On the subject of James Lindsay and Peter Boghassian. A friend on a philosophy board posted this. To note I haven't followed Lindsay or Bohassian so I can't say how much I agree with the critique of them here but from followed some of the other names listed here I agree there is a problem with sexism and bigotry among many of the new atheists intellectuals. https://www.salon.com/2021/06/05/ho...y-of-intellectual-grift-and-abject-surrender/ Godless grifters: How the New Atheists merged with the far right What once seemed like a bracing intellectual movement has degenerated into a pack of abusive, small-minded bigots It was inspiring — really inspiring. I remember watching clip after clip of Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens debating Christians, Muslims and "purveyors of woo," exposing the fatuity of their faith-based beliefs in superstitious nonsense unsupported by empirical evidence, often delivered to self-proclaimed prophets by supernatural beings via the epistemically suspicious channel of private revelation. Not that Harris, Dawkins and Hitchens were saying anything particularly novel — the inconsistencies and contradictions of religious dogma are apparent even to small children. Why did God have to sacrifice his son for our sins? Does Satan have free will? And how can the Father, Son and Holy Spirit be completely separate entities but also one and the same? The "New Atheist" movement, which emerged from the bestselling books of the aforementioned authors, was the intellectual community that many of us 15 or so years ago were desperately looking for — especially after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, which seemed to confirm Samuel P. Huntington's infamous "clash of civilizations" thesis. As Harris once put it, with many of us naively agreeing, "We are at war with Islam." (Note: This was a dangerous and xenophobic lie that helped get Donald Trump elected. As Harris said in 2006, anticipating how his brand of Islamophobia would enable Trump's rise, "the people who speak most sensibly about the threat that Islam poses to Europe are actually fascists.") New Atheism appeared to offer moral clarity, it emphasized intellectual honesty and it embraced scientific truths about the nature and workings of reality. It gave me immense hope to know that in a world overflowing with irrationality, there were clear-thinking individuals with sizable public platforms willing to stand up for what's right and true — to stand up for sanity in the face of stupidity. Fast-forward to the present: What a grift that was! Many of the most prominent New Atheists turned out to be nothing more than self-aggrandizing, dogmatic, irascible, censorious, morally compromised people who, at every opportunity, have propped up the powerful over the powerless, the privileged over the marginalized. This may sound hyperbolic, but it's not when, well, you look at the evidence. So I thought it might be illuminating to take a look at where some of the heavy hitters in the atheist and "skeptic" communities are today. What do their legacies look like? In what direction have they taken their cultural quest to secularize the world? Let's see if you can spot a pattern: (for post size limitation am just posting the sections about Lindsay and Boghassian but there isn't a paywall so can read the rest.) James Lindsay: Once a promising young atheist, Lindsay published "Everybody Is Wrong About God" in 2015 and, three years later, "How to Have Impossible Conversations," co-authored with Peter Boghossian (below). Referring to himself as "apolitical" but boasting a profile page on the right-wing, anti-free-speech organization Turning Point USA, he is now one of the most unhinged crusaders against "critical race theory" (CRT), an idea about which he seems to have very little actual knowledge. (This is unsurprising, given that Lindsay has literally argued that he doesn't need to understand "gender studies" to call for the entire field to be canceled. See #10 here.) Over the past few years, he has teamed up with Christian nationalist and COVID conspiracist Michael O'Fallon, and now rakes in plenty of cash via Patreon — proof that grifting about "free speech" and "CRT" pays. Known for his social media presence, Lindsay has called women he disagrees with "b****es," while — seriously — hurling "your mom" insults at intellectual opponents who point out his mendacities. He recently argued that antisemitism is caused by woke Jews (i.e., they're doing it to themselves), spread COVID conspiracy theories, and claimed in 2020 that people should vote for Donald Trump (as he did) because Joe Biden is a neo-Marxist, or will succumb to the influence of scary neo-Marxists like Black Lives Matter. Last year, Lindsay co-authored the commercially successful book "Cynical Theories," which received a glowing endorsement from Steven Pinker but repeatedly misrepresents the ideas of those it hysterically, and incorrectly, claims are tearing down "Western civilization." And let's not get into his wildly delusional conspiracy theories about the "Great Reset," which apparently, as someone Lindsay retweeted put it, "aims to introduce a new global planetary diet"! If you want to understand Lindsay's worldview, I suggest reading Jason Stanley's excellent book "How Fascism Works," which captures the anti-intellectual, anti-academic, anti-social justice spirit of Lindsay's activism perfectly. Cont.
