@drcongo said:
I had no idea those car parts even existed, I'm not very mechanically savvy. I'd be interested to know though, a quick search didn't turn anything up.
Used in brake and clutch systems. I’m sure you didn’t look very hard as there’s plenty on the net about how they work and how to fix
@HCblue said:
However, it might seem obvious to you that it is a correct and desirable normal but you had better hope that the rules don't change again without your realising it if the price of failing to do so is that you may become collateral damage yourself and all the decent like-minded thinkers like yourself will be willing to see you go down because you "couldn't be bothered" to keep up.
I'm intrigued by this bit @HCblue, I've seen this argument used a lot recently against white people speaking out in support of BLM (used as a "just you wait" kind of threat) and particularly around the idea of "cancel culture", however I don't really understand what the warning is supposed to be about. Should I not speak up for things I believe in, just in case we suddenly start living under fascist authoritarian rule and my beliefs might become heretical? If anything that possibility, to me, seems an even greater reason to speak up now. When used to try to warn against a "cancel culture" that might one day come for me, again, if I find myself living in a society where standing up for oppressed people could get me fired or "cancelled" I'm going to be wishing I'd spoken up louder.
The argument I put forward was not at all to discourage the expression of ideas or positions but rather the exact opposite of that. The essential point, on which I will expound, is that it is important to the development of society that we allow each other to express our thoughts and, equally importantly, that we take care that our positions are well-founded and have a willingness to consider that they may not be.
The marginalisation or stigmatisation of those espousing certain positions is growing increasingly prevalent and the consequences of it are starting to bite, particularly in the United States. Allow me to cite just two examples:
Steve Hsu is Professor of Theoretical Physics at Michigan State University and, until recently, President for Research and Innovation - a position he held without complaint and with some success for eight years. In the last month, a number of people petitioned for his dismissal because, they said, he held racist and sexist beliefs that he hid behind scientific language. In support of this, they made reference to tweets of his and to scientific papers funded by his department or cited by him. A balanced consideration of this "evidence" reveals all of it to be unsupportive of the allegations made (I will link to some relevant materials below so you can draw your own conclusions if you wish). Rather than reject the allegations as unfounded, the University President required Hsu's resignation from the Research post.
David Shor was until recently a political data analyst for a company called Civis Analytics. He tweeted a research paper that had found that violent and non-violent protest had contradictory effects on the Democratic vote in subsequent elections, with evidence showing a drop in the vote following the former and rise after the latter. As a result, a number of people alleged racism on his part on Twitter and pressured the company to fire him. Instead of standing firm, the company did so.
These are but two examples of the "cancel culture" that has been referred to in some previous messages here. I present them as examples that show a distressing stifling of legitimate, considered and, frankly, neutral discussions or propositions by means of outrage expressed in the use of emotive and unfounded accusations of racism or other types of wrongthink (see also Rowling, J.K.).
In the hypothetical free marketplace of idea that liberals propose as vital, there is, of course, no injunction against criticism. Criticism is a vital part of the exchange if a greater understanding is to be arrived at. But criticism that has the effect of preventing any presentation, let alone discussion, of certain ideas has the opposite effect. That there is a human cost, as above, is also not insignificant not least if it means people with something to add to the conversation become precluded from participating in it.
Thus, to revert to the current case, my previous comments about Bayo's post stand. I expect that everyone here will have a shared sympathy for what he wrote. But it pays not to draw too many conclusions about the likely motives or intent of whoever it was that said what they said - assuming the facts were correctly reported to Bayo, which is of course not known by us. As a learning opportunity, it has some value to the people involved and to us as observers. But it ill-serves the discussion, unless sanctimonious self-esteem is the goal, to go beyond what was reported into suggestions that the whole Fleetwood club is a hotbed of racism out of which this sort of thing was only to be expected or that anyone questioning whether "racist" is the right word to describe what happened can be dismissed as obviously ignorant or racist themselves and thus easily ignored. This is not how we understand ourselves better nor how we arrive at a more united society that is less prone to expressions of dislike or hatred towards others, regardless of their race, gender, sexual orientation or anything else.
TLDR: By all means speak for those you see as oppressed - I have somewhat done that here - but be careful in the judgements you make about those that disagree with you and the language you use to voice that disagreement.
Hsu's own blogpost - includes his own rebuttal of the petition and links to a number of newspaper articles about it. He is clearly a very interesting and accomplished person: https://infoproc.blogspot.com/
Hi @HCblue. You make some perfectly valid points, although I for one would be quite reluctant to "expound" anything. However, I think there are some equally valid points to be made in reply.
