Many thanks for quoting me and addressing my comment:) Pity you have not elaborated more on the “Mul___o” issue.
One of my comments was:
"Any intelligent person trying to understand others’ perspectives could (have) guess(ed) that mentioning a mule, the hybrid offspring of a horse and a donkey, can be understood as offensive in a sensitive “debate” about racial inequalities. A mule is not an imperfection because one of the parents was a horse, but because the other parent was of “lower” race. "
Even if you say "My paper did not mention either this term or biracial people," it is so easy to make a connection between “There was the time he sold him a horse, but delivered a mule” and a mule being an imperfection because one of the parents was of "lower" race.
As I wrote previously, it was wrong to directly accuse of racism; however, in my view, this was an inappropriate analogy. It's pity no one picked it up before your review/commentary was sent to Roberts.
You also wrote "However, the origin of the term is actually not clear, with mule being only one of several possibilities. The term "mul___o" also possibly has Arabic, Portuguese, or Spanish origins unrelated to mules. It is also deemed offensive in some cultures but not in others."
However, as I understand your native language is English? The same page on Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulatto) includes also this: "Mulatto is a racial classification to refer to people of mixed African and European ancestry. Its use is considered outdated and offensive in several languages, including ENGLISH and Dutch,..."
English... ;-) So please don't write this "It is also deemed offensive in some cultures but not in others." as you use a language in which this term "is considered outdated and offensive."
"It's pity no one picked it up before your review/commentary was sent to Roberts."
Cardinal Richelieu is said to have remarked "give me but six lines written in the hand of the most upright of men, and I will find something therein with which to hang him." The same principle applies here. It is pointless to try to anticipate beforehand which terms or idioms could provoke 'offense,' because Roberts would have 'found something' to 'hang' Lee Jussim, no matter what he had written.
What we have is a full-on inquisition based on an insane, malevolent ideology, that brooks no dissent, disregards all conflicting evidence, and offers neither redemption nor mercy. The 1400 clapping seals who endorsed Roberts would have been well aware of this. They probably did not truly believe Roberts' accusation, but they acquiesced anyway through fear and the desire to virtue-signal, and lost yet another little slice of their integrity in doing so, took yet another little step towards the merging of reality and ideological hyper-reality, whose end result is insanity.
It seems from your comment that you may not be entirely immune to this. For your own sake, for all our sakes, we must just say 'No' to this madness.
"It is pointless to try to anticipate beforehand which terms or idioms could provoke 'offense,' because Roberts would have 'found something' to 'hang' Lee Jussim, no matter what he had written."
I think it is pointless to reply anything to this except to paraphrase you: for your own sake, for all our sakes, please do not comment anymore.
What is your argument here? Do you honestly believe that you can 'sanitize' a piece of writing enough to avoid its being used as ammunition by an individual ideologically committed to weaponized offense taking? Even if this were possible, why should we have to mutilate our own thought processes and writings to appease those who act in such malicious bad faith?
You did it again: "...who act in such malicious bad faith?"
Anyway, my argument has been the same from the start:
if you get an opportunity to be in involved in a "debate" about sensitive racial issues will you think twice before using an animal analogy? Racial inequalities and animals? Racial inequalities and an imperfect animal? You criticize a black researcher who writes about racial inequalities and you offer an animal analogy? Seriously?
You either do it deliberately (to insult or provoke), or you have no idea about racism and racial stereotypes (which means you are not qualified to be a peer-reviewer or write a commentary on a sensitive racial issue), or you are not interested in providing a balanced review, you want so hard to show Roberts is wrong and then you don't reflect at all on what you just wrote (this biased position should disqualify you from being a peer-reviewer; note that commentary is different from having power in a peer-review process!), or you are so embedded in your own culture, you use an animal analogy from your cultural heritage without thinking how such analogy would be interpreted by someone with a different cultural background who you so heavily criticize (this lack of interest in others' views or lack of self-reflection is problematic when you have power in a peer-review process) or "my animal analogy in this context was absolutely benign."
So, an animal analogy in a sensitive racial "debate" is inappropriate in my view. I don't know what made Jussim to use an animal analogy. I really don't. Had there been a more diverse group of people involved in the peer-review and handling of these papers/commentaries, all this could have been prevented.
Thank you for explaining, but I still must strongly disagree. It is entirely unhinged to equate a popular Yiddish idiom which just happens to feature animals, as many common figures of speech do, with racism.
There is nothing valid or moral about Roberts' reaction, and he should not be pandered to by changing one's natural way of speaking or writing.
Critical Race Theory is just Nazism with the names switched around, and no concession should be made to it. National Socialism was also a creed of victimhood, a conspiracy theory accusing the Jews of systematically controlling the world just for their own benefit in the same manner as CRT accuses the whites of doing. Hitler won when his critics fell silent. The malicious lunatics pushing Critical Race Theory should also be mocked into oblivion.
Yes, we disagree. One additional comment about this what you wrote:
"National Socialism was also a creed of victimhood, a conspiracy theory accusing the Jews of systematically controlling the world just for their own benefit in the same manner as CRT accuses the whites of doing."
