2016 April 09 Saturday
Norwegian Leftist Feels Guilty About Deportation Of His Rapist

See: After Anal Rape, Left Wing Activist Felt 'Guilt And Responsibility' His Migrant Attacker Was Deported.

The Left's tendency to see each group as a whole as either oppressors or oppressed makes them opposed to punishment of individuals who are in supposedly oppressed groups. Those who most intensely embrace this model of the world really should be collected together into their own countries separate from the rest of us so that the rest of us do not have to deal with the consequences of their views. Seriously, we need a divorce.

I'm reminded of Stephen Fry on political correctness. But I do not get the sense that he understands the root causes of the problem.

Who has a firmer grasp of what's going on? NYU moral psychology researcher Jonathan Haidt. Listen to this podcast interview by a Spiked editor: Jonathan Haidt talks Safe Spaces, microaggressions and campus fragility. Haidt said many humanities fields lost their ability to have meaningful debates in the 1990s and now social sciences are going thru the same process. Progress is not inevitable. In a different interview with Tyler Cowen Haidt looks at what we are seeing in the Republican presidential primary:

JONATHAN HAIDT: You have to see politics as occurring at multiple levels simultaneously. Just as at a university weíve got psychologists studying individual experiences, weíve got neurologists studying neurons, weíve got political scientists and sociologists studying emergent phenomena, thatís what you have to do to study politics.

If you look at the history, if you look at the higher‑level constructs, yeah, itís bizarre whatís happening. Itís unprecedented, and people expected the past to predict the future.

But what if the emerging social constructs of the Republican Party have been getting progressively out of tune with the moral intuitions and the psychology of the voters? I think thatís what we have seen happening.

The Big Sort (see Bill Bishop's book with this title) is one of the factors responsible for the decay of academia. The loss of intellectual diversity in academia allows a certain kind of moral sentiment to dominate with ridiculous effects. I do not see how this is going to reverse. The demographic changes driving it are still driving academia deeper into absurdity and away from truth-seeking.

What I think would help: if some small number of colleges signaled that they wanted moderate and conservative students (or conservatives just chose some colleges and overwhelmed applications for them) then some places in academia would exist that are not crazy. I think this is best started by people in the Right talking up a small number of colleges (preferably schools with good engineering programs so useful skills can be acquired too). For example, the right wing elite could flock to Dartmouth or CMU. Does another school come to mind as a good candidate to target?

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2016 April 09 03:22 PM 


Comments
James Bowery said at April 10, 2016 10:30 PM:

The Big Sort has little to do with the loss of diversity in academia because Bishop was talking about geographic assortation. Academia is a social regime ensconced in the larger polity from which no one can assortatively escape. If Bishop and his ilk would stop seeing assortation as the enemy and see it for what it is (people attempting to escape the imposition on them of social theories to which they did not consent, thereby creating control groups that might, finally, provide the social sciences with grounds for causal inference) they might become respectable.

The only way you are going to get colleges and universities to have any kind of diversity is to sort proponents of social theories into governments that test them. Only then will a few state supported institutions of higher learning, occasionally, exhibit rationality in their social science departments.

jb said at April 11, 2016 9:23 AM:

The Left's tendency to see each group as a whole as either oppressors or oppressed makes them opposed to punishment of individuals who are in supposedly oppressed groups.

You're way over thinking it. They just hate white people, and want to exterminate them, that's all. They love it when they hear of whites getting raped, maimed and murdered, i.e., oppressed. They don't have much interest in situations of oppression that don't allow them to vent their hatred of whites. The proper name to call liberals is the same name they call you: racist. White-hating, mass-rape and murder enabling, genocidal racists. To quote a net denizen who called himself Oscar the Grinch:


That is the core of their belief. They are not your loyal opposition, with whom you can argue in good faith. They are your deadly ENEMIES, who want you exterminated from the face of the earth. And they donít care about any abstract principles; their only true principle is to exterminate YOU. They are more than happy to pretend that there are outside standards or principles of fair play, because so long as you believe that, they have the advantage.

Remember: whenever a leftist/liberal/anti-racist opens his mouth, all he is really saying is: Die, white man. F**k off and DIE.

sestamibi said at April 12, 2016 10:43 AM:

@jb

The politics of the future will be quite interesting as white liberals die off and the remaining white population is a whole lot more race-conscious. Consider (as I've pointed out before) the following representative half-time scores:

Mitt Romney 18
Bill Clinton 2 (Chelsea is pregnant again, so I've read)

Michelle Duggar 19
Sandra Fluke 0

You get my drift. Things are really going to get ugly when the politics of the future becomes ever more explicitly racial in that liberal=non-white and conservative (or at least non-liberal) = white.

william said at April 12, 2016 11:27 AM:

Fry is only rational when it suits him, and especially when delving into his hatred of Jesus and God. Fry is not interested in rational thought, but arguing that those with rational thought should eventually come to think exactly as he does.

Check it out said at April 12, 2016 4:55 PM:

I doubt the white race will even continue to exist within the next 100 years, due to all the mixture: in Eurpe with Semites, Latins and Orientals; in North America with Mestizo and increasingly, Black or Mulato-Black.

CamelCaseRob said at April 13, 2016 5:28 AM:

It's all about universalist morality. He is putting himself in the position of his rapist, trying to understand him.

CamelCaseRob said at April 13, 2016 5:51 AM:

BTW, here is blogger PAs entry on this subject:

https://paworldandtimes.wordpress.com/

I'm not sure I agree with it, but it *is* brilliant.

william said at April 13, 2016 7:19 AM:

White race? Interestingly, recent mass-market genetic screenings (23andme, etc.) reveal that whites have a very small amount of non-white DNA (2-3%) vs. the rest of the population. So, the notion that whites easily inter-mix is not true.

CamelCaseRob said at April 13, 2016 9:25 AM:

Most of that 2-3% is Neanderthal, so it has been in them for a long time.

Seth W. said at April 21, 2016 1:28 PM:

Governments nowadays are corporations or serve corporations, and this is happening all over the world.

The Social Contract is dissolving so fast that in a few years' time the inoperance and inefficiency of governments will render one failed state after another, globally.

Soon most of us will be thinking, "Hey government, what the hell do I need you for?"


Post a comment
Comments:
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
URL:
Remember info?

      
 
Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright ©