News:

Welcome to the new (and now only) Fora!

Main Menu

"Racist" professor found dead in home

Started by Wahoo Redux, July 24, 2020, 10:20:09 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Wahoo Redux

Quote from: mahagonny on July 26, 2020, 08:09:59 PM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on July 26, 2020, 07:26:52 PM

Obviously he was mentally ill---and I would think that anyone who follows his chains of thought would reconsider their allegiance to his ideas with this context in mind.


You mean you think they should. But that's not a settled issue. Anyone can opine about which disciplines are essential and which are not, especially in the current environment. A person who you are certain is mentally ill could still be saying something valid.

If you could delete the lives of all mentally ill scholars, inventors and artists from history, would we have less knowledge than we have now? I suspect so.

And we could acknowledge that bias frequently is the product of a diseased mind, even when come from behind the Wizard-of-Oz-style curtain. 
Come, fill the Cup, and in the fire of Spring
Your Winter-garment of Repentance fling:
The Bird of Time has but a little way
To flutter--and the Bird is on the Wing.

ergative

Quote from: mahagonny on July 26, 2020, 08:09:59 PM

If you could delete the lives of all mentally ill scholars, inventors and artists from history, would we have less knowledge than we have now? I suspect so.

This sort of reasoning is often used in discussions about whether we should cut scholars/researchers some slack for behaving in ways that depart from mainstream accepted codes of conduct. To some extent, I'm quite sympathetic to it: mental illness should not be a cause for being ostracized from society. But on the other hand, that would be true even if the mentally ill person had nothing 'of value' to contribute, and just wanted to live their lives.

What about people who do have something of value---more knowledge, more art, scientific discoveries, or whatever? Should they be treated with more leniency when they misstep? (I'll assume for the sake of this argument that it is a straightforward matter to determine an amount of contribution that is sufficiently above average to justify additional leniency.)

As I see it, there are two arguments against extra leniency. The first is that I'm not sure that any one individual's contribution is irreplaceable. Leibniz and Newton both discovered calculus independently. The Europeans and the Chinese both figured out how to use the printing press and gunpowder independently. I suspect that a lot of the same technological advances would have happened sooner or later, even if the person who (in this timeline) first discovered them never existed.

But what if such an advance was not replaceable, was truly tied to one individual person? Would the leniency be justified then? I would argue still no. Geniuses who behave abominably (whether because of mental illness or not) have two effects on society---their positive contributions, but also their adverse effects on other people. By allowing them to exist, we tacitly accept their ability to interfere with the development and contributions of all the people they hurt. Oh, no, this brilliant sexist racist biologist was working on a cancer cure when he was canceled! What a tragedy! Well, what about all those potential students who might have studied and worked in his lab, who instead left the field because of his harrassment? Sure, not all of them were destined to be geniuses, but that's still a lot of talent that he drove away, which means that the talent pool which remained was artificially restricted. If he were 'deleted' from history, what contributions might these people have made? Maybe one of them would have surpassed whatever he did that is treated as justification for leniency.

So, in the balance, I am very skeptical of arguments that say contributions to society are a justification for putting up with bad behavior. Even if it was easy to balance the hurt and pain caused by the behavior against the value of the contributions (and I'm very skeptical of that), you can simply never know that this contribution you're using as justification outweighs the other contributions that the behavior made impossible.

marshwiggle

Quote from: ergative on July 27, 2020, 12:59:36 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on July 26, 2020, 08:09:59 PM

If you could delete the lives of all mentally ill scholars, inventors and artists from history, would we have less knowledge than we have now? I suspect so.

This sort of reasoning is often used in discussions about whether we should cut scholars/researchers some slack for behaving in ways that depart from mainstream accepted codes of conduct. To some extent, I'm quite sympathetic to it: mental illness should not be a cause for being ostracized from society. But on the other hand, that would be true even if the mentally ill person had nothing 'of value' to contribute, and just wanted to live their lives.

What about people who do have something of value---more knowledge, more art, scientific discoveries, or whatever? Should they be treated with more leniency when they misstep?

To me the bigger issue is that what counts as a "misstep" is contantly changing, so something which is considered merely rude one day is considered shocking the next, and vice versa.

Who wants to live their lives thinking that their entire legacy is going to be determined by a single aspect (whatever that might be) of their personality or a single statement or action? Eventually, everyone will be "cancelled" retroactively, if not during their own lifetime.

It takes so little to be above average.

mahagonny

#48
Quote from: marshwiggle on July 27, 2020, 05:36:51 AM
Quote from: ergative on July 27, 2020, 12:59:36 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on July 26, 2020, 08:09:59 PM

If you could delete the lives of all mentally ill scholars, inventors and artists from history, would we have less knowledge than we have now? I suspect so.