I find this extremely problematic. I agree that accusing "the Jews of systematically controlling the world just for their own benefit" indeed constitutes a conspiracy theory; however, the oppression of black people in the US (slavery, racial segregation, "De jure segregation was outlawed by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the Fair Housing Act of 1968.") was a f*** real thing.
So, while there is zero credible evidence that "the Jews want to control the world for their own benefit", the history undoubtedly shows that the whites oppressed blacks in the US and that racism still might be embedded in legal systems and policies. Your analogy is so bad, so wrong... I am pretty sure Jussim will not be happy to see how you "defend" him and his position.
Feb 12, 2023·edited Feb 16, 2023Liked by Lee Jussim
I think it is the mule who has really been harmed. After all, people say things like "you're as stubborn as a mule!" or "don't be a jackass!", implying that the person they are speaking to is being difficult or stupid by comparing him or her to a mule. Whereas a mule isn't stubborn or stupid, it is just a mule. How insulting to the mule!
But in all seriousness, what is really alarming is not that this Roberts person is engaging in extreme and fake virtue signaling, it is that 1400 people are mindlessly supporting it.
I am reminded of the feminist "rule of thumb" hoax. Feminists claim that it refers to some ancient rule that a husband was allowed to whip his wife as long as the instrument was not thicker than a man's thumb. No such rule has ever been found. Rather, the end joint of the thumb is approximately an inch, and one could get a rough measurement using thumbs.
But, victims need things to be outraged about. It's crucial to their victim identities.
This is depressing. If you need to explain yourself, you already lost the argument. I am not saying you could have written a better paper. It is just you are preaching to savages who are boiling the water and sharpening the knives. Maybe we should just put our faith into the governor of Florida who will reform and civilize them.
Oh, yes, I lost in academia, bigtime, as I fully pointed out in the essay. But there are *some* academics who have not lost their minds, and, much of my intended audience now is outside academia. And there, we are winning bigtime, also as documented here but especially in this earlier essay:
I’m old over 60 and white (yes it’s sad I have to include that descriptor) how is that related to this? Well growing up in the olden times of yore (ha ha) we used a common phrase all the time. Whenever someone was being stubborn or hard headed or close minded we would say they are “mule headed” or “stubborn as a Missouri mule” it was a common turn of phrase. These cultural marxists don’t really care about racism in fact they don’t care about any of this, all they care about is power and control.
Many thanks for quoting me and addressing my comment:) Pity you have not elaborated more on the “Mul___o” issue.
One of my comments was:
"Any intelligent person trying to understand others’ perspectives could (have) guess(ed) that mentioning a mule, the hybrid offspring of a horse and a donkey, can be understood as offensive in a sensitive “debate” about racial inequalities. A mule is not an imperfection because one of the parents was a horse, but because the other parent was of “lower” race. "
Even if you say "My paper did not mention either this term or biracial people," it is so easy to make a connection between “There was the time he sold him a horse, but delivered a mule” and a mule being an imperfection because one of the parents was of "lower" race.
As I wrote previously, it was wrong to directly accuse of racism; however, in my view, this was an inappropriate analogy. It's pity no one picked it up before your review/commentary was sent to Roberts.
You also wrote "However, the origin of the term is actually not clear, with mule being only one of several possibilities. The term "mul___o" also possibly has Arabic, Portuguese, or Spanish origins unrelated to mules. It is also deemed offensive in some cultures but not in others."
However, as I understand your native language is English? The same page on Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulatto) includes also this: "Mulatto is a racial classification to refer to people of mixed African and European ancestry. Its use is considered outdated and offensive in several languages, including ENGLISH and Dutch,..."
English... ;-) So please don't write this "It is also deemed offensive in some cultures but not in others." as you use a language in which this term "is considered outdated and offensive."
Igor
"It's pity no one picked it up before your review/commentary was sent to Roberts."
Cardinal Richelieu is said to have remarked "give me but six lines written in the hand of the most upright of men, and I will find something therein with which to hang him." The same principle applies here. It is pointless to try to anticipate beforehand which terms or idioms could provoke 'offense,' because Roberts would have 'found something' to 'hang' Lee Jussim, no matter what he had written.
What we have is a full-on inquisition based on an insane, malevolent ideology, that brooks no dissent, disregards all conflicting evidence, and offers neither redemption nor mercy. The 1400 clapping seals who endorsed Roberts would have been well aware of this. They probably did not truly believe Roberts' accusation, but they acquiesced anyway through fear and the desire to virtue-signal, and lost yet another little slice of their integrity in doing so, took yet another little step towards the merging of reality and ideological hyper-reality, whose end result is insanity.
It seems from your comment that you may not be entirely immune to this. For your own sake, for all our sakes, we must just say 'No' to this madness.
"It is pointless to try to anticipate beforehand which terms or idioms could provoke 'offense,' because Roberts would have 'found something' to 'hang' Lee Jussim, no matter what he had written."
I think it is pointless to reply anything to this except to paraphrase you: for your own sake, for all our sakes, please do not comment anymore.
