![](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_x97oorE2c9c/S6ahTZCOu6I/AAAAAAAAA6Q/WhO_nWZHN4k/S220/ArizonaMiracle.jpg")
To be in favor of diversity as the modern liberal defines it is to be intolerant of opposing views. The case of Ben Stein and the University of Vermont.
UVM President Dan Fogel announced that [Ben] Stein, whom Fogel had invited to address UVM's commencement in May, would not be coming after all. Fogel said that his selection of Stein generated an intense protest, that he received hundreds of angry e-mails over the weekend, and that after he shared these "profound concerns" with Stein, Stein "immediately and most graciously declined our commencement invitation."
– Burlington Free Press, 2-3-2009
If President Fogel were to receive thousands of e-mails protesting Stein's withdrawal, what do you suppose he would do?
Modern liberals wield the mighty shield of diversity to deflect all manner of criticisms regarding their intentions and their results as they seek to redefine accepted behavior and speech. Liberalism's interpretation and subsequent de facto enforcement of what they call diversity has condemned some opinions and has advocated and defended others. But how can speech be limited in the name of diversity?
Obvious contradictions compel me to analyze how liberals define diversity and by what ways and means they are prone to use to enforce it.
Quite often liberals condemn the expression of dissenting opinions in the name of diversity. That's like an opponent of the death penalty sentencing those who disagree with their view to death. If one values diversity, then those who oppose should be welcome. If all parties share the same opinions, there is no intellectual diversity.
Consider colleges that resist ROTC programs and military recruitment on campus. They believe that the use of military force to settle disputes is barbaric. They prefer diplomacy and compromise. They fear that a strong military will tend to encourage imperialism and insensitivity to the needs and opinions of less powerful nations. They claim to value diversity. They believe that diversity exposes people to disparate customs and opinions that broaden one's perspective and allow for a deeper understanding of the human experience.
Liberals believe that those who lack exposure to diversity are at an intellectual disadvantage when presented with complex problems involving people with disparate backgrounds and values. They are mentally rigid and shallow because they have been sheltered by an environment with no variety of opinion and that does not value new ideas.
They are less able to adapt to a rapidly changing environment because they have no experience coping with new ideas and situations because they have only associated with people who are just like them. They have lost the capability to adapt because they have never had to. They are considered the intellectual equivalent of a herd of stampeding buffalo; they travel together as a herd and dare not stray. They are regarded as souls who are more likely to be dismissive (and seemingly intolerant) of those not like them because they simply cannot see things from any perspective except their own.
Having made the case for diversity, why do they seek to silence those on campus who want to participate in ROTC or would like to encourage young people to join the military? These are people with different perspectives born of different experiences and customs; the very definition of diverse, they should be welcome, but they are not.
If something doesn't add up, check your premise. In this case we assume that liberals are being genuine when they advocate diversity.
In fact, liberals have redefined diversity to mean the enforcement of a strict code that has well-defined acceptable views and behaviors, and the vigorous opposition to all those who do not comply. To advocate diversity as the liberals define it is to accept certain beliefs as untouchable.
If you want to know if you meet the criteria to be defined as an advocate of diversity, you need only check your opinions against the accepted views that modern liberalism has mandated that an enlightened person must hold.
Consider what often happens when controversial conservatives such as Stein are scheduled to appear on a liberal campus; often students and faculty insist that the invitation be retracted, and at the very least they protest and disrupt the event.
It's almost funny; those who believe in diversity should protest only when someone with controversial views is silenced, not when they are allowed to speak.
In this case Stein is guilty of holding controversial views regarding intelligent design. Look at how this slice of academia has responded to a diverse opinion.
Take another example. Liberals believe that America is the source of most of the ills in this world. They believe that America is an imperialist nation that has unfairly dominated the world by means of violence and political oppression. They believe that had it not been for America's caustic effect on the earth, all nations would be living in harmony with each other and with nature.
Now, with this in mind, imagine that someone disparages America, admonishes it, insults it – how would a person that values diversity react? That's easy. He would agree; he would then make some statement to separate himself from America proper by using words like "they" and "it". He would not feel insulted because he does not consider himself part of the "bad" America. As a liberal, he considers himself part of the solution to the "America" problem. He would then feel a sense of superiority to those "bad" Americans who are causing the rest of the world such a problem.
How would he react to someone who instead defended America? Well, if America is bad, and a person is defending it, then he must be bad too. The diversity-acceptable response would be to disparage the America defender and express indignation at such cave-man like thick-skulled backwoods ignorance, after which the proper feeling would be one of superiority; since you get it and he doesn't.
