54 ms·

And that is why this article is wrong, I see, yes, well put. In fact, all the countries and universities that don't require diversity pledges (i.e. the great ma

And that is why this article is wrong, I see, yes, well put. In fact, all the countries and universities that don't require diversity pledges (i.e. the great majority of them) are in fact morally equivalent to apartheid.

ZeroGravitas 4y ago
Yes, I have to assume that an institution that has repeatedly lied about important topics that are much more impactful than this, and later admitted that it lied about them for political ends, is this time telling the truth about this not very important even if what they claim is true matter. And if I don't, I'm the bad guy. You'd think after the first few of your writers deny the Holocaust or openly advocates stoning gay people to death you'd start to ask questions about the way you go about things and attract followers. > Ames is correct that some of the contributors to that issue developed an interest in or were fellow travelers with that most pathetic area of study known as Holocaust revisionism or denialism. That scurrilous topic is not the focus of any of the articles in the issue, but the inclusion of contributors such as James J. Martin, who would go on to join the editorial board of the contemptible denialist outfit the Institute of Historical Review, is embarrassing. Another of that issue's contributors, Gary North, would later be excoriated in this 1998 Reason article for arguing in favor of violent theocracy and the stoning of gays and others. https://reason.com/2014/07/26/did-reason-really-publish-a-holocaust-de/ https://reason.com/2014/07/26/did-reason-really-publish-a-ho... Why do these fascists keep writing articles for my libertarian magazine? is clearly a question they've not grappled deeply with. In that article they claim it's awkward that the guy funding the stonings is also funding them.
- tarakat 4y ago
  > is this time telling the truth The 1st Amendment and various diversity pledges are all public - you can verify them yourself, you don't have to take Reason's word for it. Or do you mean that the hypothetical example given by Volokh in the article is... a lie? > You'd think after the first few of your writers deny the Holocaust This article was written by Eugene Volokh, who is Jewish: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Volokh https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Volokh Since this is your second post on the topic, and again the only objections you gave are ad hominem, may I therefore assume that you have no objections to the substance of the article?

ZeroGravitas 4y ago

Yes, I have to assume that an institution that has repeatedly lied about important topics that are much more impactful than this, and later admitted that it lied about them for political ends, is this time telling the truth about this not very important even if what they claim is true matter. And if I don't, I'm the bad guy. You'd think after the first few of your writers deny the Holocaust or openly advocates stoning gay people to death you'd start to ask questions about the way you go about things and attract followers. > Ames is correct that some of the contributors to that issue developed an interest in or were fellow travelers with that most pathetic area of study known as Holocaust revisionism or denialism. That scurrilous topic is not the focus of any of the articles in the issue, but the inclusion of contributors such as James J. Martin, who would go on to join the editorial board of the contemptible denialist outfit the Institute of Historical Review, is embarrassing. Another of that issue's contributors, Gary North, would later be excoriated in this 1998 Reason article for arguing in favor of violent theocracy and the stoning of gays and others. https://reason.com/2014/07/26/did-reason-really-publish-a-holocaust-de/ https://reason.com/2014/07/26/did-reason-really-publish-a-ho... Why do these fascists keep writing articles for my libertarian magazine? is clearly a question they've not grappled deeply with. In that article they claim it's awkward that the guy funding the stonings is also funding them.

tarakat 4y ago
> is this time telling the truth The 1st Amendment and various diversity pledges are all public - you can verify them yourself, you don't have to take Reason's word for it. Or do you mean that the hypothetical example given by Volokh in the article is... a lie? > You'd think after the first few of your writers deny the Holocaust This article was written by Eugene Volokh, who is Jewish: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Volokh https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Volokh Since this is your second post on the topic, and again the only objections you gave are ad hominem, may I therefore assume that you have no objections to the substance of the article?