I assume you would accept that there are some views that are so beyond the pale (and yes, that's a rather dubious term given its origin in English imperialism in Ireland) that we are all perfectly entitled to deny them a platform? If someone came on here and articulated overtly racist or fascist views you would have no difficulty in banning them? In which case, we are effectively talking about a difference of degree rather than any difference of principle. What you are saying is that the views expressed in the examples you cite shouldn't have been regarded as outside the bounds of acceptable discourse. Without knowing the detail or following your links, I'm perfectly happy to concede that you may be right in the particular cases.
Secondly, to, as you say, revert to the current case, I take issue with your hysterical mischaracterisation of what I said about Fleetwood's lack of BAME players. But leaving that to one side, I said that we would know more about what is actually inside their heads from their response. I might as well quote me:
"Let's see how Fleetwood respond. If they say "We are terribly sorry. We've thought about this and now realise it was a grossly insensitive remark. We unreservedly apologise", then I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. If they're huffy and offended, they're racists.".
Would you not agree that their silence is fairly deafening?
Thanks for the very comprehensive response @HCblue. I’m familiar with both the cases you cited, the first of which I have absolutely no problem with, and indeed if Quillette comes out in your defence it’s usually a very good sign that you’re a bit of a wrongun. They have a history of articles supporting fash-for-cash self publicists like Andy Ngo and Milo Yiannopoulos. The Shor case is bizarre, the report he tweeted was written by a BAME man and whatever it was it wasn’t racist.
"I just had a look at the Fleetwood squad. Only one BAME player (on-loan). At the risk of being branded a fanatic, I find that surprising and indeed suspicious."
as well as the follow-ups to which I was alluding earlier. If I may take your earlier analogy, you took two and two and made it what you wanted to make it, allowing yourself to descend to a casual assumption based on a tiny data point the context of which you had not explored at all. The conversation in your mind that you describe would suit a witchfinder but not someone with an interest in understanding the actual truth of the situation rather than drawing a conclusion which it seemed to you might be correct and requiring a certain response from the third party in order to contradict your hastily-drawn assumption.
Given that everyone in English society knows what is meant by "beyond the pale", it was perfectly apposite for you to use it - its etymology is irrelevant. To use the phrase implies no endorsement of any historical tyranny from whence it may have come and it seems to me that it would be a strange and undesirable type of person that would think that.
There are certainly lots of ideas or propositions that I disagree with, sometimes strongly. That is not the same as saying that I only want to hear the ones that I agree with.
If that’s what rationalists think of it, you can imagine what lefty antifascisti like me think of it!
If you'll forgive me, this is exactly the sort of guilt by association against which I was arguing. I would be more interested to hear your observations about the contents of the article itself if you had any. Or, alternatively, one of those from the other publications that are linked to on Steve Hsu's blog.
As a small aside, the fact that a paper need be written by a black person in order to be sure of being immune from criticism (not that such is the case currently) is also a problem.
@OakwoodExile said:
Hi @HCblue. You make some perfectly valid points, although I for one would be quite reluctant to "expound" anything. However, I think there are some equally valid points to be made in reply.
I assume you would accept that there are some views that are so beyond the pale (and yes, that's a rather dubious term given its origin in English imperialism in Ireland) that we are all perfectly entitled to deny them a platform? If someone came on here and articulated overtly racist or fascist views you would have no difficulty in banning them? In which case, we are effectively talking about a difference of degree rather than any difference of principle. What you are saying is that the views expressed in the examples you cite shouldn't have been regarded as outside the bounds of acceptable discourse. Without knowing the detail or following your links, I'm perfectly happy to concede that you may be right in the particular cases.
Secondly, to, as you say, revert to the current case, I take issue with your hysterical mischaracterisation of what I said about Fleetwood's lack of BAME players. But leaving that to one side, I said that we would know more about what is actually inside their heads from their response. I might as well quote me:
"Let's see how Fleetwood respond. If they say "We are terribly sorry. We've thought about this and now realise it was a grossly insensitive remark. We unreservedly apologise", then I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. If they're huffy and offended, they're racists.".
Would you not agree that their silence is fairly deafening?
"I just had a look at the Fleetwood squad. Only one BAME player (on-loan). At the risk of being branded a fanatic, I find that surprising and indeed suspicious."
as well as the follow-ups to which I was alluding earlier. If I may take your earlier analogy, you took two and two and made it what you wanted to make it, allowing yourself to descend to a casual assumption based on a tiny data point the context of which you had not explored at all. The conversation in your mind that you describe would suit a witchfinder but not someone with an interest in understanding the actual truth of the situation rather than drawing a conclusion which it seemed to you might be correct and requiring a certain response from the third party in order to contradict your hastily-drawn assumption.
Given that everyone in English society knows what is meant by "beyond the pale" is why it was perfectly apposite for you to use it - its etymology is irrelevant. To use it implies no endorsement of any historical tyranny from whence it may have come and it seems to me that it would be a strange and undesirable type of person that would take exception to its use.
