|
Post by robeiae on Mar 9, 2017 17:25:54 GMT -5
I don't disagree; there's no pre-requisite to know the content of the books in order to judge what happened at the event. My point is only with regard to judging Murray, himself. And the SPLC piece on Murray is, I think, ridiculously unfair, insofar as it labels Murray a "white nationalist" based on what appears to me a rather sophomoric understanding of The Bell Curve (and it doesn't even bother with the content of Coming Apart, probably because the writer couldn't find anything in that book to misrepresent).
Again, I think The Bell Curve is flawed, and I think that has been ably noted many times over. But if it's racist, it favors Asians and Jews above whites. That's not white nationalism, it just isn't. Could it be that Murray is a bigot? Sure. Could it be that he's a racist? Sure. But the idea that all of his books are pushing such an agenda is ludicrous. And the chants and signs at the event make it clear that the students there really didn't have a clue, by and large. There were people holding up eugenics signs, after all. Even in The Bell Curve, Murray explicitly rejects such an approach.
Shouting someone down because you're too ignorant to learn is a pretty weenie approach for college students. Or for anyone else.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Mar 9, 2017 18:23:04 GMT -5
I'd be more inclined to consider your POV if there was any evidence that you'd actually read any of the books, because it doesn't look like you have, at all. I wasn't asking you to consider my POV and there is no reason I have to provide evidence I've read any of Charles Murray's shitty books. The fact of the matter is I read as much of The Bell Curve as I could stomach, but since you seem to be suggesting that as a Black man I must actually read a racist book to know it is racist, do you also demand of Jews they prove they have read Mein Kampf before declaring it anti-Semitic? A piece of hackwork whose premise is Blacks and Latinos are genetically inferior to Whites and predisposed to lower intelligence isn't racist? Such a stance is not inhererently racist, but it certainly is enabling racism and that's worse. That's not what The Bell Curve says. Even reading the Wikipedia article about it, you'd know that's not the book's premise. Are you really suggesting a Wikipedia article means a damn thing? I'd be more inclined to consider your POV if there was any evidence that you'd actually read any of the books, because it doesn't look like you have, at all. To be fair, I haven't read Murray's books either. But even if one assumes for the sake of argument that he's racist, that changes nothing for me. The rightness or wrongness of what happened at Middlebury just doesn't hinge on that particular question, IMO. Then if you haven't read The Bell Curve and don't know anything about it, you're not sufficiently informed as to the cause of what happened at Middlebury to have an opinion on the effect. Details matter and they matter very much when you are popping off with an emotional and knee-jerk response because someone didn't protest the way you think they should have. That's placed in quotes because I wrote that in 2003 which was the last damn time I had to deal with defenders of The Bell Curve.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Mar 9, 2017 19:03:52 GMT -5
It still looks like you didn't read it. Your criticisms are all about the Pioneer Fund, not the content of the book.
And yes, if someone is going to declare that a given book is anti-Semitic, they should have the intellectual integrity to do the fucking work first, to actually read the book, not just pass judgement based on someone else's opinions (who may or may not have read the book in question).
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Mar 9, 2017 19:21:44 GMT -5
I'll cede to you as the expert on emotional responses. But really, my issue here isn't with people protesting (though maybe the protesters should've bothered to read the book as well, no?). You've already conceded the point, with regard to what I see as the crossing of a line, here. More than once, actually.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Mar 9, 2017 22:54:48 GMT -5
It still looks like you didn't read it. Your criticisms are all about the Pioneer Fund, not the content of the book. And yes, if someone is going to declare that a given book is anti-Semitic, they should have the intellectual integrity to do the fucking work first, to actually read the book, not just pass judgement based on someone else's opinions (who may or may not have read the book in question). I don't have to read The Turner Diaries or The Bell Curve any more than I have to watch D.W. Griffith's The Birth of A Nation to know its racist and that doesn't have fuck-all to do with "intellectual integrity." That's about not indulging White supremacist crap. People whom are being targeted by bigots don't owe bigots a fair hearing or any hearing at all. Do what you want, but if you say The Pioneer Fund and Murray and Herrestein's ties to it has nothing to do with the content of their book, that's you not doing the fucking work. I'll cede to you as the expert on emotional responses. That's fair. I've already ceded to you this week's expertise on shrill and uninfromed repsonses. Next week, somebody else will probably take the title from you, but until then enjoy your time in the Number One spot. You haven't read the book. Apparently, you didn't even kno what the controversy about The Bell Curve was about or why people are still hyped over it. What then gives you the right to wag your finger at others who may have sweated the details you didn't bother with? Besides the smug satisfaction that comes with looking down your nose?