The acceptable response is not to recognize that his opinions have just as much right to be heard as yours, it is not to use logic and reason to examine the validity of his statements, it is not to accept his views into the community of ideas, nor is it to feel pride that you live in a country where a man can speak his mind.
In short, the politically correct response is to be rigid, subjective, and dismissive.
So to be in favor of diversity as the modern liberal defines it is to be intolerant of opposing views. Diversity now requires the acceptance of myriad positions regarding topics ranging from A to Z. Modern diversity demands that the only acceptable viewpoints are those that have been approved by the powers that be.
Think of the last time you heard a liberal institution announce a policy advocating diversity. Doesn't that really mean that there are certain viewpoints that are taboo? Doesn't that mean that opposition to certain accepted beliefs will not be tolerated? If a diversity policy were legitimate, the only way to be in violation of it would be to prevent someone from expressing a diverse opinion.
How can someone violate a diversity policy by disagreeing with the powers that be? One can violate a diversity policy in such a manner only if said policy statement is simply a euphemism for the oppression of dissent.
What we need is the open and free exchange of ideas. When the liberal powers that be step in to be the arbiter for proper speech, they also become the oppressor of those who dissent.
As the modern liberal defines it, the last thing we need more of is diversity.
Dr. Jackson – I didn't ask for an apology then because you didn't attribute those words to me, you presented them as your own paraphrase. Anyone actually reading the discussion could judge how accurate the paraphrase was. Here, in this discussion, in comment #24, you presented them as a direct quote.
When I paraphrased you, and accidentally used double-quotes, you actually erupted with profanity – that's outrage. When you do it here, I'm not outraged, just saddened to see my new estimation of your integrity confirmed. Oh, well.
Raymond: Just to show you what a truly magnanimous guy I am, I will loudly and publicly acknowledge that you never made the statement that you don’t believe in “(not) not Alpha X/alpha X(s).” Rather, you just made the statement that you don’t believe in “believe(not (God)),” which may actually be “Alpha” or “X”. [This, in the highly technical world of debate is known as a distinction without a difference, vs. inventing words someone never actually used and assigning it to that other person, which is known as a lie.]
Now that we’ve cleared that up, maybe you can actually address the substance of your relativistic dissembling that Patrick and others have called you on.
Ivan: To your previous comment about dancing fools in green suits and pointy hats. In this case, it’s not so much a comedy routine, as a deliberate way to divert attention from legitimate debate.
If a person says “I support free market capitalism”, and this is written as “I am a market-driven economic conservative”, we have a distinction without a difference.
However, if a person says “I support free market capitalism”, and this is portrayed as “I think rich people should steal from the poor”, this is a made-up statement; or rather, a lie.
Raymond wants to assert a moral equivalence between both statements because it diverts the conversation from forcing him to address the substance of an issue. It’s like arguing with a three year old. All you can do is point out the hypocrisy and try to shame him into actually engaging in a debate.
Yes, Dr. Jackson you are definitely a blaggard, guilty of duckspeak, and now that RI has given you thirty lashes with a wet noodle may we get back to the virtues of queer vegetarian atheists who abhor the murder of animals, except when performed by cute white bears on the shrinking polar ice, or abortionists in federally protected clinics.
Phil
It seems that I’ve heard about nefarious jesters somewhere. Oh, maybe I was thinking of that character played by Cesar Romero, Jack Nicholson, and Heath Ledger in the Batman movies. Silly me.
Dr. Jackson – That's better. Now people can actually go and look at that discussion, and see if you're characterizing it honestly… or not. They can also see if my paraphrase was accurate or not.
Personally, I think they'll be happy to call it "Jackson's Razor" after that.
Ivan: You got that right!
Raymond: You might actually want to re-read my Comment 52. Not that I object, mind you, to pointing out the conclusion I arrived at between distinctions without a difference and outright lying.
And yes, we agree. Making up words someone never said is a good example of Jackson’s Razor, an eponymous adage which reads: “Never attribute to simple stupidity that which can be adequately explained by deliberate stupidity.” Or in this case, deliberately inventing words someone never said, vs. paraphrasing the words that someone actually said.
Ivan,
#54 is a hoot! Actually laughed out loud.
Avendesora, like so many leftists, enters the conversation with a chip on her shoulder, lists her leftist credentials with pride as if that puts a stop to all argument (she is, after all, indisputably right), and then drops a bomb with the promise she will return.
We'll see I guess.
lez' see now. For the record, I am a heterosexual male, married 28 years to one woman, I have a college degree, I pay my taxes, eat cow and deer and bison as often as possible, preferably with salt and accompanied by beer.