There are certainly lost of ideas or propositions that I disagree with, sometimes strongly. That is not the same as saying that I only want to hear the ones that I agree with.
I’m struggling to relate your conclusion to the original topic of Bayo’s experience.
Bayo has a right not to hear people comparing him to an African animal. In this case the perpetrator overstepped the mark. Bayo shouldn’t have to endure that type of hurtful abuse because of someone else’s fear of some as yet undefined sinister censor.
All societies have subjects and concepts that are considered taboo, and like the meaning of language, this constantly reshapes over time as a culture develops.
It is someone’s right to say what they might be thinking within the law, but words mean something and they often carry as much agency as physical actions. It is our duty to speak up for people’s rights to chastise views they consider abhorrent at least as much as it is to support the rights of the purveyors of those views.
The above said, I appreciate the references and examples in your argument and the way you’ve conducted yourself in this emotive thread.
@OakwoodExile said:
Hi @HCblue. You make some perfectly valid points, although I for one would be quite reluctant to "expound" anything. However, I think there are some equally valid points to be made in reply.
I assume you would accept that there are some views that are so beyond the pale (and yes, that's a rather dubious term given its origin in English imperialism in Ireland) that we are all perfectly entitled to deny them a platform? If someone came on here and articulated overtly racist or fascist views you would have no difficulty in banning them? In which case, we are effectively talking about a difference of degree rather than any difference of principle. What you are saying is that the views expressed in the examples you cite shouldn't have been regarded as outside the bounds of acceptable discourse. Without knowing the detail or following your links, I'm perfectly happy to concede that you may be right in the particular cases.
Secondly, to, as you say, revert to the current case, I take issue with your hysterical mischaracterisation of what I said about Fleetwood's lack of BAME players. But leaving that to one side, I said that we would know more about what is actually inside their heads from their response. I might as well quote me:
"Let's see how Fleetwood respond. If they say "We are terribly sorry. We've thought about this and now realise it was a grossly insensitive remark. We unreservedly apologise", then I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. If they're huffy and offended, they're racists.".
Would you not agree that their silence is fairly deafening?
"I just had a look at the Fleetwood squad. Only one BAME player (on-loan). At the risk of being branded a fanatic, I find that surprising and indeed suspicious."
as well as the follow-ups to which I was alluding earlier. If I may take your earlier analogy, you took two and two and made it what you wanted to make it, allowing yourself to descend to a casual assumption based on a tiny data point the context of which you had not explored at all. The conversation in your mind that you describe would suit a witchfinder but not someone with an interest in understanding the actual truth of the situation rather than drawing a conclusion which it seemed to you might be correct and requiring a certain response from the third party in order to contradict your hastily-drawn assumption.
Given that everyone in English society knows what is meant by "beyond the pale" is why it was perfectly apposite for you to use it - its etymology is irrelevant. To use it implies no endorsement of any historical tyranny from whence it may have come and it seems to me that it would be a strange and undesirable type of person that would take exception to its use.
There are certainly lost of ideas or propositions that I disagree with, sometimes strongly. That is not the same as saying that I only want to hear the ones that I agree with.
I’m struggling to relate your conclusion to the original topic of Bayo’s experience.
Bayo has a right not to hear people comparing him to an African animal. In this case the perpetrator overstepped the mark. Bayo shouldn’t have to endure that type of hurtful abuse because of someone else’s fear of some as yet undefined sinister censor.
All societies have subjects and concepts that are considered taboo, and like the meaning of language, this constantly reshapes over time as a culture develops.
It is someone’s right to say what they might be thinking within the law, but words mean something and they often carry as much agency as physical actions. It is our duty to speak up for people’s rights to chastise views they consider abhorrent at least as much as it is to support the rights of the purveyors of those views.
The above said, I appreciate the references and examples in your argument and the way you’ve conducted yourself in this emotive thread.
Hi
As often in such situations, my observations were more (though not entirely, I suppose, but that's definitely for another day) about the conversation around the original story as the story itself.
I agree with you about how language and ideas evolve. Again, it's about the way in which we shape that evolution that I was writing.
I wrote earlier that I care not at all for any form of insult or abuse aimed at players, whatever its inspiration (except, perhaps, humourously).
@Username said:
Quite frankly who cares? It's a handful of ultra specific examples versus millions and millions of black / brown people suffering daily.
Well, evidently I care somewhat. You are free not to.
