Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community
Category

Free Speech

You “Fascist”! (Really? What is a true “fascist”?)

One of the ugliest agit prop, street theatre tactics now being commonly used is the accusation: fascist, in effect, outlaw beyond the pale of civil protection. It is therefore appropriate to pause and seek clarification on what fascism really is about. But first, let us draw attention to a disturbing historical parallel to what we saw on the streets of Berkeley only a few days past; headlining a comment in the still live agit-prop thread: >>Let’s compare UCB, two Wednesdays ago and another Wednesday in 1921 in Bavaria http://ww2timelines.com/leader…..2power.htm >> Wednesday, September 14, 1921 Hitler, a substantial number of members of the Turn-und Sportabteilung, the paramilitary arm of the Nazi Party [ = SA], and other Nazi party adherents disrupted Read More ›

The post-Brexit & post-Trump (etc.) “populism” canard

It seems the impact of Brexit followed by Trump [= “Amer-exit” ?] is stirring up a sharp reaction in global halls of power, leading for instance to resort to a loaded, one-word, barbed dismissal of the presumed ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked masses:   U/D: Let’s add a clip on the wave of upcoming elections in Europe: Thus, we see in the just linked and clipped Bloomberg report: >>The rise of populism in developed nations is tearing at the political fabric of Europe, unsettling markets and undermining growth prospects, top European bankers said in Frankfurt on Friday. “The uncertainty in the market, especially the political and economic instability, has never been as pronounced as it is today,’’ Commerzbank AG Martin Read More ›

Wikileaks hits the jackpot: “. . . an unaware and compliant citizenry”

This issue is directly relevant to the ID controversy, but also to much more of what has gone wrong with our civilisation and the utter, stark peril we now face because we ignored warning signs for decades: This has to be decoded a bit, as it is of course in the usual context of our being concerned over sawdust in the other fellow’s eyes while there is a plank in our own.  In an overnight comment, I gave a few clues: >> –> Ask yourself, are ALL the moneybags on one side? (E.g. Koch vs Soros. [And no, I am not endorsing or opposing any parties or individuals, I am pointing out balancing facts given the known tendencies of pundits Read More ›

Society, Rights, and Self-Identification

Does a man have the right to identify himself as a woman and enter their locker rooms and bathrooms, demanding equal rights for their self-identification?  Does a person have the right to identify herself as a native American and, when filling out forms for employment or college, indicate her ethnicity as such, even though she is not?   Should the force of law support such self-identifications which contradict the physical facts and insist that society accommodate any such self-identifications? Where is the line between socially protected self-identification in conflict with physical facts and delusion?  Can physically unrelated people identify themselves as family and represent themselves as such on legal forms?  Can an adult self-identify as a child and thus obligate his Read More ›

Carpathian and ilk vs. the First Amendment to the US Constitution

Carpathian, sadly but predictably, in the face of remonstrance has continued his attempts to support ghettoising, stigmatising and silencing the voice of the Christian in public; making himself a poster-child of a clear and present danger to liberty in our time. For example: >>Religious activities should all be private. Any prospects for religious conversion should be invited to listen to the message from that faith but the message itself should be a private affair. There are parents who may not want their children exposed to certain religions or religious teachings and that barrier to religion should be considered a fundamental right and honored by all faiths.>> Of course, conveniently (by redefining faith into an imagined projected blind fideism) such implicitly Read More ›

FYI-FTR: Part 11, a paper on inducing mass pseudo-consensus

Today, I must postpone my intended next FTR, but I believe we will find very useful,  the Olin Foundation paper as captioned, with abstract: >>Availability Cascades and Risk Regulation Timur Kuran* and Cass R. Sunstein** An  availability  cascade  is  a self-reinforcing process  of  collective  belief formation  by which an expressed perception triggers a chain reaction that gives the perception  increasing plausibility  through its rising availability in public discourse.  The driving mechanism involves a combination of informational and reputational  motives:  Individuals endorse  the perception partly  by  learning from  the apparent  beliefs of  others  and partly  by  distorting their public  re- sponses in the interest of maintaining social acceptance.  Availability entrepre- neurs–activists  who manipulate the content of public  discourse-strive  to trig- ger  Read More ›

Is there evidence that we have free will?

Random Brain Waves Save Free Will? The debate continues with a new publication. But the new study by Han-Gue Jo and colleagues of Freiburg makes a strong case that the “RP” is not really a ‘thing’ at all. They say that, in the two seconds before a button press, you see both negative and positive changes, in roughly equal numbers. There are slightly more negative ones, so on average, there is a small negative “RP”, but only on average. See: Exp Brain Res. 2013 Dec;231(4):495-500. doi: 10.1007/s00221-013-3713-z. Epub 2013 Oct 9. Spontaneous EEG fluctuations determine the readiness potential: is preconscious brain activation a preparation process to move? Jo HG, Hinterberger T, Wittmann M, Borghardt TL, Schmidt S.

FYI-FTR: “But, that’s CENSORSHIP!”

It seems that, in the interests of more responsible and responsive, on-issue commentary here at UD and elsewhere in the context of debates over design theory (cf. concerns here and here), participants in discussions in and around UD need to clarify some matters, especially the difference between fair comment dissent and defamation and that between acting to stop disruptive and enabling behaviour and censorship. All this, in the context of free and democratic societies that duly balance rights, freedoms and responsibilities — the difference between liberty and licence. First, defamation is not fair-comment free speech. Madeleine Flanagan of M and M blog in New Zealand writes, helpfully (and as already cited in correction but it seems ignored): >> . . Read More ›

FYI-FTR, 5: A BA 77 update — Dr Jerry Bergman lectures on the longstanding career and reputation slaughter of Darwin doubters

BA 77 has found another vid on the Slaughter of the Dissidents that reminds us of what the sort of evo mat promotion stunts we see going on in and around UD can all too often end up as: [youtube T_nh0zDMwJA] A couple of stills can help us understand what Darwinist agit-prop enabling behaviour by spreading false accusations and willful misrepresentations, demanding a ‘right’ to defame as if that is a part of free speech and the like can all too easily end up as; through, creating a toxic and deeply polarised, destructive climate in our civilisation and especially in key institutions: Something to ponder, for those who imagine there is a ‘right’ to directly participate in or enable falsely Read More ›

Journal of Medical Ethics, the ghosts of Francis Schaeffer and C Everett Koop have somewhat to say to you regarding “post-birth abortion” . . .

(In case you imagine this to be purely academic, cf. here) UD News has recently highlighted a  debate on how the academy has reacted to objections to a bioethics paper that advocated “post-birth abortion.” (Cf. a noteworthy objection, here.) Including, “post-birth abortion” of the healthy but undesirable. A telling clip from the JME paper: we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk. Accordingly, a second terminological specification is that we call such a practice ‘after-birth abortion’ rather than ‘euthanasia’ because the best interest of Read More ›

How to Talk to Your Professors About Your Darwin Doubts

There are two regular tragedies in the Intelligent Design movement. The first tragedy is the student who airs his or her doubts about Darwin, and a faculty member then makes it their life mission to block that student from a degree, or, if they get a degree, prevent them from getting any further. This sometimes happens via a bad letter of recommendation or a notice in their file or sometimes even calling other programs to tell them not to include the student. The second tragedy is the student who plays it safe, presuming that some day in the future they will have the position, stature, or whatever to present their doubts about Darwin. Many people counsel this procedure – keep Read More ›