Liberals All Over the World Hate Free Speech

[RandBlade]

It's not directly, but that doesn't mean its neutral in its impact there. People still label, themselves and others. The point is that white people rarely think of people, themselves or others, with a "white" label. But by and large they do think of non-white people with a label. But even the most individualist and non-labely black person is not going to be able to go through life without being affected (negatively) by other peoples' use of the "black" label.

Racists using labels does not mean non racists need to become racist and labelled to make up for it too.

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character."

Martin Luther King, Jr.

But that's comparing apples and oranges. You find racism in the ceteris paribus comparisons. How does the wealthy black westerner compare to the wealthy white westerner? How does the impoverished black guy in a Paris banlieue compare to the impoverished white guy there?

More information required.

[LittleFuzzy]

Racists using labels does not mean non racists need to become racist and labelled to make up for it too.

It also doesn't mean the outcome of actions the non-racist was involved in are themselves transformed into non-racist endeavors. For example, any "colorblind" standard which only comes into play after an exclusionary pass where race IS a factor (so, for example, just about anything in which current economic class/performance is a factor, like getting loans) is itself perpetuating the racism because the SAMPLE drawn from was itself racially biased. This is, for example, why there are so few latinos in Congress and why there hadn't been a single person of hispanic origin on the Supreme Court until Sotomayor.

[Lewkowski]

It also doesn't mean the outcome of actions the non-racist was involved in are themselves transformed into non-racist endeavors. For example, any "colorblind" standard which only comes into play after an exclusionary pass where race IS a factor (so, for example, just about anything in which current economic class/performance is a factor, like getting loans)

You know most people don't even get loans in person anymore right?

[GGT]

Citation needed.

Wage (in)equity for starters. There was a reason for the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. Hard to believe women still get stiffed that way, and over the course of a lifetime it adds up to a lot of lost income. Then there's the harder to prove 'soft discrimination' where companies hesitate (or are reluctant) to hire women of child-bearing age -- because they might take time off for pregnancy/maternity or family leave that raises the costs of their group health insurance or employee benefits plans.

And that's just in the business world. In collegiate sports it's even more insidious but just as real. Remember the recent news about Harvard's men soccer teams "rating" the womens' teams based on their bodies, giving them nicknames based on sex acts, and calling it their "Scouting Report"?

You know most people don't even get loans in person anymore right?

That's besides the point. Surely you know that loan originators/underwriters routinely charge higher interest rates (and insurance companies charge higher premiums) in communities with higher minority populations. They like to call this "red-lining" just another form of risk analysis, but it's really just sight-unseen group discrimination.

You might think corporations are people, and therefore any/all business decisions are an extension of their free speech, but I disagree. Especially when those decisions are based on racial/ethnic/gender biases (ie Discrimination). For the same reason, I opposed the Stop-and-Frisk, and "driving while black" Police policies that used *racial* profiling. But if that's your idea of Freeeedom, please explain.

[Lewkowski]

That's besides the point. Surely you know that loan originators/underwriters routinely charge higher interest rates (and insurance companies charge higher premiums) in communities with higher minority populations. They like to call this "red-lining" just another form of risk analysis, but it's really just sight-unseen group discrimination.

You might think corporations are people, and therefore any/all business decisions are an extension of their free speech, but I disagree. Especially when those decisions are based on racial/ethnic/gender biases (ie Discrimination). For the same reason, I opposed the Stop-and-Frisk, and "driving while black" Police policies that used *racial* profiling. But if that's your idea of Freeeedom, please explain.

Insurance premiums are higher in certain communities not because of red lining but because property damage and theft are higher in those communities. The odds of a claim being filed go up.

Corporations are groups of people working together. Why should you lose rights simply because you work together with someone? Such an asinine position.

Racial profiling makes sense in some cases - though I agree in others it is problematic and potentially awful.

[GGT]

Insurance premiums are higher in certain communities not because of red lining but because property damage and theft are higher in those communities. The odds of a claim being filed go up.

Then you admit that discrimination is institutional. It's practically impossible for someone living in a red-lined district to get a "fair" rate.

Corporations are groups of people working together. Why should you lose rights simply because you work together with someone? Such an asinine position.

Yet you demonized unions for doing the same damn thing.

Racial profiling makes sense in some cases - though I agree in others it is problematic and potentially awful.

What do you mean by that? What cases would justify racial or ethnic profiling? Are you referring to Trump's promise to deny Muslims' entry into our country, or spending less on refugees, or what?

[RandBlade]

Then you admit that discrimination is institutional. It's practically impossible for someone living in a red-lined district to get a "fair" rate.

You have an odd definition of the word fair. If an area has a significantly higher risk of claims getting made then it is entirely fair for premiums to be significantly higher to pay for that risk. That's "fair".