That’s not guilt by association at all. I already told you that I agreed with the people who called for his removal, not because he was in Quillette, but because he’s promoting “scientific racism” - something there also happens to be an awful lot of on Quillette, coincidentally. “Science” has been used for centuries as a vehicle for oppression, most of us (including you I hope) now find the ideas in The Bell Curve to be utterly abhorrent but there are plenty who still think it’s actually scientific, including Quillette. The study promoted by Stephen Hsu somehow managed to claim, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that there is no evidence of racism in police shooting statistics. You only need to do a little bit of googling to find who took the most glee in the release of that report to understand why it upset people, with Breitbart and a whole host of right wing and nazi propaganda sites jumping on it, and it triggering an opinion column in the WSJ called The Myth of Systemic Police Racism, providing a ton of fuel for racists’ fires and belittling the real, painful experiences of black people.
I find it curious that the people (not you) who shout the loudest about this being a curtailment of Hsu’s free speech don’t seem so bothered about the free speech of those his actions hurt.
I do agree that often in these cases, actions are taken too quickly and without much in the way of due process. However, “scientific racism” is real, and dangerous. We need to call it out when we see it.
@HCblue said
Given that everyone in English society knows what is meant by "beyond the pale", it was perfectly apposite for you to use it - its etymology is irrelevant. To use the phrase implies no endorsement of any historical tyranny from whence it may have come and it seems to me that it would be a strange and undesirable type of person that would think that.
Given that everyone in English society knows what is meant by “flagging” (your original comment that ignited much of this), whilst you clearly are an intelligent and educated individual, your understanding of tone appears to be somewhat less developed (or possibly consciously and deliberately used, which would be rather more worrying). Of course I have no way of knowing or understanding why you chose to question such a commonly understood word in the context of the original post.
Coming late to the party I do have some observations.
As long as Bayo took the jibe as racist, it should be investigated. It may well be that the hekler had seen Bayo's post from the past and decided to use the WB term to get under his skin (npi), not realizing that the color had anything to do with it. It didn't with our legend Rhino. It may be that there was conscious racism involved which should obviously be irradicated from all walks of life.
I appreciate @HCblue and @wwfcblue (good thing we're not the lillywhites!) for withholding their judgement whilst speaking their truth and especially @OakwoodExile for truly contextualizing this mostly reasoned discussion.
This is one of the times I feel proud to be on the Gasroom, where lengthier discourse is permitted in a civil and indeed enlightening fashion. This is the first time in my memory that such a thread has required such deep thought!
@HCblue said
Given that everyone in English society knows what is meant by "beyond the pale", it was perfectly apposite for you to use it - its etymology is irrelevant. To use the phrase implies no endorsement of any historical tyranny from whence it may have come and it seems to me that it would be a strange and undesirable type of person that would think that.
Given that everyone in English society knows what is meant by “flagging” (your original comment that ignited much of this), whilst you clearly are an intelligent and educated individual, your understanding of tone appears to be somewhat less developed (or possibly consciously and deliberately used, which would be rather more worrying). Of course I have no way of knowing or understanding why you chose to question such a commonly understood word in the context of the original post.
I know what it means but flagging is not a practice on the Gasroom nor do I know how one might do such a thing were it possible on this site which I believe it is not.
@drcongo said:
That’s not guilt by association at all. I already told you that I agreed with the people who called for his removal, not because he was in Quillette, but because he’s promoting “scientific racism” - something there also happens to be an awful lot of on Quillette, coincidentally. “Science” has been used for centuries as a vehicle for oppression, most of us (including you I hope) now find the ideas in The Bell Curve to be utterly abhorrent but there are plenty who still think it’s actually scientific, including Quillette. The study promoted by Stephen Hsu somehow managed to claim, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that there is no evidence of racism in police shooting statistics. You only need to do a little bit of googling to find who took the most glee in the release of that report to understand why it upset people, with Breitbart and a whole host of right wing and nazi propaganda sites jumping on it, and it triggering an opinion column in the WSJ called The Myth of Systemic Police Racism, providing a ton of fuel for racists’ fires and belittling the real, painful experiences of black people.
I find it curious that the people (not you) who shout the loudest about this being a curtailment of Hsu’s free speech don’t seem so bothered about the free speech of those his actions hurt.
I do agree that often in these cases, actions are taken too quickly and without much in the way of due process. However, “scientific racism” is real, and dangerous. We need to call it out when we see it.
As I understand it, the study's findings were broadly in line with those of other studies over recent years. The outrage that was expressed was not because of known flaws in the research - it had been peer-reviewed properly and thoroughly - but because the reported findings were not in step with the ideological position of the objectors and were thus characterised, without foundation, as "downplaying racism in bias in police shootings" while Hsu was criticised for having directed funding to the research, though his university was not the only body to do so.