I believe in God, I believe He can be found by those who are looking, and I believe that there is an accounting we all will have to give to Him one day. And it will be according to His rules, not the ones we happen to make up ourselves according to what makes us feel good.
I am not allergic to soy, I just simply won't eat that Sh*t. I don't much care what Avendesora or anyone else does in the privacy of their own bedroom, and I don't understand why she thinks it should matter to me. For some reason, gays and lesbians want the stamp of approval of everyone else, but I ain't giving it, cause I don't care.
I don't make up rights to lend weight to my predilections. There is no right to abortion, right to marriage, right to a drivers license, or right to vote. These are all privileges (thanks to Patrick Mulligan for restating this important concept). Rights are unalienable, bestowed by our Creator.
If Avendesora is willing to engage in critical thinking and go beyond the leftist talking points, she is welcome here. I am cautiously hopeful.
Phil and RI need to take their dispute outside. It's getting a little too ugly for me.
MM states: “I pay my taxes, eat cow and deer and bison as often as possible, preferably with salt and accompanied by beer.”
Avendesora mentions “humanly and sustainably raised animal flesh”
Let me remind all that the most sustainable of the all “animal flesh” is the cow (beef cattle), just as the most sustainable predator after man is the dog. The jury is still out on exactly when that happened, but most think 10 to 12 thousand years ago. So, I guess my question to Avendesora would be regarding the humanly thing. Do you only eat cows that have performed Seppuku?
MM: Point well taken. There's only so many ways I can state the obvious anyway.
Raymond,
You were the one who A) accused Ben Stein of incompetence as an economist, and B) used it as a justification for denying him the "honor" of delivering a commencement. I cited you an example of an equally incompetent (as defined on your terms) economist, and a far more ideologically radical revolutionary who have been bestowed the "honor" of delivering a commencement speech. You have since plainly stated that you do not, in fact, care about incompetents and radicals delivering commencement speeches generally or principally, you simply do not want Ben Stein IN PARTICULAR allowed on a college campus because he has disrespected one of your personal sacred cows.
The "fairness" of the issue was precisely the original question. You argued that it was not unfair to ask Ben Stein not to speak at the commencement because he is, in your estimation, incompetent as an economist (Objecting to him being commencement speaker is not 'anti-diversity', nor is it hypocrisy.) You have now acknowledged, as of your last posting, that it is not fair that he was refused while other incompetents and radicals were allowed (These incompetent bozos that I disagree with got an honor, but the incompetent bozo that I agree with didn't. That's not fair!'…That might not be fair, but you'd have a much better case if you argued about an example where a competent non-bozo was denied the honor.). If it wasn't fair, it wasn't fair. Why should I have to find you a case of a better qualified speaker being rejected? When two people are equally-qualified (or shall we say, when two "bozos" are equally "incompetent", for the sake of our discussion) and one is allowed to speak as an honored guest while the other is not, hypocrisy has indeed taken place, and "diversity", in any real sense of the term, has not been applied. Citing you a case where the hypocrisy was worse wouldn't change the argument, just the degree. I'm glad you've come around though.
Hmmm. Here’s a comment I made on February 27 regarding the great paraphrase debate: “Now that we’ve cleared that up, maybe you can actually address the substance of your relativistic dissembling that Patrick and others have called you on. … You keep throwing up meaningless diversions to divert everyone from the fact that you won’t, or can’t, defend your original propositions.”
Raymond found the time to endlessly address a distraction, but it’s been over 2 days since Patrick dissected Raymond’s position on February 28, and yet, still no response from Raymond.
Dr. Jackson – Surprisingly, this site is not my top priority every day. It's gotten even lower on my priority list lately.
Mr. Mulligan – You misread what I said. Let's see here… for all that I've been accused of being wordy, it's not even that long: "Considering this is the guy who said "science leads you to killing people", you can imagine why people might object to honoring him. Even if he were going to restrict his comments to economics, that's not much of an improvement."
So, the objection to honoring him is based on his breathtaking dishonesty in trying to dismiss evolution based on a purported link to the Holocaust. (If he's not dishonest, he's even more breathtakingly incompetent in a different field – history.) That's a bit more than goring a "sacred cow".
The fact that he's an incompetent, or at the very least wholly undistinguished, economist – a point even you don't dispute – is quite secondary. He's dishonorable for plenty of reasons.
And you misread plain English again. I didn't acknowledge "that it is not fair that he was refused". I said… let's see, not hard to find these words either: "That might not be fair, but you'd have a much better case if you argued about an example where a competent non-bozo was denied the honor."
