own that nothing productive can come from sharing a department with them. Would the author of this comment be willing to say the same thing if the shoe were on the other foot? Say, a high school refusing to hire someone based on their liberal beliefs (say, transgender people being able to use the bathroom they identify as)? After all, it's very possible for the school to say "nothing productive can come from sharing a department with them".
- travmatt 10y ago
  To the author of that comment your idea is nonsensical - if they are incontrovertibly correct, than any other viewpoint isn't and as such is not only wrong but malevolently so. This isn't about an exchange of ideas, it's identity politics. At most, this would necessitate the wielding of righteous indignation to 'correct' the mistaken impressions of misinformed person.
- savanaly 10y ago
  'Say, a high school refusing to hire someone based on their liberal beliefs (say, transgender people being able to use the bathroom they identify as)? After all, it's very possible for the school to say "nothing productive can come from sharing a department with them".' Yes, the school could say that, but they might not be right (a case of a valid but unsound argument). In any case I view that hypothetical (barring a teacher based on what they think about transgender bathroom priveleges) as preferable to, say, barring a teacher based on something they had no say on such as their skin color (although, as I must continue to point out-- that doesn't mean it's not also preferable to not discriminate at all!)
travmatt 10y ago
"You can't choose your skin color or where you were born, but you can choose your political beliefs." You sound really confident about that, would you care to cite your research? My ignorant assumption would be that people's temperaments would segregate them into political views naturally. I know Jonathan Haidt has done a lot of research into this area, and he has some interesting ideas - "All political movements base appeals on different settings of the foundations—and the culture wars arise from what they choose to emphasize. Liberals jack up care, followed by fairness and liberty. They rarely value loyalty and authority. Conservatives dial up all six."[http://www.thelavinagency.com/blog-jonathan-haidt-difference-between-liberals-and-conservatives.html http://www.thelavinagency.com/blog-jonathan-haidt-difference...]
sremani 10y ago
The racism that liberals show towards colored conservatives is Klan-grade. Justice Clarence Thomas' media portrayal is a testament. Its very interesting why the all diversity loving liberals, live in heavily white neighborhoods. Actions, speak louder than words.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > The racism that liberals show towards colored conservatives is Klan-grade. Justice Clarence Thomas' media portrayal is a testament. If its only against conservatives, its not racism. > Its very interesting why the all diversity loving liberals, live in heavily white neighborhoods. That's true of wealthy liberals (just as it is for wealthy conservatives), because they live in heavily wealthy neighborhoods, and wealth and race are correlated in the US (liberals, wealthy or not, tend to see this correlation as a problem, though.) Non-wealthy liberals tend to live in more ethnically diverse neighborhoods because (and, I suspect, moreso than do non-wealthy conservatives.)
  - sremani 10y ago
    Got it. "Uncle Tom" has no racial undertone.
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      Its a term predominantly used by black critics of a black seen as a collaborator with white oppressors of blacks. If it is racist at all, it is racist against whites, as it communicates distaste for a person based on their relationship to another hated group (but even then, its not communicating a problem with their relationship with whites as whites, but with white oppressors as oppressors, so whether its racist against whites is probably questionable.) There's scenarios where its use could be a form of paternalistic anti-black racism, such as its use by whites of a particular persuasion to criticize a black defector from white-led political program in favor of an opposing white-led political movement.
stcredzero 10y ago
You can't choose your skin color or where you were born, but you can choose your political beliefs. ...a judgement call about whether you think their beliefs are so far from your own that nothing productive can come from sharing a department with them. it's a different (and less objectionable) type of discrimination. Is this what we really want? A society of distrusting, hating separatist camps that vilify and exclude each other? Using organizational authority to actively punish "thoughtcrime" should be anathema to fellow liberals and those who espouse humanist values. However, there is (and always has been) a collectivist/identity/responsibility camp who thinks such authoritarian stances are ok. A tolerant society needs to tolerate the free expression of dissenting and even reprehensible speech. A tolerant democratic society should tolerate legal political expression. As much as an enlightened company should have room for projects to experiment and "fail fast," a society should afford its citizens the opportunity to choose "the wrong" side. Really, the whole point of a democratic society, is that there's no one entity above imposing their idea of right and wrong over the populace. Collectivism isn't evil and it is a deep part of what it means to be human, but it can't be allowed to trump the rights of the individual. People are best protected and served when collectivism and individualism are in balance.
- savanaly 10y ago
  I said it's less objectionable, not that it's not objectionable.
- jerf 10y ago
  Liberalism isn't very liberal anymore. Obviously I'm equivocating, since that would make no sense any other way. The smooth progression over the past 70-80 years where "liberalism" has turned a 180 that at times it seems like nobody has noticed is... I dunno... fascinating, if nothing else. Tolerance, diversity, free speech, many other words, all have rotated 180 degrees in that time frame.
  - stcredzero 10y ago
    In addition to the left-right spectrum, there's also an authoritarianism scale. The one dimensional left-right spectrum seems to be bent into a horseshoe, with the open end facing up. The up-down axis measures authoritarianism. So the further towards the ends of the spectrum you are, the more authoritarian your stance is. Others map this on 2-axes, like the D&D alignment diagram.
mcphage 10y ago
> Excluding people based on their beliefs is completely a judgement call about whether you think their beliefs are so far from your own that nothing productive can come from sharing a department with them. Luckily people are very good at making judgement calls about who to include and who to exclude, right? "Culture fit" is a great way to end up with a diverse workforce, isn't it? And obviously "unconscious bias" isn't ever a thing.
xlm1717 10y ago
You can choose political beliefs if you are aware of alternative political beliefs existing. If you live, work, and learn in an environment that is actively excluding political beliefs, so that only one political belief exists in your environment, can you really choose your political belief then? It's debatable if nothing productive can come from sharing a department with people whose beliefs are different from your own, but it's actively counterproductive to exclude those people.