[GGT]

Insurance premiums are higher in certain communities not because of red lining but because property damage and theft are higher in those communities. The odds of a claim being filed go up.

You have an odd definition of the word fair. If an area has a significantly higher risk of claims getting made then it is entirely fair for premiums to be significantly higher to pay for that risk. That's "fair".

I meant homeowner's insurance that's required by mortgage companies. The neighborhoods with higher rates of property damage and theft are usually low-income rentals, but the cost still gets passed down by the property owner in the tenant's rent. And there different claims standards/requirements for owner-occupied vs rental houses, and another for apartment renter's insurance.

The kind of property damage and theft that makes the "odds" of filing a claim higher in "certain communities" are more common for autos, not residences. Then the deductible is probably a better predictor if a claim will be filed. It's usually cheaper to pay cash OOP for repairing/replacing things like a smashed window (to steal contents), or even replacing stolen computerized side mirrors (that then get sold to auto shops doing *insured* repairs ) than filing a claim, paying the high deductible (that makes the premiums affordable in the first place), and then paying higher premiums.

That's why legal minimum car insurance is popular with low-income drivers -- it's the only way they can afford to have a car, and drive to work, or school, or the grocery store, or wherever -- and not have to rely on long, inefficient bus routes. News flash: most people in the US don't have access to trains or subways, and the NEED to have a car should be squarely placed on elected officials and insurance industry lobbyists. /rant

[Lewkowski]

I meant homeowner's insurance that's required by mortgage companies. The neighborhoods with higher rates of property damage and theft are usually low-income rentals, but the cost still gets passed down by the property owner in the tenant's rent. And there different claims standards/requirements for owner-occupied vs rental houses, and another for apartment renter's insurance.

The kind of property damage and theft that makes the "odds" of filing a claim higher in "certain communities" are more common for autos, not residences. Then the deductible is probably a better predictor if a claim will be filed. It's usually cheaper to pay cash OOP for repairing/replacing things like a smashed window (to steal contents), or even replacing stolen computerized side mirrors (that then get sold to auto shops doing *insured* repairs ) than filing a claim, paying the high deductible (that makes the premiums affordable in the first place), and then paying higher premiums.

That's why legal minimum car insurance is popular with low-income drivers -- it's the only way they can afford to have a car, and drive to work, or school, or the grocery store, or wherever -- and not have to rely on long, inefficient bus routes. News flash: most people in the US don't have access to trains or subways, and the NEED to have a car should be squarely placed on elected officials and insurance industry lobbyists. /rant

I don't understand your point. If claims are more likely to occur in a certain area should the premiums be higher or not?

[GGT]

I don't understand your point. If claims are more likely to occur in a certain area should the premiums be higher or not?

You tell me. What's the point of insurance if it's unaffordable for the highest risk groups that need it the most?

[Steely Glint]

Twitter Link

if only there were some way we could have seen this coming!

[Loki]

Lewk, thoughts? Should taxpayer money (i.e. money spent by public colleges) be used to promote pedophilia?

[Lewkowski]

You tell me. What's the point of insurance if it's unaffordable for the highest risk groups that need it the most?

Are you serious?

[Lewkowski]

Lewk, thoughts? Should taxpayer money (i.e. money spent by public colleges) be used to promote pedophilia?

Oh please. The thing about people who say controversial things... is they say controversial things. Me defending Milo being able to speak at a campus event against the PC crowd should not be confused with blanket support for everything he says.

I find your comment rich because to my knowledge Milo hasn't actively supported the lowering of the age of consent (thought the video clip seems to imply he is open to it) which has been a leftist position far more so than a conservative position.

[Aimless]

Lucky for Milo he isn't a one-man university or Lewk would be calling for a firing squad or something. But come on guys this is just comedy, it's not like he's trying to out transgender students or undocumented immigrants or anything.

[Lewkowski]

Lucky for Milo he isn't a one-man university or Lewk would be calling for a firing squad or something. But come on guys this is just comedy, it's not like he's trying to out transgender students or undocumented immigrants or anything.

I don't have a problem with outting illegal aliens. I'm a little suspicious about the claims of 'transgender students' being outted. Is that even a thing on college campuses? I thought they were hotbeds of liberal 'hey look at me I'm a non-gender binary and/or attack helicopter' look at me I'm different. I do think guys who switch to girls and vice versa have an obligation to let dating partners know of what their original gender was but it certainly shouldn't be anyone else's business. Most people really don't want to know the weird stuff you do to your bodies, seriously.

But AGAIN - support of having someone speak out a college campus doesn't imply full agreement with all of their potential actions.

