Florida to ban DEI programming and instruction; eliminate university tenure

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Simply a question.
I know, and it was answered. I just didn't think I had to.

Members don't see this ad.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
That's too bad. I really do believe SDN should be a place for healthy, rigorous dialogue about issues where there might be strong disagreement; relative anonymity affords us that. I can't think of a regular poster on here that I haven't had a disagreement over the last couple of years when I have been more active on the board, but I still have loads of respect for the people here. Anyways, I'll see you in other threads (I hope) and maybe some time later we can pick this up again.

Indeed. This statement kind of reminds me consent to sex. Sure, someone may initially consent to sexual behavior in the beginning of the ritual, but who knows, maybe 20 minutes into it, someone does/says something that otherwise throws that partner off, then rescinds their consent to sex. No means no. In this parallel, I am advocating that while I initially expressed my opinions and stand by them, and believe in healthy debate, it doesn't mean that once the can of worms is open we can't simply put a lid on that one can for that time. Basically, just because I engaged in the conversation initially and provided my two cents, doesn't mean I must continue to do so. People can construe or label it however they'd like.

Just like how I've noticed others on here who were posting a good deal in this thread have not responded much, perhaps they too are exercising their right to withdraw from certain aspects of this debate? That's their right to do so.

Make no mistake, I by no means take offense to anybody here. I am setting a boundary for myself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Indeed. This statement kind of reminds me consent to sex. Sure, someone may initially consent to sexual behavior in the beginning of the ritual, but who knows, maybe 20 minutes into it, someone does/says something that otherwise throws that partner off, then rescinds their consent to sex. No means no. In this parallel, I am advocating that while I initially expressed my opinions and stand by them, and believe in healthy debate, it doesn't mean that once the can of worms is open we can't simply put a lid on that one can for that time. Basically, just because I engaged in the conversation initially and provided my two cents, doesn't mean I must continue to do so. People can construe or label it however they'd like.

Just like how I've noticed others on here who were posting a good deal in this thread have not responded much, perhaps they too are exercising their right to withdraw from certain aspects of this debate? That's their right to do so.

Make no mistake, I by no means take offense to anybody here. I am setting a boundary for myself.
It seems like you repeatedly volunteered your point of view, you wanted people to pay attention to it because you mentioned it multiple times, without prompting - you offered your point of view completely of your own volition - and now that people are paying attention to your point of view just like you wanted, you’re bowing out of the discussion.

It’s not absurd for people to wonder why that is. You criticized echo chambers in an earlier post, but now that you’re given a choice to opine openly, you’re refusing to do so. But you’re right, it’s entirely your choice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
It seems like you repeatedly volunteered your point of view, you wanted people to pay attention to it because you mentioned it multiple times, without prompting - you offered your point of view completely of your own volition - and now that people are paying attention to your point of view just like you wanted, you’re bowing out of the discussion.

It’s not absurd for people to wonder why that is. You criticized echo chambers in an earlier post, but now that you’re given a choice to opine openly, you’re refusing to do so. But you’re right, it’s entirely your choice.

I think you are confusing some things here. I absolutely offered my opinion on the matter multiple times. When people started to dig deeper, I put up that boundary. No one is entitled to anything. You might want to know more about my rationale, which is understandable, but "you" are not entitled to it. This doesn't mean I'm unwilling to discuss this thread further, but picking out my specific viewpoint and then zeroing in on it no longer is a matter of academic inquiry, but rather, a mission to invalidate or dismantle someone for their own opinions. When that was the theme I was picking up, that's when I decided to put up the boundaries.

It's interesting that you believe that this is a court of law or some other forum where people are compelled to give you everything you want or ask for. This is not that environment.

I'm sure if I started to cherry pick some of the posts made by others in other threads that got in some intense debates, we'd see some similar themes where boundaries become established, then others attack them for doing so.
 
One thing that I haven't seen mentioned here is that there are indeed many private universities who can and do fire tenured faculty for their viewpoints in their academic work and/or personal life (the ones I know of have been faculy holding pro-LGBTQ+ views or saying things that the institution took as religious heresy, but you could also have ones that fired tenured faculty for the opposite views). A huge issue legally what with DeSantis and associated parties are doing here is that they are using government power to restrict and punish speech in their state, especially protected speech by state employees who have contractual tenure and academic freedom, which is a pretty clear First Amendment issue. No one's keeping anyone with the means from setting up a restricted viewpoint private college--and depending on the viewpoint, you may have tons of available options for that already--but when the state starts doing that, it's a whole other ballgame.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
Personally, I think setting a boundary by politely dipping out internet thread is a good practice. I totally get it. Sometimes discussion on the internet just kind of lose interest after a while or something else pops up.

I think online interactions are weird. First, text is a pretty bad way to communicate. Text on the fly, in real time, is even worse. It's okay to end an online interaction that is no longer rewarding. Personally, it makes my online experience more enjoyable.

Like what's the point? The vibe of the thread isn't a vibe anymore for that person. I get it.

I think a lot of people are kinda bored with this discussion. It's not like we're gonna have any breakthroughs.