What is your argument here? Do you honestly believe that you can 'sanitize' a piece of writing enough to avoid its being used as ammunition by an individual ideologically committed to weaponized offense taking? Even if this were possible, why should we have to mutilate our own thought processes and writings to appease those who act in such malicious bad faith?
You did it again: "...who act in such malicious bad faith?"
Anyway, my argument has been the same from the start:
if you get an opportunity to be in involved in a "debate" about sensitive racial issues will you think twice before using an animal analogy? Racial inequalities and animals? Racial inequalities and an imperfect animal? You criticize a black researcher who writes about racial inequalities and you offer an animal analogy? Seriously?
You either do it deliberately (to insult or provoke), or you have no idea about racism and racial stereotypes (which means you are not qualified to be a peer-reviewer or write a commentary on a sensitive racial issue), or you are not interested in providing a balanced review, you want so hard to show Roberts is wrong and then you don't reflect at all on what you just wrote (this biased position should disqualify you from being a peer-reviewer; note that commentary is different from having power in a peer-review process!), or you are so embedded in your own culture, you use an animal analogy from your cultural heritage without thinking how such analogy would be interpreted by someone with a different cultural background who you so heavily criticize (this lack of interest in others' views or lack of self-reflection is problematic when you have power in a peer-review process) or "my animal analogy in this context was absolutely benign."
So, an animal analogy in a sensitive racial "debate" is inappropriate in my view. I don't know what made Jussim to use an animal analogy. I really don't. Had there been a more diverse group of people involved in the peer-review and handling of these papers/commentaries, all this could have been prevented.
Thank you for explaining, but I still must strongly disagree. It is entirely unhinged to equate a popular Yiddish idiom which just happens to feature animals, as many common figures of speech do, with racism.
There is nothing valid or moral about Roberts' reaction, and he should not be pandered to by changing one's natural way of speaking or writing.
Critical Race Theory is just Nazism with the names switched around, and no concession should be made to it. National Socialism was also a creed of victimhood, a conspiracy theory accusing the Jews of systematically controlling the world just for their own benefit in the same manner as CRT accuses the whites of doing. Hitler won when his critics fell silent. The malicious lunatics pushing Critical Race Theory should also be mocked into oblivion.
Yes, we disagree. One additional comment about this what you wrote:
"National Socialism was also a creed of victimhood, a conspiracy theory accusing the Jews of systematically controlling the world just for their own benefit in the same manner as CRT accuses the whites of doing."
I find this extremely problematic. I agree that accusing "the Jews of systematically controlling the world just for their own benefit" indeed constitutes a conspiracy theory; however, the oppression of black people in the US (slavery, racial segregation, "De jure segregation was outlawed by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the Fair Housing Act of 1968.") was a f*** real thing.
So, while there is zero credible evidence that "the Jews want to control the world for their own benefit", the history undoubtedly shows that the whites oppressed blacks in the US and that racism still might be embedded in legal systems and policies. Your analogy is so bad, so wrong... I am pretty sure Jussim will not be happy to see how you "defend" him and his position.
I think it is the mule who has really been harmed. After all, people say things like "you're as stubborn as a mule!" or "don't be a jackass!", implying that the person they are speaking to is being difficult or stupid by comparing him or her to a mule. Whereas a mule isn't stubborn or stupid, it is just a mule. How insulting to the mule!
But in all seriousness, what is really alarming is not that this Roberts person is engaging in extreme and fake virtue signaling, it is that 1400 people are mindlessly supporting it.
I am reminded of the feminist "rule of thumb" hoax. Feminists claim that it refers to some ancient rule that a husband was allowed to whip his wife as long as the instrument was not thicker than a man's thumb. No such rule has ever been found. Rather, the end joint of the thumb is approximately an inch, and one could get a rough measurement using thumbs.
But, victims need things to be outraged about. It's crucial to their victim identities.
As informative as this is, you might have better responded to the fellow at first with "Now mules are racist? You're a jackass."
This is depressing. If you need to explain yourself, you already lost the argument. I am not saying you could have written a better paper. It is just you are preaching to savages who are boiling the water and sharpening the knives. Maybe we should just put our faith into the governor of Florida who will reform and civilize them.
Oh, yes, I lost in academia, bigtime, as I fully pointed out in the essay. But there are *some* academics who have not lost their minds, and, much of my intended audience now is outside academia. And there, we are winning bigtime, also as documented here but especially in this earlier essay:
https://unsafescience.substack.com/p/pops-fiasco-orientation-page (see the section People Hate this Shit: The View from Outside Academia)
I’m old over 60 and white (yes it’s sad I have to include that descriptor) how is that related to this? Well growing up in the olden times of yore (ha ha) we used a common phrase all the time. Whenever someone was being stubborn or hard headed or close minded we would say they are “mule headed” or “stubborn as a Missouri mule” it was a common turn of phrase. These cultural marxists don’t really care about racism in fact they don’t care about any of this, all they care about is power and control.
This whole business is absolutely stark raving bonkers.