Comments

The PC crowd and academic freedom — 38 Comments

1. God save us from a supposedly “free” society… in which we’re not permitted to ask relevant questions!

   That Prof. Lopez, “bisexual Latino child of lesbians”, is not safe from the PC crowd, demonstrates — not that any new demonstration was truly needed — that those who scream loudest for “diversity” are the enemies of the only type of diversity that truly matters… diversity of opinion.

   This also demonstrates that it is not possible to be “too PC”; nor is it possible to be politically correct enough to be immune from criticism in re political correctness. But we already knew that too, didn’t we?

2. Gosh, Robert Oscar Lopez sounds like a “denier.” Mustn’t let him air his views that run contrary to the consensus!

   The blogger Bookworm has several thoughtful posts on same-sex parenting exploring the impact of at least one the parent being a non-relative of the child(ren). Which is an interesting angle other than just not having the benefit of being exposed to both sexes while growing up. Similar to step-parents, there is a bit of a conflict. Add to that the possibility that same-sex parents with a child of the opposite sex may be in conflict with their hatred of that sex (i.e. lesbian couple that hates men raising a boy/gay couple that hates women raising a daughter). There’s room for more study.

3. But Lizzy, everyone knows that gay people can’t be misogynists!

   /innocent whistle

   On a more serious note, I remember reading a few years ago about a serious study into SSM that relied exclusively on official records for the data, and was published in a scientific journal. The conclusion was that SSM was not good for the kids… and the response was predictable. The resulting audit of the study found some flaws that were trumpeted from the rooftop… but little mention was made of the fact that the audit discovered that every single other paper published in that journal had the exact same flaws.

   I hate this situation. It’s perhaps one of the most important, pressing things that needs to be researched in our time. But researching it is dangerous, because anyone who publishes is going to get savaged (particularly if you find anything negative about it). And the issue is so politicized and PC that you can’t even be sure that the results you’re seeing are legitimate, and not just wishful thinking standing in for researched results.

4. Lizzy:

   There’s always room for more study. The essence of the scientific method is that you never stop asking questions. That’s what’s so insidious about the common statement that “the science is settled”. True science is never settled!

5. Do you ever think we haven’t left the prehistoric village behind and that social conformity is still maintained by gossipy nasty old biddies. I think media and academia have assumed this role of the hectoring, lecturing, clucker. Academia is especially hostile toward any sort of apostasy and diversity. I used to have a list of theories whose proponents were especially vicious, but the only one I can think of right now is “Clovis First”, and, of course, “climate change” by any other name. Any others, anyone?

6. http://www.voxday.blogspot.com/2014/11/is-lena-dunham-eligible-for-sfwa.html

   Until you can do what Dun does, you’re not considered righteous. To put it another way, Palin and Romney are vile to the LEft but dun there is righteous and pure.

   See how that works?

   Dunham writes of casually masturbating while in bed next to her younger sister, of bribing her with “three pieces of candy if I could kiss her on the lips for five seconds . . . anything a sexual predator might do to woo a small suburban girl I was trying.” At one point, when her sister is a toddler,…..

   Evil ain’t so pretty when you look at it outside its political skin.

   The Left will also determine who you are, as well as whether you are born and how much you get to pay them to die off.

   http://www.voxday.blogspot.com/2014/11/self-appointed-identity-police.html

   For people who want a big slave form called Obamanation -> Obolanation, and which some of us call an abomination, this slave empire is pretty expansionist so far.

7. True science is never settled!

   Muslims think the Koran and God’s Dogma is settled.

   The stupidity comes when people attempt to think of Leftist ideology as some kind of political debate, a political philosophy, or some kind of progressive scientific adaptation of human knowledge.

   So why do Muslims think the Quran and Allah’s Dogma is settled? Because it’s settled.