[Aimless]

Whatever bro, keep digging

[Ominous Gamer]

Some guys did a study on the lewks of the nation

Research shows prejudice, not principle, often underpins 'free-speech defense' of racist language

[Loki]

That's a misleading title. Being racist increases the likelihood of using the free speech defense (which surprises no one who's ever been online). The correlation is .43 though. High enough to show some relationship, not nearly high enough to make the claim from the article's title.

[Lewkowski]

Some guys did a study on the lewks of the nation

Research shows prejudice, not principle, often underpins 'free-speech defense' of racist language

And the continual 'if you disagree with me it must mean you are a racist' presses on, full speed ahead!

[Loki]

And as usual, you ignore findings that go against your pre-existing world views. The actual interpretation is: people who use a free speech defense for racist language are more likely to be racist themselves than people who do not use such a defense.

[Lewkowski]

And as usual, you ignore findings that go against your pre-existing world views. The actual interpretation is: people who cuse a free speech defense for racist language are more likely to be racist themselves than people who do not use such a defense.

The findings actually have nothing to do with my post.

[Loki]

Yes, your point is to ignore the findings and make a generic partisan attack.

[Lewkowski]

Yes, your point is to ignore the findings and make a generic partisan attack.

Sure. And will generally continue to mock people who keep playing the 'l0l all conservatives are racists!!' card.

[Loki]

I.e. you'll continue to ignore evidence that goes against your worldview in favor of trying to "make liberals cry".

[Ominous Gamer]

Sure. And will generally continue to mock people who keep playing the 'l0l all conservatives are racists!!' card.

I understand this is a hard time for you. What with actual researchers throwing together experiments that verify what almost every poster here has accused you of at least once. So how about walking us through the pain. What exact quotes triggered you?

Two researchers at the University of Kansas have conducted a study suggesting that “explicit racial prejudice is a reliable predictor of the ‘free speech defense’ of racist expression.”

we tend to make up our mind on something based on our attitudes — in this case, racial attitudes — and then decide that the principle is relevant or irrelevant. People do whatever best fits their pre-existing attitudes.”

The correlation between using the free speech defense and people’s own racial prejudice is pretty high. It’s racists defending racists.”

new study reveals a positive correlation (Pearson r = .43) between having racial prejudice and defending racist speech using the “free speech argument” — a stronger correlation than the researchers expected.

One finding suggests many who defend racist speech using the “free speech argument” might not extend the same principle of free speech to negative comments aimed at authority figures or the public in general.

“They weren’t defending their own attitudes, as much as ‘defending to the death their right to say it,’” Crandall said. “Just so long as the ‘it’ is the prejudiced speech they share.”

researchers conclude the value of free speech appears “for the prejudiced person when it suits their needs but is absent when it does not. Freedom of speech defenses are unprincipled

[Aimless]

One finding suggests many who defend racist speech using the “free speech argument” might not extend the same principle of free speech to negative comments aimed at authority figures or the public in general.

[...]

researchers conclude the value of free speech appears “for the prejudiced person when it suits their needs but is absent when it does not. Freedom of speech defenses are unprincipled.

Haven't yet read the paper in question but the above is probably the only potentially useful and interesting observation, if it's really borne out by the evidence (anecdotal evidence suggests that it is).

[RandBlade]

Some guys did a study on the lewks of the nation

Research shows prejudice, not principle, often underpins 'free-speech defense' of racist language

To address Loki's claim of the title not matching the evidence, the title includes the weasel-word "often".

Free speech is a good thing, racism is a bad thing. That racists claim to defend free speech does not make free speech defence a bad thing. Especially when those racists typically only defend free speech when it applies to their rancid views and not somebody else's.

The key test of whether you believe in free speech or not is not do you claim to do so when it suits you, but when defending free speech means defending the speech of those you vehemently oppose.

[Flixy]

"Often" is not so much a weasel word but because scientists are generally careful with their wording. Compare to "likely" and "probable" - it's, I think, scientific wording that is often missed by journalists and laymen. Edit: loki ous probably right though that often isn't really used, too vague probably.

Of course whether social sciences can be considered science is another thing

Agreed with your last part, but see Aimless' post above.

[Loki]

"Often" is not so much a weasel word but because scientists are generally careful with their wording. Compare to "likely" and "probable" - it's, I think, scientific wording that is often missed by journalists and laymen.

Of course whether social sciences can be considered science is another thing

Agreed with your last part, but see Aimless' post above.

The academic article doesn't say "often"; the news article summarizing it does. Often is not a word you use in quant. analysis because it has no actual meaning. I'd go with "more likely", "increases the odds", "tends to", "increases the likelihood".

Edit: just looked through the last manuscript I wrote. The word "often" was used twice, neither referring to empirics.