I'm still stunned by the silence of left-leaning media outlets at this hypocrisy so boldly committed in broad daylight. Even a young child has the ability to see that risk of disease is risk of disease. Your political viewpoint has no relevance to your risk of contracting COVID in a large outdoor group. Yet dozens of experts hypocritically stepped forward, knowing that the left-leaning news media had their back.
Ibram X. Kendi is exulted as an intellectual leader by most people who peddle in Critical Race Theory. The movement is purportedly concerned with "racism." What is racism? Click the image of John McWhorter's Tweet below to watch a one-minute video:
Here is Kendi's definition of "racism" in writing: "A collection of racist policies that lead to racial inequity that are substantiated by racist ideas"
Now ask yourself whether Kendi answered the question or whether he completely evaded answering the question. It should be clear that "racism" is a key term. If his definition wobbles, his entire thought process wobbles. I should also note that I've read other passages by Kendi in which he is similarly (and I suspect, coyly and consciously) circular.
Consider the definition of circular reasoning:
Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.. . . Begging the question is closely related to circular reasoning, and in modern usage the two generally refer to the same thing.
Let us substitute to illustrate. What is Communism? "A collection of communist policies that lead to communist inequity that are substantiated by communist ideas"
What is activism? "A collection of activist policies that lead to activist inequity that are substantiated by activist ideas"
As McWhorter suggests above and elsewhere, Ibram Kendi is not a serious thinker (and see here). McWhorter's point in the Tweet is to the extent that people don't hold Kendi to high standards for rigorous thinking, to the extent that they avert their eyes when Kendi embraces circular reasoning of a foundational term of his expansive theory, this is the "soft racism" of assuming that Kendi can't cut it because he is "black." Kendi is thus widely celebrated among the Woke and he commonly gives highly-compensated lectures discussing something he cannot define. Again, Kendi is vigorously embracing circular logic to underpin a term upon which he constructs his entire system. What other highly celebrated "thinker" would be given a pass for such an abject failure?
Notice that Kendi's "definition" or "race," he doesn't mention the common understanding of racism: treating someone badly because they are of another "race." What is "race"? According to Merriam-Webster, "race" refers to "any one of the groups that humans are often divided into based on physical traits regarded as common among people of shared ancestry." In short, "racism" is treating someone badly because they are seen as part of a group of people who look different than other groups of people. You will not hear Kendi ever basing his theory on this common understanding of "racism" because there is so little of it remaining in American society.
IIn many articles at this website, I've attacked the concept of "race. Dividing people by "race" is as irrational as dividing them on the basis of astrology or phrenology. That is why I use so many scare quotes when I discuss "race." That said, "racism" is a real thing in our society, a disgusting and festering attitude with a long history. I've consistently held that even though I do not recognize "race" to be a legitimate way to characterize the personality, history or skills of any person, those who engage in "racism" should be socially ridiculed and sued for any harm they cause. My approach is thus grounded. I'm aware that there are some people who still treat each other badly based purely on personal appearance (e.g, skin tone, hair texture or facial features). This is a bad thing because is impairs human flourishing and harms people, including financially. I have presented a problem that was formerly prevalent, much less so in modern times. I personally know this because I lived through the 50's and 60's. I see how American culture has increasingly and exuberantly embraced "black" people, setting many incentives for hiring minorities and recruiting them as students. 61.2% of "blacks" are now economically categorized as middle class. Kendi rejects every empirical approach to "racism," however, because he wants lawmakers to assume (in the absence of evidence) that all "racial" disparities are the result of racial attitudes. Multivariate analyses are an anathema to Kendi. To a person with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
For these reasons, Kendi has constructed his entire "anti-racism" theory on his circular definition of "racism" and he doesn't care that he is peddling such slop. And in a stunning display of the soft bigotry of low expectations, Kendi is not called out on this blatant circularity, arguably among the lowest hanging fruit on the tree of logical fallacies. Another key part of Kendi's theory is "structural racism" or "systemic racism." Those terms are equally problematic, as John McWhorter points out in his article, "CAN WE PLEASE DITCH THE TERM "SYSTEMIC RACISM"?" Here is an excerpt from McWhorter's article:
First let’s review what systemic racism means. There are inequities between whites and blacks. The reason is not that blacks are inherently less capable than whites. This presumably means that the discrepancies are traceable to devaluation of black people of some kind at some point in the pathway. This devaluation, even if not conscious, is a kind of racism, and this means that the society “is racist.” Thus the way to get rid of this kind of discrepancy is to undo the racism in the system.
But note that if we take this as a succession of logical statements rather than as a musical sequence valuable primarily because the term racism is intoned within it, then we hit a snag. Just what do we do to undo “racism” that is bound up in a complex system, and especially given that the system has a past that is unreachable to us now, as well as a present?
Here, The Elect burn to insist that, well, systemic racism exists anyway! And you the reader may want to reiterate that systemic racism exists. It does. There are indeed such discrepancies. The question is not whether they exist, but what one does about them.