8. There were several articles a while back reporting on how many peer reviewed articles have been recanted and/or withdrawn. Between conflicts of interest, grants (regardless of source: public/private), coopted peer review, fiddling with the data(especially anything exculpatory), the cult of algorithms, I am very skeptical of academia, and not just the soft sciences. Don’t forget that academia is all about getting published. Since all the low hanging fruit, that speaks to any kind of recognizable reality, is long gone, the pressure is on to be more arcane, even bizarre and perverse, aka sexy and faux “avant garde” or hide behind metadata.

9. Gay and lesbian ‘parents’, by definition, cannot provide a parental role model of the opposite sex to a child. Besides generational experience, common sense and psychological insights, we now have scientific evidence that men and women’s brains are ‘wired’ differently, providing a fundamentally different perspective on life.

   “why do Muslims think the Quran and Allah’s Dogma is settled? Because it’s settled.”

   No. They accept that it is settled because of the logical consequence of accepting Muhammad’s claim that he was not the Qur’an’s author.

   Muhammad claimed that the Qur’an was dictated to him by the archangel Gabriel, who was transmitting Allah’s direct instruction manual to mankind through Muhammad.

   That’s why it’s ‘settled’, fallible man cannot ‘correct’ perfect understanding. That’s why Islam cannot be reformed because man cannot ‘revise’ Allah’s direct testimony.

10. Geoffrey Britain:

    Single parents of either sex also can’t provide role models of the opposite sex. It’s not a deal-breaker.

    Most single parents, as well as many gay and lesbian parents, try to provide other role models of the opposite sex (aunts, uncles, grandparents, friends).

    There is no rule that to raise children you have to be an intact heterosexual couple. All else being equal I would guess it’s preferable, but all else isn’t necessarily (or even often) equal.

    For example, some male-female couples are poor parents. There is no formula or cut-and-dried rule.

11. “Lopez mentions father absence, for example, as a potential problem. Of course it can be, even for children of divorce in heterosexual couples. How much of a problem, and how often?”

    Enough of a problem that a politician can write an entire autobiography about it and still try to work out his daddy issues while he should be concentrating on more important matters.

12. kcom:

    🙂

13. kcom –

    Where’s that upvote button…

14. “Single parents of either sex also can’t provide role models of the opposite sex. It’s not a deal-breaker.”

    That’s right, single parents can’t provide role models of the opposite sex and statistics indicate that for the great majority, there are repercussions for the children. See here and here. Unfortunately, that’s life under certain conditions but when a single woman decides to have a child with no intention that the child ever know their father, that IS a deal breaker because that ‘parent’ in putting their needs before their child’s and has thus demonstrated their fundamental unfitness to be a parent.

    “Most single parents, as well as many gay and lesbian parents, try to provide other role models of the opposite sex (aunts, uncles, grandparents, friends).”

    I’m sure that many do try but the parental bonding that takes place between a young child and their parents cannot easily be substituted for and mostly is not.

    “There is no rule that to raise children you have to be an intact heterosexual couple.”

    No there is no rule nor did I imply that there was a ‘rule’. It’s nature’s optimum however and we are discussing the innate inability of same-sex couples to provide a parental role model of the opposite sex. That is a factual observation that no amount of rationalization can change.

    “All else being equal I would guess it’s preferable, but all else isn’t necessarily (or even often) equal.”

    Adoption, for obvious reasons is one thing but many same-sex couples and single women are purposely bringing children into the world, knowing that they will either never have a mother or a father.

    “For example, some male-female couples are poor parents. There is no formula or cut-and-dried rule.”

    Two wrongs do not make a right. No there is no formula or cut-and-dried rule, nor did I actually imply that there was, my issue is that by definition, same-sex couples and single women (single men are almost an anomaly) cannot provide a parental role model of the opposite sex and thus it is incredibly selfish to purposely bring a child into the world under those conditions.

15. >>There is no rule that to raise children you have to be an intact heterosexual couple. All else being equal I would guess it’s preferable, but all else isn’t necessarily (or even often) equal.