This sort of reasoning is often used in discussions about whether we should cut scholars/researchers some slack for behaving in ways that depart from mainstream accepted codes of conduct. To some extent, I'm quite sympathetic to it: mental illness should not be a cause for being ostracized from society. But on the other hand, that would be true even if the mentally ill person had nothing 'of value' to contribute, and just wanted to live their lives.

What about people who do have something of value---more knowledge, more art, scientific discoveries, or whatever? Should they be treated with more leniency when they misstep?

To me the bigger issue is that what counts as a "misstep" is contantly changing, so something which is considered merely rude one day is considered shocking the next, and vice versa.

Who wants to live their lives thinking that their entire legacy is going to be determined by a single aspect (whatever that might be) of their personality or a single statement or action? Eventually, everyone will be "cancelled" retroactively, if not during their own lifetime.

His inflammatory statements and publications go back many years. From what little I've read, he was ultra conservative and pointedly against moving with the times. If you're old enough to remember anita bryant's campaign against gayness, she bombed, but no where near as spectacularly or quickly as she would have today. Things do indeed change dramatically.
If his opinions pointed to chronic  mental illness  we should find evidence of people trying to get him treatment.
^ Interesting (ergative)
on edit: apropos of what Marshwiggle says about rapidly changing culture: who remembers this? What gets you fired, mental illness, provocative views, or just bad timing? Lisa Durden would not have been terminated today. A mere three years ago, but it could even have been three months. https://people.com/human-interest/college-professor-fired-following-fox-news-appearance-lisa-durden/

Puget

Let's not stigmatize mental illness by blaming it for this guy's abhorrent beliefs and behaviors, which were not a recent "missteps" but long-held and deliberate.

"The left" didn't kill this guy-- early retirement with a big payout was hardly going to ruin his life. There's no reason to think he was ashamed, far from it.  There are many contributors to risk fo suicide-- depression, substance use, anger. We don't know what was going on for him. We do know for certain that having a gun in the house is a major risk factor-- access to a gun triples the risk of a suicide death. Middle aged white men who own guns and live alone have some of the highest suicide rates. He had some (unknowable by us) problems, he had a gun, and he lived alone. He was  a sadly common statistic-- I don't think we should be trying to draw any meaning beyond that.
"Never get separated from your lunch. Never get separated from your friends. Never climb up anything you can't climb down."
–Best Colorado Peak Hikes

tuxthepenguin

Quote from: Puget on July 27, 2020, 07:44:48 AM
Let's not stigmatize mental illness by blaming it for this guy's abhorrent beliefs and behaviors, which were not a recent "missteps" but long-held and deliberate.

"The left" didn't kill this guy-- early retirement with a big payout was hardly going to ruin his life. There's no reason to think he was ashamed, far from it.  There are many contributors to risk fo suicide-- depression, substance use, anger. We don't know what was going on for him. We do know for certain that having a gun in the house is a major risk factor-- access to a gun triples the risk of a suicide death. Middle aged white men who own guns and live alone have some of the highest suicide rates. He had some (unknowable by us) problems, he had a gun, and he lived alone. He was  a sadly common statistic-- I don't think we should be trying to draw any meaning beyond that.

Anything along these lines is pure speculation except for those who knew him well - and even then may still be speculation. The most important thing I'd caution is that we do this type of analysis based on the assumption that other people see the world as we do. Some people are just different. I doubt many of us will ever understand how he viewed the world.

mahagonny

#51
Quote from: Puget on July 27, 2020, 07:44:48 AM
Middle aged white men who own guns and live alone have some of the highest suicide rates.

And what's being done about this systemic racism?

Wahoo Redux

Quote from: Puget on July 27, 2020, 07:44:48 AM
Let's not stigmatize mental illness by blaming it for this guy's abhorrent beliefs and behaviors, which were not a recent "missteps" but long-held and deliberate.

Fair enough.  There are plenty of good people who struggle with emotional and psychological problems---I've got several in my family and I have had my own troubles.

But it does seem like this fella was mentally ill to me.  And I think a great deal though not all of acute racism is actually mental illness.
Come, fill the Cup, and in the fire of Spring
Your Winter-garment of Repentance fling:
The Bird of Time has but a little way
To flutter--and the Bird is on the Wing.

mahagonny

#53
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on July 27, 2020, 08:59:28 AM
Quote from: Puget on July 27, 2020, 07:44:48 AM
Let's not stigmatize mental illness by blaming it for this guy's abhorrent beliefs and behaviors, which were not a recent "missteps" but long-held and deliberate.

Fair enough.  There are plenty of good people who struggle with emotional and psychological problems---I've got several in my family and I have had my own troubles.

But it does seem like this fella was mentally ill to me.  And I think a great deal though not all of acute racism is actually mental illness.