ktRolster 10y ago

I accept the author's thesis as correct, but this quote still made me laugh: “Why stop there [hiring conservatives]?” asked Steven. “How about we make faculties more diverse by hiring idiots?”

rbcgerard 10y ago
what's pretty ironic is that is typically the "conservative" argument against affirmative action...
- pessimizer 10y ago
  Or rather, that it's the conservative argument against the "encouragement of diversity" defense of affirmative action. edit: Which, IMO, is a weak argument specifically designed to avoid mentioning reparations, which can make some of the nicest white people go feral.
  - GnwbZHiU 10y ago
    Conservatives are not against diversity.

thesimpsons1022 10y ago

good point. you can replace conservative with any other set of beliefs and see how absurd that statement is. I am not equating conservatives to the following groups but imagine if it said "....holocaust denying scholars.." instead. the saddest part is how it equates war victims and trafficked children to conservative scholars.

PhearTheCeal 10y ago
Any set of beliefs? So religious discrimination is OK now?

zeveb 10y ago

> You can't choose your skin color or where you were born, but you can choose your political beliefs. Can one? My political beliefs aren't my tastes: they are things that I believe. I can't choose what I believe to be true. Can you?

orasis 10y ago
With practice, one can objectify and analyze their beliefs. You can start to identify what lens is active that you're filtering reality through. I highly recommend such a practice as it will allow you to hold multiple conflicting beliefs simultaneously. If you'd like a taste at some of the advanced stages that are available with belief objectification, I recommend this short PDF: http://newpossibilitiesassociates.com/uploads/9_levels_of_increasing_embrace_update_1_07.pdf http://newpossibilitiesassociates.com/uploads/9_levels_of_in...
- zeveb 10y ago
  > I highly recommend such a practice as it will allow you to hold multiple conflicting beliefs simultaneously. If two beliefs are mutually conflicting then at least one is wrong. If X^Y is false, then I don't want to believe that X^Y is true. That'd be insane!
  - mcphage 10y ago
    > If two beliefs are mutually conflicting then at least one is wrong. Not necessarily. Since you try bringing math in, then there are other possibilities—both could be consistent with your axioms. The continuum hypothesis is neither "true" nor "false", but rather independent of the axioms of ZFC. You are free to adopt it, or its negation, and proceed from there.
  - orasis 10y ago
    It may be insane to the typical person, but if you start to objectify the lens that is active, then you can see there are multiple conflicting truths. As an example: Belief 1: The floor I am standing on is real. Of course it is real. I can experience it right now. Belief 2: The floor I am standing on is not real. Of course it is not real. Most materials are empty space and our nervous system generates the experience of solidity. Besides, time doesn't exist as there is only this present experience so there is no container for material things to exist in. I regard both of these as true from different lenses. Is it insane? Maybe. But it also avoids a ton of existential angst.

teacup50 10y ago

Refusing to admit the possibility of being wrong, much less anyone that would tell you so, means you never will be. I'm not sure why you're downplaying this; in an academic setting, that seems just as objectionable as racism.

altoz 10y ago

> Excluding people based on their beliefs is completely a judgement call about whether you think their beliefs are so far from your own that nothing productive can come from sharing a department with them. Would the author of this comment be willing to say the same thing if the shoe were on the other foot? Say, a high school refusing to hire someone based on their liberal beliefs (say, transgender people being able to use the bathroom they identify as)? After all, it's very possible for the school to say "nothing productive can come from sharing a department with them".

travmatt 10y ago
To the author of that comment your idea is nonsensical - if they are incontrovertibly correct, than any other viewpoint isn't and as such is not only wrong but malevolently so. This isn't about an exchange of ideas, it's identity politics. At most, this would necessitate the wielding of righteous indignation to 'correct' the mistaken impressions of misinformed person.
savanaly 10y ago
'Say, a high school refusing to hire someone based on their liberal beliefs (say, transgender people being able to use the bathroom they identify as)? After all, it's very possible for the school to say "nothing productive can come from sharing a department with them".' Yes, the school could say that, but they might not be right (a case of a valid but unsound argument). In any case I view that hypothetical (barring a teacher based on what they think about transgender bathroom priveleges) as preferable to, say, barring a teacher based on something they had no say on such as their skin color (although, as I must continue to point out-- that doesn't mean it's not also preferable to not discriminate at all!)