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Mar 9, 2017 23:50:02 GMT -5
That's fair. I've already ceded to you this week's expertise on shrill and uninfromed repsonses. Next week, somebody else will probably take the title from you, but until then enjoy your time in the Number One spot. LOL. Your irony detector is broken. I understand the basic controversy over the book. That said, I think what you're saying here regarding the finger wagging would make more sense if I were taking a position on the book that diverged from your own or that of the students at Middlebury. But that's not what I'm doing. I'm willing to allow, for the sake of argument, that everything you've said about Murray and his writings is basically correct. In fact, let's assume, for the sake of argument, that you've understated the case, that the book is actually much worse than what you've said about it. How is that supposed to change what I think about what happened here? Again, the thing that bothered me the most about the whole incident was something that bothered you, as well.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Mar 10, 2017 6:42:46 GMT -5
I don't have to read The Turner Diaries or The Bell Curve any more than I have to watch D.W. Griffith's The Birth of A Nation to know its racist and that doesn't have fuck-all to do with "intellectual integrity." That's about not indulging White supremacist crap. People whom are being targeted by bigots don't owe bigots a fair hearing or any hearing at all. Sure you do (have to read or watch these things), otherwise you can't know anything about them, at least not for yourself. You can know what other people have said, true enough, but that's not the same thing as knowing for yourself, imo. And again, a fair reading of the data in the book yields a very obvious conclusion, if one allows it's all abut racial superiority: Asians and Jews are better than everyone else. Again, that's hardly consistent with white supremacy, which is why I think the SPLC piece is less than fair. Lol. Step one in "doing the work" is and always will be reading and understanding the material in question. I can read book after book about Plato, about the Ancient Greeks and the Athenian civilization, but if I want to talk about what's in The Republic, I still need to actually read it, if I expect anyone to take me seriously.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Mar 10, 2017 6:50:05 GMT -5
Sure you do (have to read or watch these things), otherwise you can't know anything about them, at least not for yourself. You can know what other people have said, true enough, but that's not the same thing as knowing for yourself, imo. But just so the nuance isn't being lost here, while it's true that one can say The Bell Curve is racist without reading it, one cannot criticize the fine people at Middlebury without having read it. I think that's an important point.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Mar 10, 2017 8:02:59 GMT -5
Seriously, a lot of this Bell Curve stuff is coming back to me now. It was a serious thing, the issue of criticism and outrage coming from people who couldn't be bothered to read the book. That said, there was--and remains--serious criticisms of the book, from it's assumptions to its conclusions. I read all the back and forth many moons ago; interestingly enough, Murray was fully engaged with these critics. I don't think he succeeded in arguing his case, however. The fundamental problems of using IQs to draw conclusions about race remain. And in that regard, I get the claims of bigotry and racism, I really do. I think it's as much classism as it is anything else, though. Murray held firm to the idea that Asians are superior to whites, when it comes to IQ, which I think makes the calls of "white supremacist" problematic. But all that said, Murray has proven, I think, fully willing to engage in debates on his research and writings, to answer questions and the like, meaning critics have ample opportunity to expose the flaws in his thinking. So shouting him down--and ultimately turning to violence--in protest is not the smart way to handle him. He's hardly Milo or Ann Coulter. And Coming Apart, the topic of the event, isn't flawed in the same ways as The Bell Curve at all. So it remains a tragically poor performance by the students--and admin--of Middlebury, imo.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Mar 10, 2017 8:33:56 GMT -5