I didn't say, 'that wasn't fair'. I said 'that's possibly unfair, but your case is pretty weak', and suggested a way you could strengthen it. (Of course, to really establish bias you need to show a pattern, and the plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.)
So, to sum up: I suggest Stein was 'dismissed for cause', and even without that cause was not a good commencement speaker candidate. You dismiss the cause, and then bring up cases where other weak candidates were selected. That's not enough – first address the cause. Check at least the links in comment #9 before you do, though.
Raymond:
Enough time has passed so that others may no longer be checking this comment section, so you might be safe.
I'm holding out hope that someone, somewhere, will be able to read something you wrote that seems perfectly clear to all, only to be informed that once again we've entirely misread your otherwise clear comments when you've been called to account for something you said.
Phil
Me thinks that RI has a macro assigned to several "F" keys so that when they are depressed it automatically puts into his posts: "You misread what I say", and "I didn't say". I suppose that is how one remakes the world.
I've been gone for a few days. What ever happened to that gay semi-vegetarian? I wanted to ask if he/she supports the abortion of a fetus which results from IVF.
Ivan: There was a news story today about a bean-sprout salmanella outbreak (true story), so I can only draw a logical conclusion that she's still recovering.
I've been checking in, but otherwise just living life.
Phil, you are really funny. I've been favoring sunflower sprouts lately, though. And, Ivan, I'm bisexual. And you are bating me.
Do you really care what I think? I suspect you don't. And if I ever get IVF and need to make a choice about how to deal with a dangerous number of fetuses, I doubt I'd be asking anyone outside of myself, my husband, and my doctors for their opinions, either.
It's always good to keep a sense of humor.
I actually know a lesbian couple (family friends) who don't eat meat. I call them vagitarians.
They didn't get it the first time.
Raymond,
I quoted your words – they weren't ambiguous or difficult to comprehend to anyone except yourself, apparently. You first argued that it was not hypocritical or anti-diversity to "un-invite" Ben Stein as commencement speaker because he made a statement about science with which you disagree – a value judgment that you apparently recognized ahead of time as too subjective to build an argument upon, so you then proceeded to argue that even if we don't accept the premise that Ben Stein is a heretic to science, he is incompetent as an economist (based on a 9 minute web video composite of financial commentary television programs wherein he made inaccurate stock performance predictions. And my argument is anecdotal?), and that alone would be sufficient to deny him the honor of delivering a commencement speech. After I pointed you to a left-leaning economist who has made inaccurate statements, as well as a communist revolutionary actively trying to overthrow the Mexican government, both of whom have been bestowed the "honor" of delivering commencement speeches, you acknowledged that it is not fair that those incompetents and radicals were honored while Stein was not, but that Ben Stein is a special case because he is a heretic to science – returning to your original premise. We can deduce from this logic that the crux of your objection to Ben Stein is NOT, as you originally argued, based on the fact that incompetent or radical people in genral should not be honored by a university as a matter of principle. Rather, your objection is purely and completely unique to Ben Stein, based on your assessment of Ben Stein's particular brand of incompetence and radicalism (as you define those terms). Had you been honest from the outset and just said that instead of taking up a secondary argument framed around some idealistic load of crap about who should or shouldn't be honored by a university, I wouldn't have even bothered responding to you and we could have avoided this discussion entirely. But of course, singling out Ben Stein in particular would have proved the thesis of the original article.
On the matter of Ben Stein's competence as an economist, I was merely accepting your premise for the sake of making a comparative argument. For the record, I actually disagree for the most part with the few things I've heard Ben Stein say regarding actual economic policy and theory – in contrast with his predictions for the performance of financial stocks. He is supportive of Keynesian aggregate demand stimulation through government spending in recessionary periods, which has a proven record of failure and for setting off inflation. And while I disagree completely with the concept, it still remains the predominant thinking among most mainstream academic economists, so I would hardly single him out in that regard. Not that it matters, because as we've already established Ben Stein's competence as an economist is utterly irrelevant to your actual argument — that it is okay to exclude Ben Stein, out of all other incompetents and radicals, from speaking at a university because he is a heretic of science.
Mr. Mulligan – I argued that Stein shouldn't be a commencement speaker because he made statements about science that were demonstrably false and defamatory, not simply that I disagree with them. I've also presented evidence that the statements were false. (True, I didn't provide evidence that they were defamatory… but everyone here has such impressive reading-comprehension skills that I didn't think that necessary, they could look at what Stein said.)
I then remarked in passing that he's not an impressive candidate on other grounds… which is all you've chosen to focus on; indeed, that's the only thing you talked about in comment #15 there, the first time you talked about it. I've been honest, you're the one who ignored the main thrust of my statements.
I never said I was happy those other schmucks you pointed out were asked to be commencement speakers. I'm fine with all incompetents being excluded. My objections to Stein are specific to Stein… but how could one object to a specific candidate otherwise?
In any case, my objections are well-supported, and go far beyond mere incompetence and on into malicious dishonesty. It'd be nice if you addressed them.
Raymond,
A link to Google search results for the text string "science leads you to killing people" is hardly what I would call evidence or an argument. "Science leads you to killing people" is a value judgment – especially when accompanied by the context of the full quotation of what Ben Stein actually said:
When we just saw that man, I think it was Mr. Myers, talking about how great scientists were, I was thinking to myself the last time any of my relatives saw scientists telling them what to do they were telling them to go to the showers to get gassed … that was horrifying beyond words, and that’s where science — in my opinion, this is just an opinion — that’s where science leads you… Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people.
That could no more be "proven" true or false – either by Google search results or actual scholarship – than the statement "candy is good". Which is why you moved on to the secondary line of reasoning that: Ben Stein is incompetent -> Incompetent people should not be allowed to be commencement speakers -> Therefore Ben Stein should not be allowed to be a commencement speaker. I addressed the fact that this logic does not hold up to scrutiny, based on examples of incompetent and extremist individuals being allowed to speak as commencement speakers. The only way I can really think of to address the "thrust" of your faulty first "argument" and the "evidence" you supplied to support it is to point you here.
What'd be nice is if you could remember what you had written or maintain a point for more than 3 posts at a time.
Mr. Mulligan – The first paragraph of comment #9.
Mr. Ingles,
I missed the part where either of those websites address anything that Ben Stein actually said, let alone the actual portion of text that you chose to quote from. Did you read them?
By the way, God is real. You can find the unequivocal proof here. Blog post, ergo veritas.
Avendesora
Interested to know why you thought the long introduction and personal sharing of your progressive ideology regarding issues in no way related to the topic was important to you.
You included small bits on topic, but even there, nothing more than how you "feel."
Assuming you read the essay, the comments up to the point you posted, seeing exchanges, links to material supporting statements, questions about Mr. Stein's qualifications, historical references, quotes and so forth, you joined in with what intent?
You dedicated your post to your story – references to who you are, what you do, told us about your daughter, where you lived, your husband's occupation, where you grew up, your race, that you like sex with women and men, what you eat, and about everything else we could ever not want or need to know about you except how you pronounce "tomato."
If you would, after answering, do you have any thoughts on the topic at hand?
Do you believe advocating diversity and actively working to prevent conservative speech is reasonable?
Your (potential) value here, as a person who thinks a lot more like those who justify a definition of diversity that excludes conservative thought, is to either justify that way of thinking or help us understand it from a leftist persepctive.
Be a "self-appointed token liberal" who contributes something of worth to this topic.
On the chance that you interrupted to tell a bunch of conservative thinkers that you are a part-time lesbian atheist who eats sprouts in order to provoke or test responses to make a point about diversity hypocrisy within a debate about diversity hypocrisy, to spice up your paper on conservative bloggers, did you get what you were looking for?
Mr. Mulligan – Calling something an opinion or value judgement doesn't make it so. As the saying goes, "You're entitled to your own opinion; you're not entitled to your own facts."
The plain fact is that science had nothing to do with motivating the Holocaust, any more than Christianity did. If you have a specific problem with the case made at those links or with the case that Hitler was a creationist who didn't believe in human evolution, instead of simple ad-hominem, let me know.
Mr. Ingles,
Calling a post on an anonymous atheist apologist blog "evidence" or a selective partial quotation "defamation of science" doesn't make it so either. I may not be entitled to my own facts, but I am certainly entitled to the universal English language definition of a value judgment. When the person making the statement prefaces it by saying that it is his opinion, I'm pretty sure one can reasonably conclude that it is, well, his opinion. I could no more "prove" Ben Stein's stated opinion on science's relation to the Holocaust than you could "prove" Gustavo Esteva's opinion on the proletarian class struggle in relation to the capitalist economy. And even if I could, it still would not qualify as a justification for excluding him from speaking – remember, contrary to your initial argument, we clearly established that holding an incorrect or radical opinion or position in and of itself is no indication whatever that you are not worthy of being "honored" by a university.
If you'd like to have a debate about if/how science is related to eugenics is related to the Holocaust, you should write an article or find one where that is the actual topic. Instead you decided to wrap that argument up in a parallel argument about university honors and the qualifications required to receive them.