travmatt 10y ago

"You can't choose your skin color or where you were born, but you can choose your political beliefs." You sound really confident about that, would you care to cite your research? My ignorant assumption would be that people's temperaments would segregate them into political views naturally. I know Jonathan Haidt has done a lot of research into this area, and he has some interesting ideas - "All political movements base appeals on different settings of the foundations—and the culture wars arise from what they choose to emphasize. Liberals jack up care, followed by fairness and liberty. They rarely value loyalty and authority. Conservatives dial up all six."[http://www.thelavinagency.com/blog-jonathan-haidt-difference-between-liberals-and-conservatives.html http://www.thelavinagency.com/blog-jonathan-haidt-difference...]

sremani 10y ago

The racism that liberals show towards colored conservatives is Klan-grade. Justice Clarence Thomas' media portrayal is a testament. Its very interesting why the all diversity loving liberals, live in heavily white neighborhoods. Actions, speak louder than words.

dragonwriter 10y ago
> The racism that liberals show towards colored conservatives is Klan-grade. Justice Clarence Thomas' media portrayal is a testament. If its only against conservatives, its not racism. > Its very interesting why the all diversity loving liberals, live in heavily white neighborhoods. That's true of wealthy liberals (just as it is for wealthy conservatives), because they live in heavily wealthy neighborhoods, and wealth and race are correlated in the US (liberals, wealthy or not, tend to see this correlation as a problem, though.) Non-wealthy liberals tend to live in more ethnically diverse neighborhoods because (and, I suspect, moreso than do non-wealthy conservatives.)
- sremani 10y ago
  Got it. "Uncle Tom" has no racial undertone.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    Its a term predominantly used by black critics of a black seen as a collaborator with white oppressors of blacks. If it is racist at all, it is racist against whites, as it communicates distaste for a person based on their relationship to another hated group (but even then, its not communicating a problem with their relationship with whites as whites, but with white oppressors as oppressors, so whether its racist against whites is probably questionable.) There's scenarios where its use could be a form of paternalistic anti-black racism, such as its use by whites of a particular persuasion to criticize a black defector from white-led political program in favor of an opposing white-led political movement.

stcredzero 10y ago

You can't choose your skin color or where you were born, but you can choose your political beliefs. ...a judgement call about whether you think their beliefs are so far from your own that nothing productive can come from sharing a department with them. it's a different (and less objectionable) type of discrimination. Is this what we really want? A society of distrusting, hating separatist camps that vilify and exclude each other? Using organizational authority to actively punish "thoughtcrime" should be anathema to fellow liberals and those who espouse humanist values. However, there is (and always has been) a collectivist/identity/responsibility camp who thinks such authoritarian stances are ok. A tolerant society needs to tolerate the free expression of dissenting and even reprehensible speech. A tolerant democratic society should tolerate legal political expression. As much as an enlightened company should have room for projects to experiment and "fail fast," a society should afford its citizens the opportunity to choose "the wrong" side. Really, the whole point of a democratic society, is that there's no one entity above imposing their idea of right and wrong over the populace. Collectivism isn't evil and it is a deep part of what it means to be human, but it can't be allowed to trump the rights of the individual. People are best protected and served when collectivism and individualism are in balance.

savanaly 10y ago
I said it's less objectionable, not that it's not objectionable.
jerf 10y ago
Liberalism isn't very liberal anymore. Obviously I'm equivocating, since that would make no sense any other way. The smooth progression over the past 70-80 years where "liberalism" has turned a 180 that at times it seems like nobody has noticed is... I dunno... fascinating, if nothing else. Tolerance, diversity, free speech, many other words, all have rotated 180 degrees in that time frame.
- stcredzero 10y ago
  In addition to the left-right spectrum, there's also an authoritarianism scale. The one dimensional left-right spectrum seems to be bent into a horseshoe, with the open end facing up. The up-down axis measures authoritarianism. So the further towards the ends of the spectrum you are, the more authoritarian your stance is. Others map this on 2-axes, like the D&D alignment diagram.

mcphage 10y ago

> Excluding people based on their beliefs is completely a judgement call about whether you think their beliefs are so far from your own that nothing productive can come from sharing a department with them. Luckily people are very good at making judgement calls about who to include and who to exclude, right? "Culture fit" is a great way to end up with a diverse workforce, isn't it? And obviously "unconscious bias" isn't ever a thing.

xlm1717 10y ago

You can choose political beliefs if you are aware of alternative political beliefs existing. If you live, work, and learn in an environment that is actively excluding political beliefs, so that only one political belief exists in your environment, can you really choose your political belief then? It's debatable if nothing productive can come from sharing a department with people whose beliefs are different from your own, but it's actively counterproductive to exclude those people.