    Exactly. I recall a study (believe it’s the “controversial” one that junior mentioned, that said that overall, the nuclear family was the best environment. However, this cannot stand, because it offends single parents (especially those who are not single by choice), same-sex couple families, children being raised by a grandparent, etc. They want to stamp out ALL dissension of the narrative that every and any family unit is equally good for the child.

    *My son has friends with same-sex parents and they’re great – loving households, happy and healthy kids. I would never want to say that this type of family should be forbidden. I’m just sorry that we’re no longer allowed to pass any value judgement whatsoever.

16. The homosexual agenda is to promote the homosexual lifestyle as natural, normal and healthy. Anybody that contradicts this narrative must be vilified and destroyed. Did you see the CEO of Apple on TV proclaiming he is proud to be homosexual? What’s to be proud about? Is homosexuality some sort of accomplishment? I don’t do around proclaiming I’m proud to be heterosexual and demand that people applaud.

17. Ray: “I don’t do around proclaiming I’m proud to be heterosexual and demand that people applaud.”

    I’d like to expand a bit on the term “applaud.”

    Let’s say you’re in a room with others, and you’re the only one not applauding the celebration of the GLBT news. You’re not booing either. You’re just not applauding.

    Someone notices. And they complain that you’re not applauding and cheering like the others. You explain why in a thoughtful, nuanced, and respectful manner. You are then accused of being a homophobic bigot for not applauding. Not only that, but you become a target of financial and occupational persecution for not applauding.

    That’s where things stand in some circles today.

18. Statistically, certain backgrounds lead to better outcomes for kids. There are always exceptions, which is why I said “statistically”, and to prevent somebody arising in righteous faux outrage to tell of an example to the contrary.
    Over time, the cohort with the backgrounds leading to better results will solidify compared to the rest of the arrangements. The difference will widen. Not only will there be a cultural difference, there will be a genetic difference. And one class will rule, one way or another.

19. In the thread above I noted that the Liberal is a fascist pig. It is no surprise that the fascist pigs do this sort of thing. It is exactly what you would expect a fascist pig to do, no?

    Sorry for Mr. Lopez. He’s right, bit the fact that he is surprised or in some kind of shock is really his own fault.

    Everyone knows what we are really dealing with. I repeat – fascist pigs.

    Therefore…?

20. “Exactly. I recall a study … that said that overall, the nuclear family was the best environment.” Lizzy

    I believe that to be the commonly held wisdom but I would qualify that. Optimally, a loving extended family, not necessarily living together but within easy visiting distance is I suspect, the ‘best’ child raising environment.

    “Over time, the cohort with the backgrounds leading to better results will solidify compared to the rest of the arrangements. “ RA

    Absent outside interference, I would agree. In modern times however, the left’s machinations have skewed the resultant dynamics. The left’s indoctrination in the schools and the mass media’s cultural assault is greatly interfering with those groups whose backgrounds naturally lead to better results.

21. Mike,

    You appear to continue to labor under the faulty assumption that all liberals are leftists. All leftists are fascist pigs, though many are in denial as to that being the foundation of their beliefs. Most liberals are not fascists but all liberals are to one degree or another, in denial of certain aspects of reality.

    “According to a new Pew Research Center study, only 40 percent of consistently liberal Americans say they often feel proud to be Americans.”

    That finding, along with “just 40% of Solid Liberals, say the phrase “honor and duty are my core values” and that, it “applies well to them” reveals that 40% of ‘solid liberals’ are the duped and indoctrinated low-info voters who actually support traditional classical liberal values… the other 60% of ‘solid liberals’ are either ‘progressives’ or Marxists.

    23% of the American public self-identify as solid liberals.

22. Mike:

    Do you realize how much like a 60s leftist you sound? So all liberals are fascist pigs, huh?

    I considered myself a liberal for many decades, and I voted that way, too. I would have NEVER (and I don’t know how to emphasize this enough) supported something like this, never. And I know plenty of people who vote Democratic to this day who also are not in favor of this sort of thing. The trouble is they do not realize that voting Democratic empowers and encourages this sort of thing.

