3 ms·

This piece is incoherent "campus loonies" outrage, pushing "diversity of opinion" talking points (while unintentionally demolishing it in a paragraph), demonst

This piece is incoherent "campus loonies" outrage, pushing "diversity of opinion" talking points (while unintentionally demolishing it in a paragraph), demonstrating a surface-level understanding of issues (grouping "cisgenderism" with "racism"), and ultimately going for really silly "logical gotchas" instead of pointing out the importance of arguing soundly for your ideals.

Turing_Machine 9y ago
I get it: you don't like the piece. Do you have any substantive and specific criticisms of it? For instance, can you give an example of what you call a "logical gotcha" in the piece, and demonstrate why it is a "logical gotcha" (and, for that matter, why "logical gotchas" are bad)? What you have written here is basically just name calling.
- strangecasts 9y ago
  > For you have been taught that we must have as much diversity as possible and that equality means that everyone must be made equal. [...] So when you say that we should have diversity and equality you are saying we should have difference and sameness. That is incoherent, by itself. This is a strawman argument - the rhetoric only works if you already agree with the author's belief that a statistically significant proportion of students desire literal equality (as satirized in Harrison Bergeron) instead of social equity.
  - WkndTriathlete 9y ago
    > if you already agree with the author's belief that a statistically significant proportion of students desire literal equality Anecdotal, I know, but based on what I see in my kids's high-school classmates and from what I've heard from university professors I think that there is a good chance that a statistically significant proportion of students do desire literal equality.
natecavanaugh 9y ago
I disagree. The text was trying to get students to think rationally, be open to contrary ideas, and to use logic and argument to examine and discuss ideas. I don't want to say that this is only a millennial issue, as I've seen sloppy thinking in people from multiple generations, but what he's addressing are very much tactics millennials are in the habit of using to shut down a discussion (using isms to bypass clearly expressing or thinking of an issue, using feelings to avoid being proven wrong, a lack of belief in absolute truths, etc). Clear critical thinking is important, and requires skills that don't always just show up by default, and this is just done of the current cultural issues that get in the way of that. Edit: having read your response to the other comment, I think the whole diversity and equality thing is coming from a millennial belief in ideals that must be shown and proven to be ultimates. Virtue is one, and every generation seems to value a different subset of virtues. Like the Romans valued honor, courage and strength, only valuing those still lead to a lot of things that go against other virtues. I agree the argument made in the article isn't the best one, but I believe it was aimed at the students who have never even questioned those terms, and they definitely exist.

Turing_Machine 9y ago

I get it: you don't like the piece. Do you have any substantive and specific criticisms of it? For instance, can you give an example of what you call a "logical gotcha" in the piece, and demonstrate why it is a "logical gotcha" (and, for that matter, why "logical gotchas" are bad)? What you have written here is basically just name calling.

strangecasts 9y ago
> For you have been taught that we must have as much diversity as possible and that equality means that everyone must be made equal. [...] So when you say that we should have diversity and equality you are saying we should have difference and sameness. That is incoherent, by itself. This is a strawman argument - the rhetoric only works if you already agree with the author's belief that a statistically significant proportion of students desire literal equality (as satirized in Harrison Bergeron) instead of social equity.
- WkndTriathlete 9y ago
  > if you already agree with the author's belief that a statistically significant proportion of students desire literal equality Anecdotal, I know, but based on what I see in my kids's high-school classmates and from what I've heard from university professors I think that there is a good chance that a statistically significant proportion of students do desire literal equality.

natecavanaugh 9y ago

I disagree. The text was trying to get students to think rationally, be open to contrary ideas, and to use logic and argument to examine and discuss ideas. I don't want to say that this is only a millennial issue, as I've seen sloppy thinking in people from multiple generations, but what he's addressing are very much tactics millennials are in the habit of using to shut down a discussion (using isms to bypass clearly expressing or thinking of an issue, using feelings to avoid being proven wrong, a lack of belief in absolute truths, etc). Clear critical thinking is important, and requires skills that don't always just show up by default, and this is just done of the current cultural issues that get in the way of that. Edit: having read your response to the other comment, I think the whole diversity and equality thing is coming from a millennial belief in ideals that must be shown and proven to be ultimates. Virtue is one, and every generation seems to value a different subset of virtues. Like the Romans valued honor, courage and strength, only valuing those still lead to a lot of things that go against other virtues. I agree the argument made in the article isn't the best one, but I believe it was aimed at the students who have never even questioned those terms, and they definitely exist.