There are certain topics which, if you touch them at all, no matter what you say, will result in reputation damage. I think it's extremely important to defend people's freedom of speech either way. But is it worth engaging with the actual topic under consideration? Depends.
-
Show this thread
-
I was musing on this last night—although I was very anxious & didn't sleep so I may well have blown things out of proportion in my 4am brain. But my judgement is this: "race science" i.e. the study of psychological & personality differences & average IQ by race is not worth it.
5 replies 1 retweet 11 likesShow this thread -
If you are expert in this field & want to study it, I defend your right to do so. But does intelligence & character differ by race? I don't know & frankly I don't care. If they do, it's to an extent that I've never noticed in my day-to-day dealings with people in life.
2 replies 0 retweets 18 likesShow this thread -
There are other topics, however, that are almost as toxic in their ability to sully all those who approach, but which I care about more & therefore want to discuss. Islam is one & immigration is the other.
1 reply 0 retweets 9 likesShow this thread -
These two subjects cannot be avoided. The problems they raise are unignorable. So if we don't fight for a humane, nuanced & practicable stance on them (a tough balance to achieve), we'll just be left with cranks, fanatics & bigots pushing their views.
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likesShow this thread -
PS I expressed myself poorly above. The study of any topic can be worth it because, in science, you never know what accidental discoveries will be made. If it exists in nature, it's worth knowing the truth about it. I meant, is it worth expressing an opinion as a layperson?
2 replies 0 retweets 8 likesShow this thread -
Should Sam Harris, for example, have waded into this debate? I'd say no. (I love Harris & consider him entirely well intentioned, but he should have stopped at defending Charles Murray's freedom of speech.) To outsiders, this debate is tiresome, pointless & damaging.
7 replies 0 retweets 7 likesShow this thread
I generally agree with you, but think the dilemma is that Harris couldn’t really defend Murray’s freedom of speech without wading into the debate. Klein misleadingly implied race & IQ was settled (and thus dissent was racist charlatanry), so Harris felt he had to counteract that.
-
-
Replying to @G_S_Bhogal @IonaItalia
It's hard to imagine defending Murray over the deplatforming fiasco without at least touching on why he was mobbed. In the podcast with Murray, this highlighted line was considered so inflammatory it used to villify them bothpic.twitter.com/XwpeWNrT4c
0 replies 0 retweets 2 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.