    Of course, I also know plenty of liberals (and leftists, of course) who do support this sort of thing. But liberals are not a unitary group. I wrote about the phenomenon here. I’ll quote myself (liberally):

    Those of you who lump together leftists and liberals may be surprised to hear that the arguments between the two wings of my family were so bitter (there were one or two conservatives, too, who had married in). But the liberals and the leftists were at loggerheads, the liberals believing in liberty, capitalism, and that the USSR was a totalitarian slagheap of a police state up to no good in the world, and the leftists believing that the true liberty lay in defeating capitalism, and that the Soviets were the greatest thing since sliced bread.

    That was in the 50s and 60s, of course, and a little bit in the 70s as well. The mainstream of the Democratic Party, which my parents then represented, has moved to the left over the ensuing years. Some of the liberals I know have moved to the left with it, but some have not. And in the last couple of years, as the assaults on liberty have cascaded, I have noticed that the liberals I know seem to divide naturally into two camps: those who love liberty and to whom it is important, and those who do not and to whom it is not.

    I don’t know the relative size of the two groups, because I don’t seek out political discussions with my friends and family; I don’t want get-togethers to degenerate into the useless, repetitive, unproductive arguments I witnessed in my youth, which they easily could, with me now as the sole conservative. But I know that those two groups exist, and I think that what differentiates them are (a) the person’s need to control others and/or society; and (b) the degree that the person thinks he/she can do so effectively and get the desired results.

    Among most of my friends their motives are “good”–that is, they want people to be happier, healthier, and in general just better. Some leftists I know have the same motivation (I would add that most of the people who think they are doing good are also motivated by the need to feel that they are good people for wanting that). But many leftists–we’re talking about quite a few of the leaders of the movement, and certainly people such as Stalin–have a different motivation: they are motivated almost purely by the desire for power and control.

    There is an unholy alliance between the two groups. The first is the much-larger pack of would-be do-gooders who believe that liberalism is the way to go about it, whose minds are formed by a combination of their families growing up, present-day peers, the MSM, eduction, politicians, literature, the entertainment business, and in some cases their “progressive” churches and synagogues. The second is the smaller but extremely influential group of leftist activists, some proudly out as unrepentant “progressives,” and some just quietly going about their business, some motivated by the desire for power/control plus the idea that they’re doing “good,” and the rest just wanting the power/control part.

    Back when Mayor Bloomberg of New York was heavily engaged in banning Big Gulps, I had some discussions with a couple of liberal friends about it. Some were offended by what Bloomberg had done, although others were in favor. That was one of the strongest demonstrations I’ve seen of what I have come to consider a very important and somewhat invisible dividing line between those liberals who love and value liberty and those who do not. You might call them the non-statists (or perhaps the less-statists) and the statists…

    The sad thing is that even those liberals who love liberty are for the most part voting for people dedicated to ending it.

23. Mike:

    By the way—my statement that I know I would not have stood for this sort of thing back when I was still a liberal is not mere speculation. In fact, I had some fairly vigorous (and public) verbal confrontations about it in the early 90s, when I first encountered it. It shocked me then, and I considered myself a liberal.

    I thought mine was the liberal tradition. At the time, I saw it as a generational thing. Those advocating the PC position were young, and the setting was a university. I did not then understand the political background to the battle I was fighting, a background I am well aware of now. But I was fighting the battle anyway, in my own way, in my own small skirmishes.

24. My problem with the lbgt people is their in your face attitude demanding 97% of the population kow tow and salute their orientation. They are a tiny minority, and while I am willing to accept and tolerate their sexual preferences, I am not willing to celebrate their sexuality. Its not my business what they do in private. I don’t flaunt my heterosexuality and believe they should do the same.

25. Geoffrey Britain:

    I see our comments on this topic crossed.