Nothing I said in my last post was ad hominem (do you need another link for a definition? Or is the meaning of the term irrelevant, like "value judgment"?). I have no interest in defending or refuting your "evidence" for an irrelevant, red herring argument unrelated to the original topic of discussion. If you want to return to that original topic sometime, let me know. Until then, this clearly isn't going anywhere. Whether Hitler was an evangelist or Darwin was a racist or scientists are killers is less than tangential to whether or not it was hypocritical or intolerant/not "diverse" to encourage Ben Stein to withdraw from a commencement speech. Adieu.
I don't get why Stein's science comment would draw fire given the context of Nazi Germany, Stein clearly was referring to Nazi scientists (science), and it is clear what role science played in the creation and justification for concentration camps and the treatment of the Jews and others whom German anthropologists "proved" where inferior humans.
Mengele's experiments, in which he killed and disfigured people, are some of the most well known examples of Nazi science at work. Eugenics studies published by German scientists certainly played a major role in justifying the killing carried out by Nazis. Hitler's faith in that science certainly inspired him.
Was it junk science? Is anthropogenic global warming junk science? Yes, no, maybe, both?
Funny thing about science. It can't ever be "right " or else it isn't science at all. And if it is wrong this year, it might be right again next.
Nick: It's an 'issue' because to concede the point you made would be to remove a lot of the supposed credibility behind singling out Stein as unfit to make a commencement address (the original point of this essay). That's why hyper-technical definitions of what the meaning of is, is becomes so important in condemning Stein, and as Patrick noted, why a similar standard is not applied to the comments made by non-conservative speakers.
Nick,
You asked, "Do you believe advocating diversity and actively working to prevent conservative speech is reasonable?"
No. And in this particular case, with Mr. Stein, I really don't see what the big deal was. The outcry should have been bounced back by the University and turned into an opportunity for open debate. In cases like this, the speaker should be aware of the controversy and be able to answer it in some forum other than the speech itself. Commencement addresses should be about recognition of the sacrifice it took to get there, and send the graduates off with some wisdom earned in the speaker's life and words of encouragement appropriate to the audience. Just about any accomplished person can do that, regardless of their personal leanings.
That being said, a speech about dedicating your life to God would not be appropriate at a public university, and could be avoided by not asking an evangelical preacher to give it, and a person who has denied the Holocaust should not be invited to speak at a Jewish commencement.
So there are gray areas, and where each person wants to draw the line is going to be different.
In a nutshell my intention was to say I am as leftist hippy liberal as a person gets, and all of the rants in the original essay about how all "Liberals" think and act was wrong. I, and my Liberal friends, do not fit what was described. We want inclusion. We want variance and diversity and for all voices to be heard. What we don't want is divisive and exclusionary language to be showcased and honored.
"Liberals believe that those who lack exposure to diversity are at an intellectual disadvantage when presented with complex problems involving people with disparate backgrounds and values." Of course they are! Just ask our military. Are our soldiers not trained in cultural awareness and local custom before going abroad? Do they not hire interpreters for cultural interpretation as well as language interpretation? Do you buy a Lonely Planet before you go to Kenya, or do you assume the people there will all act like they do in Tempe? You would be even better prepared if you had roomed with a person who grew up in Nairobi. More exposure and more varied experience is a bad thing?
"They are mentally rigid and shallow because they have been sheltered by an environment with no variety of opinion and that does not value new ideas.
They are less able to adapt to a rapidly changing environment because they have no experience coping with new ideas and situations because they have only associated with people who are just like them. They have lost the capability to adapt because they have never had to. They are considered the intellectual equivalent of a herd of stampeding buffalo; they travel together as a herd and dare not stray. They are regarded as souls who are more likely to be dismissive (and seemingly intolerant) of those not like them because they simply cannot see things from any perspective except their own."
The above two paragraphs could easily appear on any blog, left or right, when writing about the other side. This passage especially is horribly polarizing. It is this type of language that shuts down debate. It makes it us-against-them from that point on, and nowhere does it allow for a perspective to fall anywhere in between.
I came originally for class, and to see if I would still have MY posting privileges in the morning. I am still here because I live in the Bay Area and read the SF Chronicle at breakfast, and I thought it would be good to hear a more "intellectual" thinking conservative viewpoint rather than the redneck head in the sand variety I am accustomed to. I think I can learn something here.
Why are you participating on this site? To scratch each others backs? If an essay that professes to pine for true diversity cannot manage to allow that more than two sets of human behavior may exist, then you might as well go read a cereal box.