Things like disapproving of transsexualism, or the idea that there are many gender types that we need to identify and support, or the belief that academia has too much victimology mindset, I would predict, are going to be easy to find with this guy. Can you link us to a quotation or action of his that establishes that he has it in for black (sorry....Black) people? Haven't seen one yet. And you know this will be pinned on him, possibly only because it's got teeth. These are distinct allegations. It shouldn't be like playing pinball --when you're winning, you get bonuses. Each one is either found to be true, or, sorry, not yet. What I'm looking for is something conclusive. Not that he favors a policy towards immigration that people don't like. Not that he thinks that people who vandalize statues are thugs. Not that ten million liberal  scholars agree he speaks in microagressions. Not that he thinks urban Black men could likely be better off if they changed something about what they're doing. Not that he thinks quota hiring is wrong.  Not that he thinks Robin D'Angelo is an idiot.  I mean something that really shows that he has it in for people because of their skin color. That I would call mental illness. A lot of this stuff is just opinions people hate. Some are found in common religious dogma.

Wahoo Redux

Quote from: mahagonny on July 27, 2020, 09:17:05 AM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on July 27, 2020, 08:59:28 AM
Quote from: Puget on July 27, 2020, 07:44:48 AM
Let's not stigmatize mental illness by blaming it for this guy's abhorrent beliefs and behaviors, which were not a recent "missteps" but long-held and deliberate.

Fair enough.  There are plenty of good people who struggle with emotional and psychological problems---I've got several in my family and I have had my own troubles.

But it does seem like this fella was mentally ill to me.  And I think a great deal though not all of acute racism is actually mental illness.

Things like disapproving of transsexualism, or the idea that there are many gender types that we need to identify and support, I would predict, are going to be easy to find with this guy. Can you link us to a quotation or action of his that establishes that he has it in for black (sorry....Black) people? Haven't seen one yet. And you know this will be pinned on him, possibly only because it's got teeth.
What I'm looking for is something conclusive. Not that he favors a policy towards immigration that you don't like. Not that he thinks that people who vandalize statues are thugs. Not that he speaks in microagressions. Not that he thinks urban Black men could likely be better off if they changed something about what they're doing. I mean something that really shows that he has it in for people because of their skin color.

I presume you've read the same stories I did.  He was an insulting loudmouth who lacked any measured, intelligent commentary and simply seemed to enjoy egregious social media commentary that served no purpose other than to offend people----generally the sign of bias.  In other words, he was a dick.  And he was a dick about things that people feel strongly about.  Again, generally a sign of partly-muzzled bias.

Really, if you want to challenge the legitimacy of COVID policy or a particular field of study, okay.  Dumb, but okay, as long as you are an adult about it.  If you just want to upset the apple cart, it's generally a sign of frustration.  Poor Mr. Adams sounds like he had no other vent for his biases but to put his own head in the media-guillotine which, rightly or wrongly, fell.

What is interesting to me is that anybody cared.  What is the paradoxical position of the "professor" in society that we want to slowly starve the institution and at the same time single out this job title as somehow remarkable enough that a dick-bigot is worthy of a news story?  Would anybody have cared if this were, say, a supermarket manager or janitor or auto-mechanic or what-have-you? 
Come, fill the Cup, and in the fire of Spring
Your Winter-garment of Repentance fling:
The Bird of Time has but a little way
To flutter--and the Bird is on the Wing.

Puget

Quote from: Wahoo Redux on July 27, 2020, 08:59:28 AM
And I think a great deal though not all of acute racism is actually mental illness.

I disagree-- I think that's too easy of an excuse. Were most white southerners (and a lot of northerners) mentally ill for centuries? Were most of the German people mentally ill, causing them to support the Nazis? "Collective madness" is an excuse on par with "just following orders." People believe things and act in ways which are abhorrent to us for reasons that have nothing to do with mental illness-- because they were inculcated with those beliefs by the culture/their family, and because they benefit (economically and/or psychologically).

Certainly, he was probably mentally ill, but I don't think that accounts for his political beliefs, as disturbing as they were to most of us.
"Never get separated from your lunch. Never get separated from your friends. Never climb up anything you can't climb down."
–Best Colorado Peak Hikes

mahagonny

Quote from: Wahoo Redux on July 27, 2020, 09:45:22 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on July 27, 2020, 09:17:05 AM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on July 27, 2020, 08:59:28 AM
Quote from: Puget on July 27, 2020, 07:44:48 AM
Let's not stigmatize mental illness by blaming it for this guy's abhorrent beliefs and behaviors, which were not a recent "missteps" but long-held and deliberate.

Fair enough.  There are plenty of good people who struggle with emotional and psychological problems---I've got several in my family and I have had my own troubles.

But it does seem like this fella was mentally ill to me.  And I think a great deal though not all of acute racism is actually mental illness.