But all that said, Murray has proven, I think, fully willing to engage in debates on his research and writings, to answer questions and the like, meaning critics have ample opportunity to expose the flaws in his thinking. That reminded me of something I read today, actually. This is a short comment from a Middlebury student, one of several quoted in a NYT piece: "For too long, a flawed notion of “free speech” has allowed individuals in positions of power to spread racist pseudoscience in academic institutions, dehumanizing and subjugating people of color and gender minorities. While I defend Murray’s right to speak his mind, the fact that the college provided an elevated platform for him did more harm than good. To that effect, I do not think Middlebury made sufficient avenues for students to engage with the implications of Mr. Murray’s ideas. First, the event was co-sponsored by the political science department and featured opening remarks by the president of the College, elevating the speaker’s institutional legitimacy. While students have the right to bring speakers of all kinds to campus, the university itself must be responsible and academically honest when giving such events a show of approval through cosponsorship. Much of Murray’s work is not peer-reviewed and his assertions are not scientifically proven. Second, and more important, the format of Murray’s talk did not allow for equal discussion. Were students, especially students of color, expected to just sit and listen for 45 minutes to an individual who has written that they are inferior to whites? Do Asians have to accept Murray’s assertions that we have “higher IQ’s” than other races, and as a result become the metaphorical “punching bag” for issues surrounding race and class? Where was the avenue to speak out against such ideas? How could students engage in debate on an equal playing field when Mr. Murray had a stage and a microphone, and we were just members of the audience? Without a platform for legitimate discussion, it seems that students had few non-disruptive tools to get their voices heard." Pretty interesting. The idea of an unequal platform is basically correct, I suppose (Q&A period notwithstanding), though I would think this would be the case for all speakers, unless the event is set up as more of a debate than a lecture.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Mar 10, 2017 8:51:58 GMT -5
Well, the President of the college went after Murray in her opening remarks.
But regardless, the talk was supposedly about Coming Apart, not The Bell Curve. What ideas needed more student engagement from that work? Stanger--the one assaulted--was there to go after Murray, with respect to Coming Apart. A legitimate issue--like it or not--in this regard is that not all students are equipped to do that job. What's the alternative? A free-for-all wherein any guest speaker has to respond to every question, no matter how idiotic, no matter how off-topic?
And no one had to go the talk, regardless. I don't think there's a flawed notion of free speech at work here, at all. And obviously, there would have been way more time for the Q&A if the students there weren't acting like assholes.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Mar 10, 2017 8:54:34 GMT -5
Well, the President of the college went after Murray in her opening remarks. But regardless, the talk was supposedly about Coming Apart, not The Bell Curve. What ideas needed more student engagement from that work? Stanger--the one assaulted--was there to go after Murray, with respect to Coming Apart. A legitimate issue--like it or not--in this regard is that not all students are equipped to do that job. What's the alternative? A free-for-all wherein any guest speaker has to respond to every question, no matter how idiotic, no matter how off-topic? And no one had to go the talk, regardless. I don't think there's a flawed notion of free speech at work here, at all. And obviously, there would have been way more time for the Q&A if the students there weren't acting like assholes. For sure.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Mar 10, 2017 9:14:45 GMT -5
Are you really suggesting a Wikipedia article means a damn thing? With citations, and absent any evidence that what it states is inaccurate, a Wikipedia article carries more weight than you asserting something based on you saying so. What most people object to in The Bell Curve is the only part they know about it, because they haven't read it, and thus don't know it's actually the least controversial element: the empirically observable fact that, in aggregate, whites score lower on IQ tests than Asians, and that blacks and Latinos score lower than whites. There are a lot of conclusions one can draw from that, many of them inaccurate and/or unfounded. Some racists have drawn certain conclusions from it, and a lot of anti-racists assume those are the only conclusions one can draw from it. If someone says " Mein Kampf is anti-Semitic; Hitler advocated eating Jews," one is not defending anti-Semitism to ask for evidence of the Jew-eating part.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Mar 10, 2017 11:25:42 GMT -5
I understand the basic controversy over the book. That said, I think what you're saying here regarding the finger wagging would make more sense if I were taking a position on the book that diverged from your own or that of the students at Middlebury. But that's not what I'm doing. I'm willing to allow, for the sake of argument, that everything you've said about Murray and his writings is basically correct. In fact, let's assume, for the sake of argument, that you've understated the case, that the book is actually much worse than what you've said about it. How is that supposed to change what I think about what happened here? Again, the thing that bothered me the most about the whole incident was something that bothered you, as well. Yes, I am bothered by an innocent bystander being roughed up and injured. But I'm also bothered by the cause and not only the effect and I think that's kinda important too. I don't have to read The Turner Diaries or The Bell Curve any more than I have to watch D.W. Griffith's The Birth of A Nation to know its racist and that doesn't have fuck-all to do with "intellectual integrity." That's about not indulging White supremacist crap. People whom are being targeted by bigots don't owe bigots a fair hearing or any hearing at all. Sure you do (have to read or watch these things), otherwise you can't know anything about them, at least not for yourself. You can know what other people have said, true enough, but that's not the same thing as knowing for yourself, imo. The operative phrase there is "IMO" because that's all it is. I don't HAVE to do shit but stay Black and die and certainly not because you insist I must. That's your rule of how to navigate through the world and if it works for you, God bless ya, but it's not my way and you insisting it is doesn't move the needle. I do not HAVE to read racist crap to KNOW it's racist and particularly not when someone whose opinion and perspectives I respect HAS. Exposing ones self to bad movies, bad music and bad books is one of the primary reasons to justify the existence of film, music and book critics and I should know because I've done all three. One does not have to wallow in radioactive waste to know it is bad for you and your contention you must to understand is an argument reduced to absurdity. It's as dumb as suggesting a cowflop must taste good on a sesame seed bun as a hamburger because they both come from a cow.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Mar 10, 2017 12:04:26 GMT -5
Seriously, a lot of this Bell Curve stuff is coming back to me now. It was a serious thing, the issue of criticism and outrage coming from people who couldn't be bothered to read the book. Then it came back to you worng because a great deal of the criticism of The Bell Curve--as literature, as science, as sociology---came from people who did bother to read the book. They even understood it for the pornography for bigots it was. Problematic for you because you're a White man. Not problematic for me because I'm neither White nor Asian and you've undermined your contention Murray's not a White supremacist by stating "Asians are superior to Whites" and Murray declares both are superior to Blacks and Latinos. In case you didn't know, let me school ya before they fool ya: That's Racist. [/quote] Are you really suggesting a Wikipedia article means a damn thing? With citations, and absent any evidence that what it states is inaccurate, a Wikipedia article carries more weight than you asserting something based on you saying so. Because a Wikipedia article has citations you think that makes it accurate? You say a Wikipeida article carries more weight than my asserting something because I say so. Oh, I see the problem here. You believe what you read in Wikipedia because it has a citation? Okay, I'll play along. Who wrote the Wikipedia article? What's their name? Who do they work for? What's their agenda? Has the Wikipedia article been edited? Who editied it? What did they add in, take out or change? Your faith in All Things Wikipedia is sweet, Amadan. It really is. Like a child believing the Tooth Fairy really left a quarter under their pillow. Unfortunately, I hate to be the one to tell you, but even Wikipedia doesn't believe in Wikipedia.
This is one reason why any credible institute of higher learning laughs at students who quote from Wikipedia. It can be used as a quick and easy tool, but you've made the error of thinking it's the toolbox. I'll reference Wikipedia but I don't believe anything just because it's in Wikipedia. I don't put my trust in something anybody can edit. Even you. Uh-huh...and which one are you? It's nice you got something out of The Bell Curve but it's too bad you didn't understand it.
|
|