Indeed. I think this topic is interesting, but definitely a rough one to discuss as there are several layers involved that make it challenging to apply a reductionist approach in comprehending or solving something. As this thread has highlighted, there are many different opinions ranging from the polar extremes to everything else in between. For one example provided at one end of the socio-political spectrum, there is an equally valid alternative at the other end. So what is to become of such a topic - aside from stimulating discussion? I'm all for it, but it would be nice to keep it respectful IMO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I think online interactions are weird. First, text is a pretty bad way to communicate. Text on the fly, in real time, is even worse.
Another issue with online discussions like this is they really can be devoid of all other contexts. Often, the ONLY thing we know about the person we're talking to I that we really disagree on an issue that is important to us. I don't get to see that we also enjoy drinking the same bourbon or that you're wearing a band t-shirt from a show I saw, or that you are a middle-aged bald guy just like me. It makes us pretty one dimensional.

ETA- the flipping is if we were hanging out together I'd much rather discuss that bourbon or that concert. I wouldn't broach the topics of bald middle age-Ness, tnough.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Another issue with online discussions like this is they really can be devoid of all other contexts. Often, the ONLY thing we know about the person we're talking to I that we really disagree on an issue that is important to us. I don't get to see that we also enjoy drinking the same bourbon or that you're wearing a band t-shirt from a show I saw, or that you are a middle-aged bald guy just like me. It makes us pretty one dimensional.

ETA- the flipping is if we were hanging out together I'd much rather discuss that bourbon or that concert. I wouldn't broach the topics of bald middle age-Ness, tnough.

Spot on. Very well said and very much agreed. I love me some JD or Johnnie Walker. Side note - I was fortunate enough to snag me a small bottle of Louis XIII. Pair some cognac with a DR cigar, and you sir, have yourself an academic debate ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Spot on. Very well said and very much agreed. I love me some JD or Johnnie Walker. Side note - I was fortunate enough to snag me a small bottle of Louis XIII. Pair some cognac with a DR cigar, and you sir, have yourself an academic debate ;)
If you're buying, I'm drinking (gotta be ideologically consistent, right?)!!
 
  • Care
Reactions: 1 user
Members don't see this ad :)
I'm from massachusetts- pretty sure my taxes pay for the health care of dogs in red states.

They don't call it "Tax-achusetts" for no reason. I used to live in Boston for a while (my husband and I got married in the court room in downtown right after DOMA was struck down in 2013.

Your taxes pay for....everybody. ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
They don't call it "Tax-achusetts" for no reason. I used to live in Boston for a while (my husband and I got married in the court room in downtown right after DOMA was struck down in 2013.

Your taxes pay for....everybody. ;)
Yep. And what kind of fool would be ok helping to fund a less fortunate persons medical wellbeing. I must be some kind of schmuck, right? What kind of idiot would willingly give his hard earned money to assure that a less financially able citizen would be able to pay for basic health care? I could probably swing that fourth car if my taxes weren't so high :greedy::greedy:

Still want to share your liquor with me?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Yep. And what kind of fool would be ok helping to fund a less fortunate persons medical wellbeing. I must be some kind of schmuck, right? What kind of idiot would willingly give his hard earned money to assure that a less financially able citizen would be able to pay for basic health care? I could probably swing that fourth car if my taxes weren't so high :greedy::greedy:

Still want to share your liquor with me?

I won't hold your liberalism against you as long as you know how to properly smoke a cigar and pair it with a proper scotch or whiskey. :p

Actually, tonight we are having chianti and watching Ted 2.
 
For one, this has been one of the tamest discussions on SDN. I am wondering at what point one perceived it as not respectful. Next, the only real viewpoints that have been even remotely attacked is the issue of academic freedom and free speech, which it would appear most are actually in agreement about. The only question raised was an apparent glaring inconsistency posed.

Last, given the mild nature of this discussion, if this is what is considered "out of bounds", or "too much," that does not bode well. If we can't manage the discomfort of examining our own ideas, how can we rightly critique others in any intellectually honest way? Something, something, snowflakes. Something, something, grow a pair. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
For one, this has been one of the tamest discussions on SDN. I am wondering at what point one perceived it as not respectful. Next, the only real viewpoints that have been even remotely attacked is the issue of academic freedom and free speech, which it would appear most are actually in agreement about. The only question raised was an apparent glaring inconsistency posed.

Last, given the mild nature of this discussion, if this is what is considered "out of bounds", or "too much," that does not bode well. If we can't manage the discomfort of examining our own ideas, how can we rightly critique others in any intellectually honest way? Something, something, snowflakes. Something, something, grow a pair. :)

Yeah...I'm not taking the bait.
 
Just to put more out there:

Ok, I will play the Straw Man/Red Herring game too:

That is an article on non-related to tangentially related topic, from a biased source that can be use in an attempt to discredit/weaken a position made by someone on the other side of an argument, as follows: "look at this nonsense: Ted Cruz is grandstanding (or has lost his f'in mind). Cruz's point is invalid because he is grandstanding nut jub. Desantis is similar to Ted Cruz on a few levels (e.g., Red State politician; Republican; Conservative), thus his behaviors are the same as Ted Cruz. Because of this, DeSantis's position is also ridiculous and should be argued against." Mic dropped, 'pubs owned!

It's not logical argument. It's a deflection, a trick. Here's a more logical argument for Desantis's position:

"The people of the state of Florida, based on the overwhelming results of recent general elections, CLEARLY support more traditional, western- centric views about what society should be. These people, through their taxes, support several public academic institutions of higher learning. For decades, people within these institutions have espoused, taught, and even demonstrated for a decidedly non-western-centric view about what society should be. Non-regulatory attempts to address this issue have not been successful, thus we must take regulatory/legislative action to assure that the people of Florida do not have to financially support the teaching of views they do not agree with. Further, the level of dichotomy between what the people of Florida believe and what is being taught is so extreme as to be damaging to the students and the state as whole. As a result, the actions of those that teach these dichotomous view points rise to the level of criminal activity. Not only does is need to be defunded, but it needs to be punished."

While a more logical argument, there are a few legal issues regarding academic freedom and states enacting policies that go against the first amendment of the constitution (e.g., even if a state law mandating the harboring of military personnel in private homes at any time passed with 100% of the citizens voting for it, the state could not enact that law because of the 3rd amendment). My opinion (I know it's biased- afterall my evil state mandated that I take a social psych course in graduate school as a condition of being able to legally do my job, those tyrants!) is that Desantis is very much aware that his regulatory positions against DEI, CRT, and "wokeness" are unconstitutional. He either doesn't expect that they be legally held up and is just trying to make it more difficult for opposing views in the meantime, or he has (hopefully) misjudged the current SCOTUS and believes they would take a rather narrow view of 1st amendment rights.

As an aside, I read the linked to Houston Chronicle editorial. I'm actually not sure which position in the argument it supports. The final paragraph seems to me (again- interpretation/opinion that is subject to bias!) that it is saying that if dems don't stop acting silly like this, Republicans will continue to use this kind of thing as an example to continue acting silly themselves. That actually more closely resemble my view of the issue: While it's important to fight the small battles to win the war, don't let the smaller first amendment stuff distract you from the more existential threats of the attacks on the 5th, 8th, 13th, 14th, et cetera. Thanks for supporting my side, now pass the cognac!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Ok, I will play the Straw Man/Red Herring game too:

That is an article on non-related to tangentially related topic, from a biased source that can be use in an attempt to discredit/weaken a position made by someone on the other side of an argument, as follows: "look at this nonsense: Ted Cruz is grandstanding (or has lost his f'in mind). Cruz's point is invalid because he is grandstanding nut jub. Desantis is similar to Ted Cruz on a few levels (e.g., Red State politician; Republican; Conservative), thus his behaviors are the same as Ted Cruz. Because of this, DeSantis's position is also ridiculous and should be argued against." Mic dropped, 'pubs owned!

It's not logical argument. It's a deflection, a trick. Here's a more logical argument for Desantis's position:

"The people of the state of Florida, based on the overwhelming results of recent general elections, CLEARLY support more traditional, western- centric views about what society should be. These people, through their taxes, support several public academic institutions of higher learning. For decades, people within these institutions have espoused, taught, and even demonstrated for a decidedly non-western-centric view about what society should be. Non-regulatory attempts to address this issue have not been successful, thus we must take regulatory/legislative action to assure that the people of Florida do not have to financially support the teaching of views they do not agree with. Further, the level of dichotomy between what the people of Florida believe and what is being taught is so extreme as to be damaging to the students and the state as whole. As a result, the actions of those that teach these dichotomous view points rise to the level of criminal activity. Not only does is need to be defunded, but it needs to be punished."

While a more logical argument, there are a few legal issues regarding academic freedom and states enacting policies that go against the first amendment of the constitution (e.g., even if a state law mandating the harboring of military personnel in private homes at any time passed with 100% of the citizens voting for it, the state could not enact that law because of the 3rd amendment). My opinion (I know it's biased- afterall my evil state mandated that I take a social psych course in graduate school as a condition of being able to legally do my job, those tyrants!) is that Desantis is very much aware that his regulatory positions against DEI, CRT, and "wokeness" are unconstitutional. He either doesn't expect that they be legally held up and is just trying to make it more difficult for opposing views in the meantime, or he has (hopefully) misjudged the current SCOTUS and believes they would take a rather narrow view of 1st amendment rights.

As an aside, I read the linked to Houston Chronicle editorial. I'm actually not sure which position in the argument it supports. The final paragraph seems to me (again- interpretation/opinion that is subject to bias!) that it is saying that if dems don't stop acting silly like this, Republicans will continue to use this kind of thing as an example to continue acting silly themselves. That actually more closely resemble my view of the issue: While it's important to fight the small battles to win the war, don't let the smaller first amendment stuff distract you from the more existential threats of the attacks on the 5th, 8th, 13th, 14th, et cetera. Thanks for supporting my side, now pass the cognac!

That was a lot of mental gymnastics to resolve that dissonance. I did enjoy watching it. *pours you some more cognac* it’s 11 o clock somewhere right?
 
That was a lot of mental gymnastics to resolve that dissonance.
And it was -9 degrees when I was doing it, so I happily postponed my trip to the dump to do so. As to your point - mental gymnastics? Yes- it is sometimes necessary to work a little harder to be logical with one's own argument, as well as to identify and counter illogical arguments coming from the other side. As to your second point, glad I could resolve your dissonance for you:thumbup:
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 user
And it was -9 degrees when I was doing it, so I happily postponed my trip to the dump to do so. As to your point - mental gymnastics? Yes- it is sometimes necessary to work a little harder to be logical with one's own argument, as well as to identify and counter illogical arguments coming from the other side. As to your second point, glad I could resolve your dissonance for you:thumbup:

Not my dissonance ;)

Much like you, I too am confident in my position I support on this matter.
 
Not my dissonance ;)

Much like you, I too am confident in my position I support on this matter.
Ok- but what exactly is that position (beyond "I support Desantis). I've sincerely tried to articulate my position in terms of policies, my expected outcomes of these policies, and how these policies relate to existing ones (e.g. the constitution). At the very least, I've gone beyond just saying "I don't agree with Desantis" abpnd then present at best tenuouslyb related evidence of extremists on the other side acting extreme. Of course, you are under no obligation to identify your position here or anywhere else (yet).
 
Ok- but what exactly is that position (beyond "I support Desantis). I've sincerely tried to articulate my position in terms of policies, my expected outcomes of these policies, and how these policies relate to existing ones (e.g. the constitution). At the very least, I've gone beyond just saying "I don't agree with Desantis" abpnd then present at best tenuouslyb related evidence of extremists on the other side acting extreme. Of course, you are under no obligation to identify your position here or anywhere else (yet).

Fair enough.

For me, my decision to support DeSantis is not necessarily driven by specific data points. I am a firm believer that sometimes, it's less about the data and more about what my morality tells me. I know that is not a supported notion amongst our group of people as most of us eat, breathe, and sleep "facts" and data. I think there is a time and place for some of that, and other times, not so much. I realize the significant limitations of much of the extant published peer-reviewed data that makes use of statistics, which is both an art and a science. So, for me, appreciating that sentiment, I realize that one could surround themselves with all of the peer reviewed articles they want, it still doesn't necessarily mean they are accurately appreciating nor understanding the situation at hand. After all, statistics is a means to bridge that gap, but with our replication crisis and file-drawer phenomenon, I tend to take those things with a grain of salt.

This isn't to say that when I am working with my patients that I don't use peer-reviewed literature to inform my clinical approach - I do use those resources a lot. But when it's something like DEI, for me, I have largely found it to be akin to fad pseudo science largely influenced by very biased beliefs by researchers who want to promote a certain agenda in hopes that it's addressing something they view as a catastrophic problem.

I know a tendency a lot of my liberal colleagues love to use when met with someone who pushes back against them is to use terms like "gas lighting, privilege, Cis," and other academically-popular terms to highlight how "enlightened" one group of people are vs. others, which therefore means, we should all just acquiesce and listen to their points of views. For me, it's a turn off and I frankly don't give those types of people attention unless they want to get away from condescending to people and for a moment realize that how they are approaching the topic, is from a pretty skewed perspective at the beginning, thus, any conversation on the matter will likely not yield anything fruitful.

You made a very eloquent and well-thought out explanation as to why you believe the way you do. No one could deny that. I just don't agree with it. By my saying that, you'd likely want to know more as to why I believe what I believe, which would open a whole can of worms that will largely be influenced by my morals. For me, that's what I weight a lot in a situation like DEI. This may not make sense, but it's what I choose to believe.


I hope this was a bit more of the in-depth response you were hoping for. If not....not sure what to tell ya.
 
Fair enough.

For me, my decision to support DeSantis is not necessarily driven by specific data points. I am a firm believer that sometimes, it's less about the data and more about what my morality tells me. I know that is not a supported notion amongst our group of people as most of us eat, breathe, and sleep "facts" and data. I think there is a time and place for some of that, and other times, not so much. I realize the significant limitations of much of the extant published peer-reviewed data that makes use of statistics, which is both an art and a science. So, for me, appreciating that sentiment, I realize that one could surround themselves with all of the peer reviewed articles they want, it still doesn't necessarily mean they are accurately appreciating nor understanding the situation at hand. After all, statistics is a means to bridge that gap, but with our replication crisis and file-drawer phenomenon, I tend to take those things with a grain of salt.

This isn't to say that when I am working with my patients that I don't use peer-reviewed literature to inform my clinical approach - I do use those resources a lot. But when it's something like DEI, for me, I have largely found it to be akin to fad pseudo science largely influenced by very biased beliefs by researchers who want to promote a certain agenda in hopes that it's addressing something they view as a catastrophic problem.

I know a tendency a lot of my liberal colleagues love to use when met with someone who pushes back against them is to use terms like "gas lighting, privilege, Cis," and other academically-popular terms to highlight how "enlightened" one group of people are vs. others, which therefore means, we should all just acquiesce and listen to their points of views. For me, it's a turn off and I frankly don't give those types of people attention unless they want to get away from condescending to people and for a moment realize that how they are approaching the topic, is from a pretty skewed perspective at the beginning, thus, any conversation on the matter will likely not yield anything fruitful.

You made a very eloquent and well-thought out explanation as to why you believe the way you do. No one could deny that. I just don't agree with it. By my saying that, you'd likely want to know more as to why I believe what I believe, which would open a whole can of worms that will largely be influenced by my morals. For me, that's what I weight a lot in a situation like DEI. This may not make sense, but it's what I choose to believe.