Cont. Peter Boghossian: A "philosopher" at Portland State University and "longtime collaborator of Stefan Molyneux" (a white supremacist demagogue who once declared, "I don't view humanity as a single species …"), Boghossian wrote "A Manual for Creating Atheists" in 2013. A year later, he tweeted: "I've never understood how someone could be proud of being gay. How can one be proud of something one didn't work for?" This was followed by a defense of Nazis (no one outside Hitler's Germany should ever be called a "Nazi"), and a stern rejection of the historically accurate claim that "slavery … was not merely an unfortunate thing that happened to black people. It was an … American institution, created by and for the benefit of the elites." In 2017, Boghossian and Lindsay attempted to "hoax" gender studies by publishing a fake article in a peer-reviewed gender studies journal (note: the journal had nothing to do with gender studies). But it turned out this was based on a demonstrable lie, which they of course never admitted. Their paper ultimately ended up in a pay-to-publish journal. That was followed by an even more elaborate and even more bad-faith "hoax," which resulted in a response from Portland State University professors alleging that "basic spite and a perverse interest in public humiliation seem to have overridden any actual scholarly goals." Indeed, Boghossian and his crew failed to get institutional review board approval for this experiment, resulting in serious accusations of unethical actions. "I believe the results of this office's view of your research behavior," wrote the vice president for "research and graduate studies" at Boghossian's university, "raises concerns regarding a lack of academic integrity, questionable ethical behavior, and employee breach of rules." On May 6 of this year, Boghossian — a vocal critic of "cancel culture" — called for "the defunding of Portland State University," which he incorrectly described as promoting "illiberal ideologies." (See here for more.)
tenured: https://www.pdx.edu/political-science/profile/bruce-gilley does not have tenure: https://www.pdx.edu/philosophy/
https://www.usnews.com/news/educati...a-central-cause-of-the-civil-war-report-shows In fact, only 8 percent of high school seniors can identify slavery as the central cause of the Civil War, according to a report released Thursday by the Southern Poverty Law Center. So I did not know this was a thing and I am not sure I believe it but the it was a reason this person gave for the need of CRT. The Poll was taken in 2018. It seems that a curriculum to teach about the civil war and slavery was done before the 1619 project and was not as opinionated. https://uwpress.wisc.edu/books/5215.htm
I've never not given credit to the tremendous job the GOP does with propaganda. When they want to make "Fetch" a popular word they can make it happen. They've all jumped on CRT , like the Hydroxychloroquine curing the rona. Here is a good twitter thread:
I don't believe that, I would like to see the actual question. I know more than 8% of my students would know that and I teach world history.
A good read and explains CRT. I was wrong to conflate it with the 1619 project. https://www.edweek.org/leadership/what-is-critical-race-theory-and-why-is-it-under-attack/2021/05
It depends on the question and what other answers were provided. For example, if someone said the Confederacy's attack on Fort Sumpter (or Lincoln's decision to resupply the fort) was the cause of the Civil War, would they be wrong? What if they said the secession of the CSA from the Union? Lincoln's insistence on preserving the Union over finding a peaceful resolution? The division over whether or not states had the right to leave the USA at all (something not addressed in the Constitution)? If the question was something like, "Was slavery an important cause of the civil war?" 8% would be a terrible response rate. If the question was, "What caused the civil war?" I could see 8% of people saying slavery and still accept there are plenty of legitimate answers to that question. After all, slavery had existed without a civil war for nearly a hundred years since the founding.
What you listed are all effects of the South's desire to preserve their economic model. So "slavery" is still the overall cause. I'm assuming some style of sampling bias here. No way it's 8%. I would assume approaching a 50/50 split.
Yes, but I don't know if the survey would consider those answers as "not identifying slavery as the central cause of the civil war."