The fact that some people cared for the findings and some did not is irrelevant to the question of whether it was good research. It is hard to resist the conclusion that those who opposed this did so because only one narrative is acceptable to them. Like the person who is glad to see their own biases supported by science, the person who is not can feel how they like about it. The important thing is that their thoughts in that regard remain irrelevant to the question of whether the science is sound or not. Going back to ideas expressed earlier, none of us wish to see the range of language and ideas regarded as acceptable to society adapted - restricted - to the extent that excludes potentially valuable societal research.
@HCblue i beg to differ as it seemed (to me and I would suggest others judging by the early responses) an unnecessary and quite snidey comment to what I think everyone understood the OP was saying after posting the tweet.
The debate today has generally been very reasonable and interesting and quite well-informed (or as reasonably well-informed as our normal demographic on here can be).
Not sure you understood why a number of us on here were so disappointed in the tone of your posts last night, but I accept I was a tad more abrupt with you than I normally am so would like to apologise for that.
To be clear, the authors of that paper specifically said their decision to withdraw the paper “had nothing to do with political considerations, 'mob' pressure, threats to the authors, or distaste for the political views of people citing the work approvingly.”
@Chris said:
To be clear, the authors of that paper specifically said their decision to withdraw the paper “had nothing to do with political considerations, 'mob' pressure, threats to the authors, or distaste for the political views of people citing the work approvingly.”
Exactly.
The last 10 or so posts have also shown how picking out a couple of extremely rare and specific examples can easily be used to distract and derail. Hcblue doesn't actually care about one random scientist from the USA, it doesn't matter one jot to him, and quite frankly it would be strange if he did, but here we are talking about it rather than talking about changing things that affect millions daily. Imagine if every example of racism was examined in that detail to analyse if a couple of individuals were unfairly treated/ didn't have their paper published/ didn't get a position. There'd be an uncountable number of examples, constantly....
Yes no one wants things to swing too far "the other way", but until we're at a point which is nearer racial equality /a non racist society, picking out the odd example of when someone is unfairly treated to slow change to stop something that affects millions doesn't compute with me...
Especially when annecdotaly almost every example I've seen in real life that's claimed to have been hard done by, has just been a snide racist anyway not happy at being caught out. None of my close friends have ever been accused falsely of racism, but shockingly some of the racists on my FB contacts have been "falsely accused" more than once, shock that....
All opinions though, and this is far more civilised than FB/twitter
@Username I'm with you there. I've no doubt there are examples of no platforming, extreme reactions to opinions expressed and the hijacking of a meaningful protest by political elements, but the idea that we should be wary about calling out possible racism lest at some point every institution in the land becomes so PC there is a risk all of us will get nicked for some piddling reason is a distraction.
@Chris said:
To be clear, the authors of that paper specifically said their decision to withdraw the paper “had nothing to do with political considerations, 'mob' pressure, threats to the authors, or distaste for the political views of people citing the work approvingly.”
Exactly.
The last 10 or so posts have also shown how picking out a couple of extremely rare and specific examples can easily be used to distract and derail. Hcblue doesn't actually care about one random scientist from the USA, it doesn't matter one jot to him, and quite frankly it would be strange if he did, but here we are talking about it rather than talking about changing things that affect millions daily. Imagine if every example of racism was examined in that detail to analyse if a couple of individuals were unfairly treated/ didn't have their paper published/ didn't get a position. There'd be an uncountable number of examples, constantly....
Yes no one wants things to swing too far "the other way", but until we're at a point which is nearer racial equality /a non racist society, picking out the odd example of when someone is unfairly treated to slow change to stop something that affects millions doesn't compute with me...
Especially when annecdotaly almost every example I've seen in real life that's claimed to have been hard done by, has just been a snide racist anyway not happy at being caught out. None of my close friends have ever been accused falsely of racism, but shockingly some of the racists on my FB contacts have been "falsely accused" more than once, shock that....
All opinions though, and this is far more civilised than FB/twitter
I care as much about a random US scientist as I do about you and regret your ad hominem criticism and entirely incorrect assumption about my motivation. You should, too, if you wish to arrive at a sustainable solution to the problem you describe rather than one that encourages even greater division by reducing everyone and everything into racial categories and judging them accordingly.
Comments
Used in brake and clutch systems. I’m sure you didn’t look very hard as there’s plenty on the net about how they work and how to fix
I found that stuff, obviously. I didn't find any discussions about renaming them though.
Oops - misundersood
@drcongo
Nothing more recent than this and not specific to any industry per se
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236752849_Broken_Metaphor_The_Master-Slave_Analogy_in_Technical_Literature
Isn't Fleetwood in the northwest?
It is, no idea why I put northeast
Hi @drcongo.
The argument I put forward was not at all to discourage the expression of ideas or positions but rather the exact opposite of that. The essential point, on which I will expound, is that it is important to the development of society that we allow each other to express our thoughts and, equally importantly, that we take care that our positions are well-founded and have a willingness to consider that they may not be.
