David Thompson
Subscribe

Categories

Blog powered by Typepad

« Friday Ephemera | Main | Friday Ephemera »

September 28, 2010

Comments

newbie

"The right to be agreed with." :)

David

“The right to be agreed with.”

Well, it’s plausible shorthand for some common attitudes. For instance, think of how doctrinaire feminists reacted to Daphne Patai or Christina Hoff Sommers.

http://davidthompson.typepad.com/davidthompson/2009/07/every-bit-as-hobbled-.html

Or the firing of Thomas Thibeault.

http://davidthompson.typepad.com/davidthompson/2009/09/where-reason-never-sleeps-.html

Or think of Professor Jere Surber, who regards his own leftist politics as the only “respectable” position for his students to adopt.

http://davidthompson.typepad.com/davidthompson/2010/02/i-dont-deserve-this-shabby-treatment-.html

Or Professor Maureen Stanton, who took to her fainting couch when faced with views at variance with her own.

http://davidthompson.typepad.com/davidthompson/2007/09/diversity.html

Or Margaret Morganroth Gullette, who objects to both sides of a political argument being given a fair hearing, and insists that if you don’t agree with her then you’re “promoting hegemonic values” and are therefore unfit. (“Teachers who hold such views cannot lead useful debates.”)

http://www.mindingthecampus.com/forum/2010/09/the_defense_of_radical_teachin.html

And these are champions of “diversity,” remember.

rjmadden

Uncommon Knowledge is a great series.

I'm surprised you didn't quote the bit right at the end:

"Conservatives are more tolerant than liberals... they're much more tolerant of people who disagree with them."

Uncle Deetou

Thanks for the links... interesting

carbon based lifeform

Excellent interview. Another money quote:

"[Black people and women on campus] were encouraged to react with indignation whenever they felt put upon. Thus the notion of sensitivity led to less toleration rather than more."

I bet he's glad he's got tenure.

David

“Thus the notion of sensitivity led to less toleration rather than more.”

It’s a common outcome, one I’ve illustrated several times. And “sensitivity” of this kind encourages its devotees to favour certain tribal groups - and the most aggressive or delusional members of those groups - and to assign intellectual credibility based on physical characteristics. Not the most obvious recipe for “progress.”

Some readers may recall a commenter named Far-Center Loony who seems to believe that people who belong to Designated Victim Groups (feminists, for instance) should receive special favours in debates – a certain immunity from criticism - regardless of their illogic or unreliability. Conversely, people who are “privileged” and belong to Designated Oppressor Groups (me, for instance) should just Shut The Hell Up. Apparently, arguments should be judged not by their own merits or lack thereof, but by the pigment, genitalia and group affiliation of the person making them.

http://davidthompson.typepad.com/davidthompson/2010/05/the-flow-of-ideas.html?cid=6a00d83451675669e20134805c2b4f970c#comment-6a00d83451675669e20134805c2b4f970c

This is the “logic” of sensitivity, so conceived.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blogroll