3 ms·

If you were a true enlightenment fanatic you would know that even the proponents of freedom of expression didn't support universal toleration. Not even John Loc

If you were a true enlightenment fanatic you would know that even the proponents of freedom of expression didn't support universal toleration. Not even John Locke supported pure universal toleration, although in his case he wanted to silence the voices of atheists. You confuse the idea that your freedom to express your mind with the idea that your expressions have no consequences. In the case of this article has the "Purity Posse" gone to far? Absolutely! But that does not mean that his work is not above scrutiny. You need to also understand the position of the other side too. Let us peer into the ugly side of racial injustice and the concept that the super predator juvenile detention system that was part of and is still part of the school to prison pipeline. Do you deny the fact that those concepts and systems are not inherently racist and oppressive systems that piggy back on our very justice system? Most the supporting evidence for those concepts were coached in pseudo-scientific psychobabble. The only way to pursue justice is to find those cornerstones that uphold the system and remove them. Sure trying to cancel Pinker is wrong and misguided but the proponents of racial justice are approaching the problem in the only way they know how. In this case they are wrong, but would they be wrong about other researchers that have written work that is antithetical to racial justice in America? This article is so unbalanced. It defends Pinker but it doesn't bother trying to even understand his detractors in this case. Just goes on a diatribe that sounds so much like all the other white persecution complex arguments I hear all the time.

jariel 6y ago
This is a gaslighting the argument a little bit. 1) "You confuse the idea that your freedom to express your mind with the idea that your expressions have no consequences. " There is no confusion. This is a straw-man - nobody is denying that 'speech should have no consequences'. Pinker and others are being attacked for making very reasonable, civil claims, not any kind of fanaticism which deserves 'consequence'. 2) "Do you deny the fact that those concepts and systems are not inherently racist". Are you implying people can't disagree with your Orthodox Truth? I'm not an academic, but I would. Guns are far more disproportionately likely to kill young black men, does that make guns racist? Juvenile systems and such problems exist basically all over the world, there are racial elements but that doesn't make them racist. It's a complicated problem. 3) "Sure trying to cancel Pinker is wrong but the proponents of racial justice are approaching the problem in the only way they know how." The 'only way they know how' is to crush ideas, dismiss facts, destroy individuals, the Truth, our most trusted institutions in pursuit of their Orthodoxy? That's 'the only way they know how', and a defence of the approach? 4) "The only way to pursue justice is to find those cornerstones that uphold the system and remove them. " Yes, this is the scary zealotry we're concerned about. First, it's entirely possible that systems can achieve reform without fanaticism, and second, it's also fair that there is debate, consternation, dialogue, experiments. Fanatical ideas are great, fanatical movements are not.
- stillbourne 6y ago
  > Are you implying people can't disagree with your Orthodox Truth? I'm not stating a truth, I am not interested in the truth, I am interested in the facts. Do you deny the existence of institutional racism inherent in the justice system? > Guns are far more disproportionately likely to kill young black men, does that make guns racist? A gun is not a person and does not have an opinion. The only indisputable fact of a gun is that the direction you point it in shoots bullets when the operator pulls the trigger. Also deflecting the question of racial injustice by bringing up black on black violence is bullshit. What are the crime statistics on white on white violence. The science shows that poverty is the leading indicator of gun violence not race. The fact that poverty is higher in black neighborhoods is also an indisputable fact and the cause of black poverty has a lot to do with systemic racism in America. These are not truths save your truths for you ministers. These are facts...

jariel 6y ago

This is a gaslighting the argument a little bit. 1) "You confuse the idea that your freedom to express your mind with the idea that your expressions have no consequences. " There is no confusion. This is a straw-man - nobody is denying that 'speech should have no consequences'. Pinker and others are being attacked for making very reasonable, civil claims, not any kind of fanaticism which deserves 'consequence'. 2) "Do you deny the fact that those concepts and systems are not inherently racist". Are you implying people can't disagree with your Orthodox Truth? I'm not an academic, but I would. Guns are far more disproportionately likely to kill young black men, does that make guns racist? Juvenile systems and such problems exist basically all over the world, there are racial elements but that doesn't make them racist. It's a complicated problem. 3) "Sure trying to cancel Pinker is wrong but the proponents of racial justice are approaching the problem in the only way they know how." The 'only way they know how' is to crush ideas, dismiss facts, destroy individuals, the Truth, our most trusted institutions in pursuit of their Orthodoxy? That's 'the only way they know how', and a defence of the approach? 4) "The only way to pursue justice is to find those cornerstones that uphold the system and remove them. " Yes, this is the scary zealotry we're concerned about. First, it's entirely possible that systems can achieve reform without fanaticism, and second, it's also fair that there is debate, consternation, dialogue, experiments. Fanatical ideas are great, fanatical movements are not.

stillbourne 6y ago
> Are you implying people can't disagree with your Orthodox Truth? I'm not stating a truth, I am not interested in the truth, I am interested in the facts. Do you deny the existence of institutional racism inherent in the justice system? > Guns are far more disproportionately likely to kill young black men, does that make guns racist? A gun is not a person and does not have an opinion. The only indisputable fact of a gun is that the direction you point it in shoots bullets when the operator pulls the trigger. Also deflecting the question of racial injustice by bringing up black on black violence is bullshit. What are the crime statistics on white on white violence. The science shows that poverty is the leading indicator of gun violence not race. The fact that poverty is higher in black neighborhoods is also an indisputable fact and the cause of black poverty has a lot to do with systemic racism in America. These are not truths save your truths for you ministers. These are facts...