I hope this was a bit more of the in-depth response you were hoping for. If not....not sure what to tell ya.
I appreciate your reply.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
For people who are okay with tenured faculty being fired for what they teach or publish being disagreeable to the governor, would you also be okay with, say, the VA firing a non-probationary psychologist for publishing an article or saying something in a training or in session with a client that the current president disagreed with? Legit question, because I struggle to see how eliminating freedom of speech for non-politically-appointed government employees helps anyone and I’d be interested to hear arguments for it. Anyone can be on the side of “unpopular” speech, and what’s “unpopular” to people in power can change instantly, so it seems like it’s in everyone’s best interest to continue to protect freedom of speech (and hence why free speech orgs will enthusiastically defend people from all parts of the political spectrum).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 users
For people who are okay with tenured faculty being fired for what they teach or publish being disagreeable to the governor, would you also be okay with, say, the VA firing a non-probationary psychologist for publishing an article or saying something in a training or in session with a client that the current president disagreed with? Legit question, because I struggle to see how eliminating freedom of speech for non-politically-appointed government employees helps anyone and I’d be interested to hear arguments for it. Anyone can be on the side of “unpopular” speech, and what’s “unpopular” to people in power can change instantly, so it seems like it’s in everyone’s best interest to continue to protect freedom of speech (and hence why free speech orgs will enthusiastically defend people from all parts of the political spectrum).
I honestly believe they are not ok with it, but it is rather a necessary evil along the path to the American they think is best. Really scary stuff.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Fair enough.

For me, my decision to support DeSantis is not necessarily driven by specific data points. I am a firm believer that sometimes, it's less about the data and more about what my morality tells me. I know that is not a supported notion amongst our group of people as most of us eat, breathe, and sleep "facts" and data. I think there is a time and place for some of that, and other times, not so much. I realize the significant limitations of much of the extant published peer-reviewed data that makes use of statistics, which is both an art and a science. So, for me, appreciating that sentiment, I realize that one could surround themselves with all of the peer reviewed articles they want, it still doesn't necessarily mean they are accurately appreciating nor understanding the situation at hand. After all, statistics is a means to bridge that gap, but with our replication crisis and file-drawer phenomenon, I tend to take those things with a grain of salt.

This isn't to say that when I am working with my patients that I don't use peer-reviewed literature to inform my clinical approach - I do use those resources a lot. But when it's something like DEI, for me, I have largely found it to be akin to fad pseudo science largely influenced by very biased beliefs by researchers who want to promote a certain agenda in hopes that it's addressing something they view as a catastrophic problem.

I know a tendency a lot of my liberal colleagues love to use when met with someone who pushes back against them is to use terms like "gas lighting, privilege, Cis," and other academically-popular terms to highlight how "enlightened" one group of people are vs. others, which therefore means, we should all just acquiesce and listen to their points of views. For me, it's a turn off and I frankly don't give those types of people attention unless they want to get away from condescending to people and for a moment realize that how they are approaching the topic, is from a pretty skewed perspective at the beginning, thus, any conversation on the matter will likely not yield anything fruitful.

You made a very eloquent and well-thought out explanation as to why you believe the way you do. No one could deny that. I just don't agree with it. By my saying that, you'd likely want to know more as to why I believe what I believe, which would open a whole can of worms that will largely be influenced by my morals. For me, that's what I weight a lot in a situation like DEI. This may not make sense, but it's what I choose to believe.


I hope this was a bit more of the in-depth response you were hoping for. If not....not sure what to tell ya.
You do understand that, by saying your position (which is opposite of mine) is based on "morals," you are saying that I am immoral. All kidding aside, that's just not very nice. I thought we were drinking buddies!
 


I am not saying this is what happening.
I am saying that government decrees of what is or isn't taught, and by whom, makes this Jewish professor queasy

I'm not going to engage further on this thread. I like better coffee and worse alcohol than you all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
You do understand that, by saying your position (which is opposite of mine) is based on "morals," you are saying that I am immoral. All kidding aside, that's just not very nice. I thought we were drinking buddies!
I think you are making a pretty big leap here and seems like you might be looking for a reason to be offended. You asked me my opinion, and I provided it. When I mentioned it aligns with my morals, it’s the truth, but I’m also not implying that your stance on the matter isn’t aligned with your morals, or is somehow “immoral.” You chose to interpret it that way.
Not bait, I'm just saying that I no longer trust your discussions here as being honest in any meaningful way given the hypocritical and contradicting nature of them.
Not sure what to tell you? You don’t have to trust me. I think it’s interesting you are choosing to make lavish conclusions about me based on some of my responses on an isolated topic. There have been posts you’ve made in other threads I may not agree with, but many others I do. I still won’t draw lavish conclusions about you as a person because I do not know you. But to each their own I suppose.
 
I think you are making a pretty big leap here and love looking for a reason to being offended. You asked me my opinion, and I provided it. When I mentioned it aligns with my morals, it’s the truth, but I’m also not implying that your stance on the matter isn’t aligned with your morals. You chose to interpret it that way.

Not sure what to tell you? You don’t have to trust me. I think it’s interesting you are choosing to make lavish conclusions about me based on some of my responses on an isolated topic. There have been posts you’ve made in other threads I may not agree with, but many others I do. I still won’t draw lavish conclusions about you as a person because I do not know you. But to each their own I suppose.

What lavish conclusion have I made about you?
 
What lavish conclusion have I made about you?
Things ranging from speculating that I would somehow approach my forensic work as I do on an online forum, and just a moment ago stating you can no longer trust my opinions because you think they are hypocritical or contradictory. Maybe it’s worthwhile to take a step back to consider that the lens you are opting to interpret my responses may not align with how you see things. If that is understood, then it would make sense that maybe some of my things are contradictory or hypocritical. At the same time, I realize I’ve opted to not go into depth in some of my previous responses, so you are probably making your own inferences. I’ve already mentioned to ABA my position on the matter, and if that isn’t sufficient, I really don’t want to waste my Saturday evening going back and forth on something that frankly, is a multi-factorial decision that will not be litigated here.
 