The marginalisation or stigmatisation of those espousing certain positions is growing increasingly prevalent and the consequences of it are starting to bite, particularly in the United States. Allow me to cite just two examples:
Steve Hsu is Professor of Theoretical Physics at Michigan State University and, until recently, President for Research and Innovation - a position he held without complaint and with some success for eight years. In the last month, a number of people petitioned for his dismissal because, they said, he held racist and sexist beliefs that he hid behind scientific language. In support of this, they made reference to tweets of his and to scientific papers funded by his department or cited by him. A balanced consideration of this "evidence" reveals all of it to be unsupportive of the allegations made (I will link to some relevant materials below so you can draw your own conclusions if you wish). Rather than reject the allegations as unfounded, the University President required Hsu's resignation from the Research post.
David Shor was until recently a political data analyst for a company called Civis Analytics. He tweeted a research paper that had found that violent and non-violent protest had contradictory effects on the Democratic vote in subsequent elections, with evidence showing a drop in the vote following the former and rise after the latter. As a result, a number of people alleged racism on his part on Twitter and pressured the company to fire him. Instead of standing firm, the company did so.
These are but two examples of the "cancel culture" that has been referred to in some previous messages here. I present them as examples that show a distressing stifling of legitimate, considered and, frankly, neutral discussions or propositions by means of outrage expressed in the use of emotive and unfounded accusations of racism or other types of wrongthink (see also Rowling, J.K.).
In the hypothetical free marketplace of idea that liberals propose as vital, there is, of course, no injunction against criticism. Criticism is a vital part of the exchange if a greater understanding is to be arrived at. But criticism that has the effect of preventing any presentation, let alone discussion, of certain ideas has the opposite effect. That there is a human cost, as above, is also not insignificant not least if it means people with something to add to the conversation become precluded from participating in it.
Thus, to revert to the current case, my previous comments about Bayo's post stand. I expect that everyone here will have a shared sympathy for what he wrote. But it pays not to draw too many conclusions about the likely motives or intent of whoever it was that said what they said - assuming the facts were correctly reported to Bayo, which is of course not known by us. As a learning opportunity, it has some value to the people involved and to us as observers. But it ill-serves the discussion, unless sanctimonious self-esteem is the goal, to go beyond what was reported into suggestions that the whole Fleetwood club is a hotbed of racism out of which this sort of thing was only to be expected or that anyone questioning whether "racist" is the right word to describe what happened can be dismissed as obviously ignorant or racist themselves and thus easily ignored. This is not how we understand ourselves better nor how we arrive at a more united society that is less prone to expressions of dislike or hatred towards others, regardless of their race, gender, sexual orientation or anything else.
TLDR: By all means speak for those you see as oppressed - I have somewhat done that here - but be careful in the judgements you make about those that disagree with you and the language you use to voice that disagreement.
References
Steve Hsu:
1. Petition against: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jb7w02E5GAdrJ_QnAokp7IerP_VBDridmQ-rI9M2TAE/edit
Hsu's own blogpost - includes his own rebuttal of the petition and links to a number of newspaper articles about it. He is clearly a very interesting and accomplished person:
https://infoproc.blogspot.com/
A lengthy Quillette piece setting out the events and offering commentary
https://quillette.com/2020/07/01/on-steve-hsu-and-the-campaign-to-thwart-free-inquiry/
David Shor:
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/06/case-for-liberalism-tom-cotton-new-york-times-james-bennet.html
Hi @HCblue. You make some perfectly valid points, although I for one would be quite reluctant to "expound" anything. However, I think there are some equally valid points to be made in reply.
I assume you would accept that there are some views that are so beyond the pale (and yes, that's a rather dubious term given its origin in English imperialism in Ireland) that we are all perfectly entitled to deny them a platform? If someone came on here and articulated overtly racist or fascist views you would have no difficulty in banning them? In which case, we are effectively talking about a difference of degree rather than any difference of principle. What you are saying is that the views expressed in the examples you cite shouldn't have been regarded as outside the bounds of acceptable discourse. Without knowing the detail or following your links, I'm perfectly happy to concede that you may be right in the particular cases.
Secondly, to, as you say, revert to the current case, I take issue with your hysterical mischaracterisation of what I said about Fleetwood's lack of BAME players. But leaving that to one side, I said that we would know more about what is actually inside their heads from their response. I might as well quote me:
"Let's see how Fleetwood respond. If they say "We are terribly sorry. We've thought about this and now realise it was a grossly insensitive remark. We unreservedly apologise", then I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. If they're huffy and offended, they're racists.".
Would you not agree that their silence is fairly deafening?