“Undoing the racism in the system,” in this light, is word magic, not an intelligent prescription for change in the real world. Grouchy? Not really – just grounded.
In Ibram Kendi's world, ubiquitous "systemic racism" is the Holy Spirit.
At Areo, Greg Lukianoff (An attorney who is the President and CEO of FIRE, Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) wrote this article to refute twelve fallacious arguments about free speech. Here are the fallacies:
Visit Areo for Lukianoff's responses to each of these fallacies.
In response to the fallacy that free speech is an outdated concept, Lukianoff gave this succinct defense of John Stuart Mill, from On Liberty (available from free at this link):
John Stuart Mill’s central arguments in On Liberty remain undefeated, including one of his strongest arguments in favour of freedom of speech—Mill’s trident—of which I have never heard a persuasive refutation. Mill’s trident holds that, for any given belief, there are three options:A) You are wrong, in which case freedom of speech is essential to allow people to correct you.
B) You are partially correct, in which case you need free speech and contrary viewpoints to help you get a more precise understanding of what the truth really is.
C) You are 100% correct. In this unlikely event, you still need people to argue with you, to try to contradict you, and to try to prove you wrong. Why? Because if you never have to defend your points of view, there is a very good chance you don’t really understand them, and that you hold them the same way you would hold a prejudice or superstition. It’s only through arguing with contrary viewpoints that you come to understand why what you believe is true.
Lukianoff ends his article with this:
Free speech is valuable, first and foremost, because, without it, there is no way to know the world as it actually is. Understanding human perceptions, even incorrect ones, is always of scientific or scholarly value, and, in a democracy, it is essential to know what people really believe. This is my “pure informational theory of freedom of speech.” To think that, without openness, we can know what people really believe is not only hubris, but magical thinking. The process of coming to knowing the world as it is is much more arduous than we usually appreciate. It starts with this: recognize that you are probably wrong about any number of things, exercise genuine curiosity about everything (including each other), and always remember that it is better to know the world as it really is—and that the process of finding that out never ends.
Today I learned about the 2017 case of Lindsay Shepherd, a graduate student/teaching assistant at Wilfrid Laurier University (WLU) in Waterloo, Ontario. Her crime was to allow an even-handed classroom discussion about a Canadian law compelling the use of particular pronouns according to Jordan Peterson.
Her case also reminded me of the importance of (at least sometimes) secretly recording conversations.
Here is what happened, thanks to her foresight in recording a massively dysfunctional conversation Shepherd was forced to have with her supervisor, Nathan Rambukkana.
Shepherd is now an author. You can follow her at https://twitter.com/NewWorldHominin
Here is an excerpt from a review of Shepherd's new book, Diversity and Exclusion: Confronting the Campus Free Speech Crisis::
This continuing campaign against Shepherd based on a pursuit of ideological purity should be regarded as a dark stain on the entire academic community. Throughout the book it is clear that Shepherd’s love of teaching is what defines her commitment to “open inquiry and the pursuit of truth.” As such, that unnamed college missed an opportunity to hire a first-rate educator – not to mention a heck of a storyteller. Sadly, demonstrable ability and commitment are now less important on campus than political alignment. That said, given her obvious attributes of drive, character, intelligence and sense of opportunity, it seems highly unlikely we’ve seen or heard the last of Lindsay Shepherd. As her experiences at Laurier make plain, she has an awful lot to say. And she’s not afraid to say it.
Chelsea Mitchell runs track at the college level. On May 22, USA Today published her Op-Ed in which she complained that runners who had "male bodies" are repeatedly and unfairly winning championships in women's college track meets. Three days after the publication of the Op-Ed, USA Today retroactively edited Chelsea Mitchell's Op-Ed, offering the following reasons as an editor's note:
Editor's note: This column has been updated to reflect USA TODAY’s standards and style guidelines. We regret that hurtful language was used.
I took the liberty of running a "compare" of the edited part of the original article (published in its original form by Alliance Defending Freedom) to the new version of the USA Today article, the one from which the "hurtful language" has been removed. The red corrections were the changes made by USA Today.
I don't understand what is factually inappropriate about saying that the MTF (male to female) transgender runners to some degree, retained "male bodies" if that is what Chelsea Mitchell (an accomplished athlete) observed. These are facts that are also strongly borne out by the stunning success of these runners when they are competing against the runners who are biologically female. That is, in fact, the entire point of Chelsea Mitchell's Op-Ed. Apparently, she will not be allowed to make her argument in her own words.
Mitchell's article did not even once mention the vague-to-the-point-of-meaningless word, "gender." Her article was about the two sexes, male and female. Perhaps USA Today also finds basic biology principles hurtful, including this finding, which goes back for thousands of years: Mammals, including human animals, come in two and only two sexes, male (small gametes) and female (larger gametes) (and see this peer reviewed article. There is not a third type of gamete. Mitchell should be allowed to freely discuss and compare the competitive advantages of those with biologically male bodies versus those with biologically female bodies. That said, this is 2021, and we are in the deep throes of Wokeness.