Things ranging from speculating that I would somehow approach my forensic work as I do on an online forum, and just a moment ago stating you can no longer trust my opinions because you think they are hypocritical or contradictory. Maybe it’s worthwhile to take a step back to consider that the lens you are opting to interpret my responses may not align with how you see things. If that is understood, then it would make sense that maybe some of my things are contradictory or hypocritical. At the same time, I realize I’ve opted to not go into depth in some of my previous responses, so you are probably making your own inferences. I’ve already mentioned to ABA my position on the matter, and if that isn’t sufficient, I really don’t want to waste my Saturday evening going back and forth on something that frankly, is a multi-factorial decision that will not be litigated here.

Yes, I said I no longer trust your opinions "on here" implying SDN, given their inconsistent and hypocritical nature. Wherein did I state anything beyond SDN? Also, is that what you consider "lavish?"
 
Yes, I said I no longer trust your opinions "on here" implying SDN, given their inconsistent and hypocritical nature. Wherein did I state anything beyond SDN? Also, is that what you consider "lavish?"
It is. That’s a pretty big decision to make considering you are basing your decision on very uni-dimensional criteria. That to me is pretty lavish as that represents a decision where it is implied that you have factored every single post I would have ever made, and you know information about me outside of this forum to come to a holistic interpretation of my decision making capacity. That is lavish. But I will infer that this is likely not the case, but rather, you are making a judgment anchored to my comments on this thread.
 
I think you are making a pretty big leap here and seems like you might be looking for a reason to be offended. You asked me my opinion, and I provided it. When I mentioned it aligns with my morals, it’s the truth, but I’m also not implying that your stance on the matter isn’t aligned with your morals, or is somehow “immoral.” You chose to interpret it that way.

Not sure what to tell you? You don’t have to trust me. I think it’s interesting you are choosing to make lavish conclusions about me based on some of my responses on an isolated topic. There have been posts you’ve made in other threads I may not agree with, but many others I do. I still won’t draw lavish conclusions about you as a person because I do not know you. But to each their own I suppose.
You have said that your positions is based on morals, thus - de facto- it is the moral one. My position on the issues at hand is the opposite of yours. The opposite of moral is immoral (or amoral- I get those confused). It follows then that my postion- being the opposite of yours, which is stated to be "moral"- is immoral. Also, I have the curse/blessing of not ever being offended (at least not with rhetoric alone, thus looking for a reason to be offended was not my goal. I just think it's not nice to accuse people you don't really know and who have tried to be nice (for the most part!) of being immoral. I was really looking forward to some cognac in Texas. I've been there a few times, and it was very pretty.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
It is. That’s a pretty big decision to make considering you are basing your decision on very uni-dimensional criteria. That to me is pretty lavish as that represents a decision where it is implied that you have factored every single post I would have ever made, and you know information about me outside of this forum to come to a holistic interpretation of my decision making capacity. That is lavish. But I will infer that this is likely not the case, but rather, you are making a judgment anchored to my comments on this thread.

The judgment is based on many comments in many threads, as was referenced earlier. It's up to you what to do with it. You can refuse to engage with anyone who questions these inconsistencies, as you've largely done. Or choose a more intellectually honest discussion. I'm really fine either way.
 
You have said that your positions is based on morals, thus - de facto- it is the moral one. My position on the issues at hand is the opposite of yours. The opposite of moral is immoral (or amoral- I get those confused). It follows then that my postion- being the opposite of yours, which is stated to be "moral"- is immoral. Also, I have the curse/blessing of not ever being offended (at least not with rhetoric alone, thus looking for a reason to be offended was not my goal. I just think it's not nice to accuse people you don't really know and who have tried to be nice (for the most part!) of being immoral. I was really looking forward to some cognac in Texas. I've been there a few times, and it was very pretty.

Again - you are drawing some lofty conclusions here. Not sure if you’ve heard, but morals are very individualized. My morals are likely not the same as yours, my friends, etc. The decisions I make are often guided by my morals. Not yours or others. This does not mean you or others lack morals. They are simply different. Does that make sense?
 
The judgment is based on many comments in many threads, as was referenced earlier. It's up to you what to do with it. You can refuse to engage with anyone who questions these inconsistencies, as you've largely done. Or choose a more intellectually honest discussion. I'm really fine either way.

I’m curious if the option to provide an opinion, then once it gets to a certain point a boundary is established. Is that a possible option? Or is it, once someone opens their “mouths” they are required to debate it to the very end? I wasn’t aware of such SOP on this forum.
 
I’m curious if the option to provide an opinion, then once it gets to a certain point a boundary is established. Is that a possible option? Or is it, once someone opens their “mouths” they are required to debate it to the very end? I wasn’t aware of such SOP on this forum.

It's always an option. You can always choose not to engage, as you have done. I do not have to abide by that option, but obviously, if you refuse to discuss something, the conversation will die down. But, just expect it to be referenced again if a related discussion pops up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
It's always an option. You can always choose not to engage, as you have done. I do not have to abide by that option, but obviously, if you refuse to discuss something, the conversation will die down. But, just expect it to be referenced again if a related discussion pops up.

That's fine. That's your approach. But I would hazard a guess and say that you have also probably refrained in responding to certain folks on certain threads in the past. Maybe I'm wrong. Either way, simply wanting to set a limitation or boundary in and of itself does not rise to the level of labeling someone as being contradictory or hypocritical. There would need to be other layers involved to firmly draw that inference about someone you barely know.