    I have fought this same battle with Mike many times before. I would be very surprised if he changes his mind. Very.

26. In fact, I had some fairly vigorous (and public) verbal confrontations about it in the early 90s, when I first encountered it. It shocked me then, and I considered myself a liberal.
    —————

    That’s back around the time that SSM first started to come up as a serious topic. That discussion prompted California to put its first anti-SSM law on the ballot (where it passed).

    Times have changed…

27. Btw, academic freedom is a tired slogan from the age of enlightenment, it was cremated in the 1960s on the pyre of pc. Burn baby burn.

28. Social science began to lose its soul and integrity about fifty years ago. Research topics and findings must be politically correct. All sorts of issues must be avoided. That would include female initiated violence in domestic settings, the negative impact of divorce on children, the negative impact of female headed single parent households on children, homosexuality, racial differences in family structure as a factor in violent crime and wealth differences, and the real third rail in social and behavioral science — IQ.

    Sometimes these issues are looked at, but one must be very careful.

29. Mr. Frank:

    Those issues are indeed looked at. But if the findings are non-PC, the battles are fierce.

30. Neo. Your description of the difference between libs and lefties may be correct–it was your experience–but you make the point that, ultimately, it’s irrelevant. They vote the same way.

    GB. WRT the cohorts going different ways. Home schooling is an example of a way one cohort will go a different way despite the Left’s attempts. The same is true for private and religious schools. I know a bunch of families in the mid-thirties age range and see how they deal with their children. They’re going a different–traditional–way in morals, ethics, attitudes….

31. RA:

    It’s not irrelevant, because more information could change the mind of the liberal who cares about liberty. More information is HIGHLY unlikely to change the mind of the leftist, and not all that likely to change the mind of the liberal who doesn’t care about liberty.

32. Neo. Not to split hairs, here. But the lib who cares about liberty and is still a lib would seem proof against information. After all, the info is not hidden. It is simply ignored…for a reason. And until that reason, which is not based on information, is addressed, facts will continue to be ignored.

33. RA:

    The information IS hidden, in a sense. For example, if you assume (as I did, way back when) that the NY Times and the Boston Globe are good and objective news sources, and that the talk of them being biased is just hype, and if you don’t seek out conservative sources because you’re busy with your life and assume you’re getting the news straight already from the MSM—and if just about everyone you know,, all of whom are smart, well-educated people, agrees—then you don’t have the information.

    It’s less forgivable now that it’s so easy to go to alternative sources online than it was back when I was a liberal. But still, unless people have a really good reason to suspect their own heretofore trusted sources, and unless they have the time and inclination to do a fair amount of research, and unless they’re willing to think outside the box and question their own assumptions, then they won’t get the information or they won’t be able to take it in if they happen across it. A person has to be truly dedicated to seeking, it over and over, to really take it in.

34. WRT your last sentence: What I said. And the usual sources weren’t the only sources. It was beyond hiding that the defunding of aid to the Rep of Vietnam resulted in defeat. Problem is, the libs figured that was a feature, not a bug.

35. RA:

    But liberals were convinced the war had been lost for many years already. Cutting the funding was merely pulling the plug on a comatose, brain-dead patient.

    Most liberals still believe that, and most mainstream historians (and certainly the MSM) agree. A historian like Sorley is an exception, although I think his arguments are very convincing.

36. neo
    I knew some who insist the war was lost earlier, but there’s something…off…about their insistence. As if they’re trying to convince both of us of something they doubt.
    However, when informed of facts…they don’t see the problem. Keep in mind that, for libs, enemies of the US are good and allies are bad. So the RVN losing was a Good Thing, no matter when or how it happened. IOW, it’s the world view which filters the information.

37. RA:

    You are wrong. Not all liberals see it that way at all. Some do, some don’t.

    I know a lot of liberals, remember, and I was one for most of my life.

38. Your experience is your experience. In mine, I never met a lib who didn’t think losing in VN was a good thing.

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>