Avendesora
Thanks. I think you summed it up well when you said "What we (liberals) don't want is divisive and exclusionary language to be showcased and honored."
I can assume that means "We" (liberals) also get to decide what is "divisive" and "exclusionary," as well as what is "showcased" and "honored?"
Sounds like a perpetual case of "you can't get there from here," syndrome for conservative speakers.
It's great you have no problem with Mr. Stein addressing the class. It apparently is one of two options, as "leftist, hippy liberals," as you call them, also may declare Mr. Stein unfit on the grounds what they have not heard him say yet will be divisive, exclusionary, honored or showcased.
And what happens when leftists "don't want" something?
Unfortunately, it often means no one gets it.
But, of course, that's fair, because we all must be protected from "divisive" and "exclusionary" speech, as determined by the left.
We also have to be thankful that so many on the left are able to predict what will be too divisive and exclusionary for us well ahead of actual DE disasters. heading off speakers before they can even board a plane.
This is important work indeed, perhaps more important than heading off terrorist attacks.
Back from a business trip. Mr. Mulligan – the ad hominem was your "blog post, ergo veritas" comment. Yes, I linked to blog posts – but the question I asked, which you ignored, was… hey, let's quote my exact words, that seems popular here: "If you have a specific problem with the case made at those links… let me know."
They're not veritas because they are blog posts, they're veritas because they make a good case. If you disagree, let me know why.
Assuming you can't, some more of my words: "So, the objection to honoring him is based on his breathtaking dishonesty in trying to dismiss evolution based on a purported link to the Holocaust. (If he's not dishonest, he's even more breathtakingly incompetent in a different field – history.)"
(Looks like Mr. Adams should check out those links, too.)
Raymond,
I already told you a week and a half ago that I'm not going to engage in a red herring argument that you've conjured, substantive or otherwise, regarding completely irrelevant blog posts that have nothing to do with the original topic of discussion. Continue reasoning yourself in a circle to your heart's content, but don't expect anyone else to indulge you in it.
In the interest of clarity, here is a definition of "ad hominem". I did not attack you personally, nor did I personally attack the author(s) of the blog posts you linked to. In fact, the "ad hominem" phrase you cited, "blog post, ergo veritas", was sarcastically in reference to a link that I posted. I was simply pointing out the weakness of your logic and the irrelevance of your "evidence" to the actual topic of discussion. I did not address the substance of those blog posts because they have nothing to do with the actual topic of this article and subsequent discussion any more than the blog post I linked to in post 74 does. I'll make you a deal: address the substance of the inconsequential argument for the existence of God that I linked to in post 74, and I will return and address the inconsequential arguments that you linked to about whether or not Nazi eugencis was based on Darwinism. Assuming you can't (or won't, because it is ridiculous and irrelevant), some more of my words: "…this clearly isn't going anywhere. Whether Hitler was an evangelist or Darwin was a racist or scientists are killers is less than tangential to whether or not it was hypocritical or intolerant/not "diverse" to encourage Ben Stein to withdraw from a commencement speech. Adieu."
Mr. Mulligan – Nothing simpler than addressing the link #74. Its points 1 through 4 are addressed here, number 6 here, and #5 isn't actually an argument.
The question of whether Ben Stein is actually, egregiously wrong is not at all tangential to "whether or not it was hypocritical or intolerant/not "diverse" to encourage Ben Stein to withdraw from a commencement speech." If he's demonstrably and egregiously wrong, he's not appropriate for a commencement speech.
The only situation where the motivations would matter is if Stein weren't in fact wrong. (See C.S. Lewis's term Bulverism.)
Mr. Ingles,
See here and here. There, now we have links and counter-links. We can therefore assume that all claims have been addressed. Are there any other topics you'd like to discuss instead of the one that's actually relevant? Existence of extraterrestrial life? Art? Music? Global warming?
We already addressed in post 72 why the quotation that you cite as the source of Ben Stein's dishonesty is A) a value judgment, therefore not falsifiable, therefore not capable of being "right" or "wrong", and B) not addressed by either of the blog posts you linked to, which we nevertheless addressed with a whole new set of links just a few lines ago. I'm not going to keep explaining it to you so that you can keep reverting to ever more complex minutiae of whatever unrelated, parallel line of discussion that you've decided is the new point of the matter. (See Penn Jillette's term Bullshit.)
Mr. Mulligan – "Candy is good" is indeed a value judgement. But "candy leads you to killing people", like "science leads you to killing people" or "violent videogames lead you to killing people", is a statement about external reality, not values, and capable of being supported or refuted by scholarship. Stein himself tried to support the statement with tales of the Holocaust, however weak and misguided his efforts.