Thanks for the very comprehensive response @HCblue. I’m familiar with both the cases you cited, the first of which I have absolutely no problem with, and indeed if Quillette comes out in your defence it’s usually a very good sign that you’re a bit of a wrongun. They have a history of articles supporting fash-for-cash self publicists like Andy Ngo and Milo Yiannopoulos. The Shor case is bizarre, the report he tweeted was written by a BAME man and whatever it was it wasn’t racist.
Also everything @OakwoodExile said.
There’s a good rundown of Quillette’s support for actual nazis and eugenicists here: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quillette
If that’s what rationalists think of it, you can imagine what lefty antifascisti like me think of it!
Hi @OakwoodExile.
It was indeed your previous comment:
"I just had a look at the Fleetwood squad. Only one BAME player (on-loan). At the risk of being branded a fanatic, I find that surprising and indeed suspicious."
as well as the follow-ups to which I was alluding earlier. If I may take your earlier analogy, you took two and two and made it what you wanted to make it, allowing yourself to descend to a casual assumption based on a tiny data point the context of which you had not explored at all. The conversation in your mind that you describe would suit a witchfinder but not someone with an interest in understanding the actual truth of the situation rather than drawing a conclusion which it seemed to you might be correct and requiring a certain response from the third party in order to contradict your hastily-drawn assumption.
Given that everyone in English society knows what is meant by "beyond the pale", it was perfectly apposite for you to use it - its etymology is irrelevant. To use the phrase implies no endorsement of any historical tyranny from whence it may have come and it seems to me that it would be a strange and undesirable type of person that would think that.
There are certainly lots of ideas or propositions that I disagree with, sometimes strongly. That is not the same as saying that I only want to hear the ones that I agree with.
If you'll forgive me, this is exactly the sort of guilt by association against which I was arguing. I would be more interested to hear your observations about the contents of the article itself if you had any. Or, alternatively, one of those from the other publications that are linked to on Steve Hsu's blog.
As a small aside, the fact that a paper need be written by a black person in order to be sure of being immune from criticism (not that such is the case currently) is also a problem.
Quite frankly who cares? It's a handful of ultra specific examples versus millions and millions of black / brown people suffering daily.
I’m struggling to relate your conclusion to the original topic of Bayo’s experience.
Bayo has a right not to hear people comparing him to an African animal. In this case the perpetrator overstepped the mark. Bayo shouldn’t have to endure that type of hurtful abuse because of someone else’s fear of some as yet undefined sinister censor.
All societies have subjects and concepts that are considered taboo, and like the meaning of language, this constantly reshapes over time as a culture develops.
It is someone’s right to say what they might be thinking within the law, but words mean something and they often carry as much agency as physical actions. It is our duty to speak up for people’s rights to chastise views they consider abhorrent at least as much as it is to support the rights of the purveyors of those views.
The above said, I appreciate the references and examples in your argument and the way you’ve conducted yourself in this emotive thread.
Hi
As often in such situations, my observations were more (though not entirely, I suppose, but that's definitely for another day) about the conversation around the original story as the story itself.
I agree with you about how language and ideas evolve. Again, it's about the way in which we shape that evolution that I was writing.
I wrote earlier that I care not at all for any form of insult or abuse aimed at players, whatever its inspiration (except, perhaps, humourously).
Well, evidently I care somewhat. You are free not to.
That’s not guilt by association at all. I already told you that I agreed with the people who called for his removal, not because he was in Quillette, but because he’s promoting “scientific racism” - something there also happens to be an awful lot of on Quillette, coincidentally. “Science” has been used for centuries as a vehicle for oppression, most of us (including you I hope) now find the ideas in The Bell Curve to be utterly abhorrent but there are plenty who still think it’s actually scientific, including Quillette. The study promoted by Stephen Hsu somehow managed to claim, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that there is no evidence of racism in police shooting statistics. You only need to do a little bit of googling to find who took the most glee in the release of that report to understand why it upset people, with Breitbart and a whole host of right wing and nazi propaganda sites jumping on it, and it triggering an opinion column in the WSJ called The Myth of Systemic Police Racism, providing a ton of fuel for racists’ fires and belittling the real, painful experiences of black people.
I find it curious that the people (not you) who shout the loudest about this being a curtailment of Hsu’s free speech don’t seem so bothered about the free speech of those his actions hurt.
I do agree that often in these cases, actions are taken too quickly and without much in the way of due process. However, “scientific racism” is real, and dangerous. We need to call it out when we see it.
Given that everyone in English society knows what is meant by “flagging” (your original comment that ignited much of this), whilst you clearly are an intelligent and educated individual, your understanding of tone appears to be somewhat less developed (or possibly consciously and deliberately used, which would be rather more worrying). Of course I have no way of knowing or understanding why you chose to question such a commonly understood word in the context of the original post.
I’ll still buy you a drink next time I see you down Adams Park. I quite enjoy chatting politics with you.
