And I’d be just as ready to exclude hard core foreign Christians or Jews or Buddhists who thought homosexuality was immoral and should be punished, but this is the kind of statement imams makewithout any backlash from the sharia believing community:

Well, why aren’t you talking about foreign Christians who immigrate to America with regressive homophobic beliefs? It happens everyday. There are far more homophobic Christians already in America than homophobic Muslims in America. Why aren’t you talking about that problem? That’s a much bigger threat to gay people in America than immigrants. How do you suppose we solve the problem of homophobic American Christians who try to disenfranchise gay people (or worse)? We can’t simply deport them or demand they shut up. They have their First Amendment rights, too. What, do you suppose, is the solution?

I think I didn’t present myself clearly — my critique is of hypocrisy. I haven’t yet made the case that we must have a diversity of ideas, only that someone claiming they are for cultural diversity, but only leftist cultural diversity, is inconsistent.

Who made that claim? This is a straw man. My distinction is between correct ideas like “the Earth is round” and incorrect ideas like “the Earth is flat.”

“Just answer the simple questions: should all ideas be given equal weight and time? Should all ideas be considered by everyone in every circumstance?”

Of course the answer is no to both. Sharia should be condemned by everyone, and driven from the public square, just as black racists, and white racists should be. Anthropogenic global warming hysteria should be required to be backed up by a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement before being considered by the scientific establishment.

Good, so we agree dumb ideas do not deserve consideration in academic circles. If some of those ideas — if most of those ideas — happen to be ideas more commonly held by right-wingers, that’s their problem, not the problem of academia.

Regarding the public square, no. Now you’re treading on the First Amendment. Unfortunately, anyone with any idiotic idea can go into the public square and share it. You and I don’t get to tell someone in a public forum that they cannot talk about their dumb ideas. If you want to try to share your opinions about global warming to people in a public forum, you’re welcome to do it.

Did I seam fearful, hateful, or appealing to an authority? Sincere question — not sure if you’re responding to me, or to something you’re merely attributing to me through some association specific to your imagination.

Yes. Now, you’re specifically asking me to talk about you, so don’t take this as ad hominem. You seem like a hate-monger, and you seem like you’re afraid of Muslims. I’m not afraid of letting Muslims into the United States. You are afraid of that.

“Furthermore, at no point do I engage in ad hominem about this.”

Sure you did. Instead of actually stating why you thought my examples were terrible and inapposite, you stated, “this remains a standard fallacious trope that illogical people keep repeating.” Name calling me “illogical” without actually making an argument of logic (but merely a dogmatic assertion), is in fact, ad hominem.

I didn’t call you illogical. Your deduction that I called you illogical is, itself, demonstrably illogical by basic logic. If members of group A engage in behavior X, that does not imply everyone not in group A does not engage in behavior X. Illogical people use the aforementioned trope. So do trolls. So do people who are simply ignorant to the facts. So do a great many people for a great many reasons. The idea, itself, is illogical.

You even posited a straw man that I was equating “right-wing voices or ideas” and human beings — although I clearly addressed racism (humans) as a separate example from cultural diversity (ideas). It was non sequitur.

For you to be legitimately upset about perceived hypocrisy, my assessment of your position would have to be true. If you really believe that exclusion of people based on race and exclusion of ideas based on lack of merit are two separate things, then there is no hypocrisy when you say it is immoral to exclude based on race yet can be ethically sound to exclude bad ideas from a conversation.

You’ve been going on about how this is hypocrisy since your very first post, ergo my assertion is not a straw man.

The fact is, you’re right about there being people who wrap themselves in the flag of racial equality and cultural diversity, who are as racist and bigoted as any Archie Bunker you can imagine. The problem is, you don’t realize that this applies to people whom you aren’t clearly seeing as racist and bigoted.

It is likely impossible for any single person to comprehend the totality of racism and identify every example of it. Of course I realize it applies to people I don’t clearly see as being racist and bigoted. The same goes for you.

In regards to Mr. Weinstein, the true bigoted racists are the ones attacking him. Even though they claim to be for racial equality and cultural diversity. It’s a perfect example of your claim, but I was right — you weren’t subjecting your own biases to any sort of scrutiny when you wrote that sentence.

You’re welcome to that opinion, but you have not demonstrated that it is correct. My assertion, with which I believe you have finally agreed, is that it is possible for a person to fight for racial equality and cultural diversity and still be racist. Mr. Weinstein could, in fact, be racist. I do not know, and neither do you. The way to resolve this issue still has not happened. I elucidated it in my original post:

I think this article would be better with a discussion of the logic of Professor Weinstein’s position and the logic of the students’ position, in his own words and in their own words…

If you are able to supply this, perhaps because you have interviewed both parties and can deliver both sides’ own words about the issue, in context, then please go ahead. If you’re just as uninformed as I am about the actual facts and don’t have access to that information, then I don’t see you being able to resolve this matter. I never claimed to, either. I simply cast into doubt the legitimacy of the original article’s position, and pointed out how a fighter for racial equality, even if he is completely earnest and forthright in his beliefs and efforts, can still be unwittingly racist.

Just the facts: Writer. Gamer. Feminist. Educated in Astrophysics. Professional Gambler. Student of Language. Satanist. Anarchist.

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store