Sometimes, conversations don't have to be indefinite. They can have an ending, or, simply go onto another path as has happened in other threads, and frankly, what is happening now.

I will say it again - my decision on DEI stuff is not just based on data-driven studies, etc. I have mentioned my views on how psychological research is highly variable with issues pertaining to replication ad generalizability. As such, I am also aware that if you debate this out with someone who devotes most of their professional life to this topic, they will most likely push back with whatever "evidence" they have. For me, sometimes it doesn't have to make sense to others if my decision is based more so on moralistic or philosophical issues rather than being driven completely by science. We as social scientists are not the most well-respected amongst other scientists - there are things in psychology that have been published that I often shake my head at. But, because it was published, people drink the Koolaid and preach about it. It becomes popular on university campuses, and then that gets filtered out into the community without much effort in attempting to falsify the available literature on that topic.

As I mentioned earlier, I am very much open to listening to others' viewpoints. That does not equate to my integrating them. I might. I might integrate some or all of a prevailing viewpoint that differs from mine. I've done it before (when I switched from being hard-core liberal to a moderate conservative). What's interesting is, thus far you and some others have called me out on being open to others' viewpoints, but I have yet to see others reciprocating here. I'm not expecting it, but I have noticed that as every time one of you call me out on this thread, we all end up parroting much of the same stuff. This just goes to speak to my other point, that this discussion will not be leading to any profound systemic changes. It ends up alienating ourselves from each other, which I don't like. I'd prefer to be able to disagree with folks, set appropriate boundaries when it gets to a certain point, and acknowledge we all care about people (which is why we got into this field), but there is more than one way to skin a cat (or whatever PETA-approved equivalent you'd like to substitute).
 
That's fine. That's your approach. But I would hazard a guess and say that you have also probably refrained in responding to certain folks on certain threads in the past. Maybe I'm wrong. Either way, simply wanting to set a limitation or boundary in and of itself does not rise to the level of labeling someone as being contradictory or hypocritical. There would need to be other layers involved to firmly draw that inference about someone you barely know.

Sometimes, conversations don't have to be indefinite. They can have an ending, or, simply go onto another path as has happened in other threads, and frankly, what is happening now.

I will say it again - my decision on DEI stuff is not just based on data-driven studies, etc. I have mentioned my views on how psychological research is highly variable with issues pertaining to replication ad generalizability. As such, I am also aware that if you debate this out with someone who devotes most of their professional life to this topic, they will most likely push back with whatever "evidence" they have. For me, sometimes it doesn't have to make sense to others if my decision is based more so on moralistic or philosophical issues rather than being driven completely by science. We as social scientists are not the most well-respected amongst other scientists - there are things in psychology that have been published that I often shake my head at. But, because it was published, people drink the Koolaid and preach about it. It becomes popular on university campuses, and then that gets filtered out in to the community without much effort in attempting to falsify the available literature on that topic.

As I mentioned earlier, I am very much open to listening to others' viewpoints. That does not equate to my integrating them. I might. I might integrate some or all of prevailing viewpoint that differs from mine. I've done it before (when I switched from being hard-core liberal to a moderate conservative). What's interesting is, thus far you and some others have called me out on being open to others' viewpoints, but I have yet to see others reciprocating here. I'm not expecting it, but I have noticed that as every time one of you call me out on this thread, we all end up parroting much of the same stuff. This just goes to speak to my other point, that this discussion will not be leading to any profound systemic changes. It ends up alienating ourselves from each other, which I don't like. I'd prefer to be able to disagree with folks, set appropriate boundaries when it gets to a certain point, and acknowledge we all have care about people (which is why we got into this field), but there is more than one way to skin a cat (or whatever PETA-approved equivalent you'd like to substitute).

Of course I have refrained from responding to certain comments in certain threads. I don't respond to 100% of comments. Also, your not responding was not the bulk of the contradictory/hypocritical comments, your actual stated words were the issue. You just refused to clarify most of them when called out on it. Also, I don't recall anyone asking for studies or data analyses from you, merely consistency. Also, no one is asking you to integrate other viewpoints, they were merely asking you to clarify your own. I have no problem debating others. Meehl and I have gone at it time to time. Pragma and I have argued pretty heartily about some issues, but still meet up for drinks when we're both at neuro conferences. They're intellectually consistent though, and that's something I respect.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Of course I have refrained from responding to certain comments in certain threads. I don't respond to 100% of comments. Also, your not responding was not the bulk of the contradictory/hypocritical comments, your actual stated words were the issue. You just refused to clarify most of them when called out on it. Also, I don't recall anyone asking for studies or data analyses from you, merely consistency. Also, no one is asking you to integrate other viewpoints, they were merely asking you to clarify your own. I have no problem debating others. Meehl and I have gone at it time to time. Pragma and I have argued pretty heartily about some issues, but still meet up for drinks when we're both at neuro conferences. They're intellectually consistent though, and that's something I respect.

I am wondering how you are defining "intellectually consistent." As to your other point - to each their own. I hear what you are saying, but I think people have the right to choose whether or not they wish to continue a debate, even if it's simply opinion-oriented with no data, etc.

Maybe I am just intellectually inferior to you. I can accept that.
 
Intellectually consistent would be defined as having consistency in your viewpoints across situations. Like, being a very strong advocate of free speech and open discussion, but supporting candidates and legislation that do the exact opposite would be intellectually inconsistent.