My virgin post, here.
After a few iffy arguments, this has developed into a really balanced and useful discussion. Thanks to all.
It certainly is different from most football supporters forums I’ve seen
Coming late to the party I do have some observations.
As long as Bayo took the jibe as racist, it should be investigated. It may well be that the hekler had seen Bayo's post from the past and decided to use the WB term to get under his skin (npi), not realizing that the color had anything to do with it. It didn't with our legend Rhino. It may be that there was conscious racism involved which should obviously be irradicated from all walks of life.
I appreciate @HCblue and @wwfcblue (good thing we're not the lillywhites!) for withholding their judgement whilst speaking their truth and especially @OakwoodExile for truly contextualizing this mostly reasoned discussion.
This is one of the times I feel proud to be on the Gasroom, where lengthier discourse is permitted in a civil and indeed enlightening fashion. This is the first time in my memory that such a thread has required such deep thought!
Respect.
I know what it means but flagging is not a practice on the Gasroom nor do I know how one might do such a thing were it possible on this site which I believe it is not.
None of "this" was ignited by that comment.
Be glad to have that beer.
The study was primarily about the question of whether the characteristics of the officer predicted the race of the person shot in fatal shootings. There has been no academic refutation of the methodology used though, just a couple of days ago, the authors retracted the study for, as far as I can see, a variety of reasons (https://www.insider.com/researchers-retract-study-downplays-racial-disparities-fatal-police-shootings-2020-7).
As I understand it, the study's findings were broadly in line with those of other studies over recent years. The outrage that was expressed was not because of known flaws in the research - it had been peer-reviewed properly and thoroughly - but because the reported findings were not in step with the ideological position of the objectors and were thus characterised, without foundation, as "downplaying racism in bias in police shootings" while Hsu was criticised for having directed funding to the research, though his university was not the only body to do so.
The fact that some people cared for the findings and some did not is irrelevant to the question of whether it was good research. It is hard to resist the conclusion that those who opposed this did so because only one narrative is acceptable to them. Like the person who is glad to see their own biases supported by science, the person who is not can feel how they like about it. The important thing is that their thoughts in that regard remain irrelevant to the question of whether the science is sound or not. Going back to ideas expressed earlier, none of us wish to see the range of language and ideas regarded as acceptable to society adapted - restricted - to the extent that excludes potentially valuable societal research.
@HCblue i beg to differ as it seemed (to me and I would suggest others judging by the early responses) an unnecessary and quite snidey comment to what I think everyone understood the OP was saying after posting the tweet.
The debate today has generally been very reasonable and interesting and quite well-informed (or as reasonably well-informed as our normal demographic on here can be).
Not sure you understood why a number of us on here were so disappointed in the tone of your posts last night, but I accept I was a tad more abrupt with you than I normally am so would like to apologise for that.
To be clear, the authors of that paper specifically said their decision to withdraw the paper “had nothing to do with political considerations, 'mob' pressure, threats to the authors, or distaste for the political views of people citing the work approvingly.”
FA to now investigate Bayo abuse claim
https://dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-8505731/FA-investigating-Akinfenwa-claims-called-fat-water-buffalo.html
Exactly.
The last 10 or so posts have also shown how picking out a couple of extremely rare and specific examples can easily be used to distract and derail. Hcblue doesn't actually care about one random scientist from the USA, it doesn't matter one jot to him, and quite frankly it would be strange if he did, but here we are talking about it rather than talking about changing things that affect millions daily. Imagine if every example of racism was examined in that detail to analyse if a couple of individuals were unfairly treated/ didn't have their paper published/ didn't get a position. There'd be an uncountable number of examples, constantly....
Yes no one wants things to swing too far "the other way", but until we're at a point which is nearer racial equality /a non racist society, picking out the odd example of when someone is unfairly treated to slow change to stop something that affects millions doesn't compute with me...
Especially when annecdotaly almost every example I've seen in real life that's claimed to have been hard done by, has just been a snide racist anyway not happy at being caught out. None of my close friends have ever been accused falsely of racism, but shockingly some of the racists on my FB contacts have been "falsely accused" more than once, shock that....
All opinions though, and this is far more civilised than FB/twitter
@Username I'm with you there. I've no doubt there are examples of no platforming, extreme reactions to opinions expressed and the hijacking of a meaningful protest by political elements, but the idea that we should be wary about calling out possible racism lest at some point every institution in the land becomes so PC there is a risk all of us will get nicked for some piddling reason is a distraction.
I care as much about a random US scientist as I do about you and regret your ad hominem criticism and entirely incorrect assumption about my motivation. You should, too, if you wish to arrive at a sustainable solution to the problem you describe rather than one that encourages even greater division by reducing everyone and everything into racial categories and judging them accordingly.