(BTW, my most recent links were actually written by me; did you contribute to the Wikipedia articles you linked to? For example, did you write the passages that state "how exactly Hitler picked up these ideas is uncertain", or "Weickart himself writes in his book "From Darwin to Hitler": 'The multivalence of Darwinism and eugenics ideology, especially when applied to ethical, political, and social thought, together with the multiple roots of Nazi ideology, should make us suspicious of monocausal arguments about the origins of the Nazi worldview'"?)
Raymond,
I think there's an echo in here. Do you hear it? Here, let me try:
"Science leads you to killing people" is a value judgment – especially when accompanied by the context of the full quotation of what Ben Stein actually said:
When we just saw that man, I think it was Mr. Myers, talking about how great scientists were, I was thinking to myself the last time any of my relatives saw scientists telling them what to do they were telling them to go to the showers to get gassed … that was horrifying beyond words, and that’s where science — in my opinion, this is just an opinion — that’s where science leads you… Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people.
That could no more be "proven" true or false – either by Google search results or actual scholarship – than the statement "candy is good".
Instead of continuing to post the exact same thing and expect me to do likewise, just press the CTRL+F keys and type "Patrick Mulligan" – it makes it really easy to read what I've already posted. Personally, I'm finding it rather boring and redundant. So I'll leave you to continue by yourself. For real this time. I'd have been infinitely happier if I'd stuck to my word in the first place.
(BTW, No, I did not contribute to either of the Wikipedia articles I linked you to, any more than you contributed to the original two blog posts you linked to that had absolutely nothing to do with Ben Stein or any of the remarks he made that you quoted. Would it make it better if I had? Would it have had given them any more relevance to the actual discussion we began with that you abandoned as soon you found a fun new tangent you liked better?)
Mr. Mulligan – An echo, yes. You continually repeat claims with no justification.
Is the proposition "violent videogames lead you to killing people" also a value judgement, "[t]hat could [not] be "proven" true or false"? A simple "Yes" or "No" would be sufficient, though a "Yes, because…" or "No, because…" along with your reasoning would be nice.
Anything prefaced by "in my opinion…" is a value judgment
Append "in my opinion…" to "violent videogames lead you to killing people" and it suddenly becomes a judgment – not a statement of fact. Judgments cannot be "proven" – only facts can. A person so fervently pedantic about semantic distinctions, especially in the context of logical and scientific terms, should certainly know the difference.
And lest we forget, even if Ben Stein had said "It is a matter of fact that science leads you to killing people" and was incorrect, that still wouldn't be a historically good reason to exclude him from speaking.
I apologize that I made that so ambiguous in the other 20 posts where I said exactly the same thing, to which you responded with exactly the same thing. Maybe the echo in here is coming from your head…
Shoot. There were supposed to be mock HTML tags indicating around the first and third lines. The humor is ruined without them.
Seems to me this thread has run it's course. Circular non-logic abounds. Time to go on to new issues.
Well, Mr. Mulligan, it's not like I haven't been clear either, as in comment #76. "Calling something an opinion or value judgement doesn't make it so. As the saying goes, 'You're entitled to your own opinion; you're not entitled to your own facts.'"
It's actually funny, since many other conservatives are dead set against the idea that everything's just a value judgement. Oh, well.
Raymond,
Precisely! I'm glad you understand now. As long as I reject your premise that the quotation you snipped from and that I posted in full in post #72 is a statement of fact that you are capable of "proving" one way or the other (particularly with links to blog posts that do not address the quotation or any argument particular to Ben Stein), and you insist that it is a statement of fact in spite of what it actually says; and as along as you insist that this supposed "fact" establishes a question of Ben Stein's competence, and that such question constitues a justification for excluding him from delivering a commencement address, in spite of historical examples of far less qualified academics and radicals of a left-leaning political persuasion being allowed to speak, you are merely stating the same thing over and over, to which I am responding with the same thing over and over. I have to admire your resolve – I think you're going on 20 posts now. I'm going to have to give up at some point, because you clearly never tire!
I don't believe that everything is a value judgment – just those things that qualitatively fit the definition of the term.
Well, Mr. Mulligan – in my opinion, this is just an opinion – following the logic of your position leads to the gulag and the detention camp, and also that you worship ham sandwiches. (Fortunately, since I called that an opinion, it can't be proven false!)
Well then you clearly aren't qualified to deliver a commencement speech. I guess Ben Stein is in good company.
Mr. Mulligan – That's only your opinion.
No, that's a statement of fact. You can tell because it doesn't start with, "In my opinion…"