And yes, anyone can bow out of a debate at any time, that's always their choice. I've never said anything to the contrary.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Intellectually consistent would be defined as having consistency in your viewpoints across situations. Like, being a very strong advocate of free speech and open discussion, but supporting candidates and legislation that do the exact opposite would be intellectually inconsistent.

And yes, anyone can bow out of a debate at any time, that's always their choice. I've never said anything to the contrary.

Where I am perceiving the "contrary" is that you think by my not continuing the debate, or speaking more to my points more than I already have, that I am somehow a hypocrite to the very thing I espoused to be an advocate for. That's what I perceived as you indicating that it was not appropriate for me to set that boundary, and for doing so, I have somehow gone against the very thing I stand for.

In regards to the intellectual consistency - this is a topic that involves several layers. It is not as simple as what people are reading regarding DeSantis's DEI decision. Also, people seem to have amnesia for instances where the tables have largely been turned where others have been fired from their jobs who leaned more conservative; who disagreed with COVID policies, etc. Granted, COVID policies and DEI are not the same topic, what they do represent are polarities on a hot topic where people's decision to either get the vaccine, wear masks, etc., or, to embrace DEI initiatives are highly influenced by peoples' morals. Depending who is in power, the prevailing popular viewpoints in the media, such decisions could mean being praised and being aligned with the "in group" vs. people being placed in the "out group," and viewed in a negative manner. When I read about how liberals are getting upset about free speech, I can't help but think "welcome to the club." Conservatives have also faced cancel culture just as often as liberals.

You will find that I interpret the available information we are seeing differently than probably yourself and others. That does not mean I am inconsistent with my views. I would argue they very much represent my view points, but maybe your interpretation of how I am interpreting these things is what's being called into question. That's fair. It's the reason why many liberals will look at conservatives in astonishment and vice versa. It's easier to label people as racist, prejudice, privileged, ignorant, etc. when their views either offend you, or go against yours.

Since 2019, basically all I heard is that I am privileged white racist, with internalized homophobia who gaslights people. I think I got all the fad terms to-date.
 
In regards to the intellectual consistency - this is a topic that involves several layers. It is not as simple as what people are reading regarding DeSantis's DEI decision. Also, people seem to have amnesia for instances where the tables have largely been turned where others have been fired from their jobs who leaned more conservative; who disagreed with COVID policies, etc. Granted, COVID policies and DEI are not the same topic, what they do represent are polarities on a hot topic where people's decision to either get the vaccine, wear masks, etc., or, to embrace DEI initiatives are highly influenced by peoples' morals. Depending who is in power, the prevailing popular viewpoints in the media, such decisions could mean being praised and being aligned with the "in group" vs. people being placed in the "out group," and viewed in a negative manner. When I read about how liberals are getting upset about free speech, I can't help but think "welcome to the club." Conservatives have also faced cancel culture just as often as liberals
This is the part that I have difficulties with in terms of the rationale for the support of DeSantis policy. It makes it seem like your suggesting that solution to the problem of people being fired for unjust reasons is to make it easier to fire (or more difficult to recruit/hire) people for other reasons. It just seems a vindictive rather than a logical solution. Equating it with COVID policy violation dismissals (even though you comment on it not being the same topic) makes it seem even more vindictive. I'd think that a policy which makes it MORE difficult to fire people for having different opinions than the majority would be the logical solution to the problem you identified. For arguments sake, I'd also leave out the covid stuff, as that introduces the issue (regardless of what side you're on) of direct threat to the physical wellbeing of others. It just makes it sound like the argument is "you guys fired someone who thinks like me for reasons I don't agree with, so we should fire someone who thinks like you for reasons you don't agree with." Even if we assume that liberals have enacted policies for the same reason, it doesn't make it a more logical/less vindictive solution.

Also- and I ask this seriously- how widespread are/were dismissals of faculty due "anti" DEI or "anti" covid positions, both nationally and in Florida? Perhaps one thing we can all agree on is that DeSantis policies on this are pretty extreme (I reviewed other red state governors posted platforms to inform this statement). If it's such an extreme issue, I'd expect at least some similar discussions happening at the executive level in other states. Instead I see a lot of boring stuff about economic development, job creation, luring business/tourism, and infrastructure.
Since 2019, basically all I heard is that I am privileged white racist, with internalized homophobia who gaslights people. I think I got all the fad terms to-date.
I hope you're not those things, because i feel those are horrible things to be/do. Even if you are, it has no direct bearing on the logical (damn, I use that word a lot) substance of your argument, In the same way that me being an overall swell-guy doesn't make my argument any more or less logical. Using ad hominems to weaken a position in an argument is just lazy. Not saying this has happened here, but "crying ad hominem" is also a pretty common, but also very lazy debate strategy.

Let's say Maura Healy- my governor, who is gay woman with a generally progressive policy that I support, proposed that the economics departments at state colleges and universities could not in any way teach anything that supports capitalism as a good or beneficial system. I'd be very much against that policy. If DeSantis proposed the same policy, I'd be very much against it. If Healy proposed defunding/criminalizing DEI and getting rid of tenure, I'd be very much against this policy.

I give you a lot of credit for sticking around and engaging. Your position is clearly different than the norm around here. I have no hopes of changing your position. One of my main purposes in engaging I such discussions is to actually identify the logical inconsistencies with my own, so I appreciate the practice.. Plus if you disappear I won't know how to find you to collect on that drink.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Top