Things like disapproving of transsexualism, or the idea that there are many gender types that we need to identify and support, I would predict, are going to be easy to find with this guy. Can you link us to a quotation or action of his that establishes that he has it in for black (sorry....Black) people? Haven't seen one yet. And you know this will be pinned on him, possibly only because it's got teeth.
What I'm looking for is something conclusive. Not that he favors a policy towards immigration that you don't like. Not that he thinks that people who vandalize statues are thugs. Not that he speaks in microagressions. Not that he thinks urban Black men could likely be better off if they changed something about what they're doing. I mean something that really shows that he has it in for people because of their skin color.

I presume you've read the same stories I did.  He was an insulting loudmouth who lacked any measured, intelligent commentary and simply seemed to enjoy egregious social media commentary that served no purpose other than to offend people----generally the sign of bias.  In other words, he was a dick.  And he was a dick about things that people feel strongly about.  Again, generally a sign of partly-muzzled bias.

Really, if you want to challenge the legitimacy of COVID policy or a particular field of study, okay.  Dumb, but okay, as long as you are an adult about it.  If you just want to upset the apple cart, it's generally a sign of frustration.  Poor Mr. Adams sounds like he had no other vent for his biases but to put his own head in the media-guillotine which, rightly or wrongly, fell.

What is interesting to me is that anybody cared.  What is the paradoxical position of the "professor" in society that we want to slowly starve the institution and at the same time single out this job title as somehow remarkable enough that a dick-bigot is worthy of a news story?  Would anybody have cared if this were, say, a supermarket manager or janitor or auto-mechanic or what-have-you?

OK, but...you still haven't shown one quotation. The way you describe him, it should be as easy as picking dandelions.
And it's so easy to offend people nowadays that, yes, it becomes a game. And there are some who deserve it to be.

and in other words, evidently you agree that you can throw in racism because you think someone's obnoxious company.

Wahoo Redux

#57
Quote from: Puget on July 27, 2020, 09:48:34 AM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on July 27, 2020, 08:59:28 AM
And I think a great deal though not all of acute racism is actually mental illness.

I disagree-- I think that's too easy of an excuse. Were most white southerners (and a lot of northerners) mentally ill for centuries? Were most of the German people mentally ill, causing them to support the Nazis? "Collective madness" is an excuse on par with "just following orders." People believe things and act in ways which are abhorrent to us for reasons that have nothing to do with mental illness-- because they were inculcated with those beliefs by the culture/their family, and because they benefit (economically and/or psychologically).

Certainly, he was probably mentally ill, but I don't think that accounts for his political beliefs, as disturbing as they were to most of us.

Perhaps I mis-posted or maybe didn't qualify enough.  Certainly racism is a matter of culture and upbringing as much as anything else. I was just thinking of James Fields ramming his car into protesters or Jeremy Joseph Christian stabbing people on a train.  The interviews I've seen with Richard Spencer and David Duke, both of whom would meet legal definitions of sanity, also struck me as indicative of mental illness.  Perhaps I am drawing the distinction too broadly and judging from superficial traits, but in all these cases I thought there was something very wrong with their demeanor that spoke to something more than, say, inculcation of racist beliefs from childhood or immersion in a racist culture (which I don't think is the case with Duke and certainly not with Spenser).  There was simply something badly skewed in their thoughts and motivations.   There is a distinct lack of logic and empathy in these sorts of people, grinding hate, and delusion about what they can actually accomplish (the white father-land pipe dream) that just speaks to a dislocation from reality, not to mention that they have endangered their own persons and made themselves public pariahs, which just screams mental dysfunction...or maybe I don't know what I am talking about.

And then there is Trump, who seems to have the "dark triad" in spades but is too narcissistic to get it.  Can we call that a normally functioning mind?

Anyway, I didn't mean to imply any sort of excuse, just an observation.  Hate and criminality always have contexts, after all.

Come, fill the Cup, and in the fire of Spring
Your Winter-garment of Repentance fling:
The Bird of Time has but a little way
To flutter--and the Bird is on the Wing.

mahagonny

#58
QuoteI disagree-- I think that's too easy of an excuse. Were most white southerners (and a lot of northerners) mentally ill for centuries? Were most of the German people mentally ill, causing them to support the Nazis? "Collective madness" is an excuse on par with "just following orders."

More recently, people who watch without saying anything, or join the chorus, when others are groundlessly called racist, are 'just following orders.' And I can name a person who was on the receiving end of this cowardly behavior. Mitt Romney.

marshwiggle

Quote from: Wahoo Redux on July 27, 2020, 10:05:22 AM

Perhaps I mis-posted or maybe didn't qualify enough.  Certainly racism is a matter of culture and upbringing as much as anything else. I was just thinking of James Fields ramming his car into protesters or Jeremy Joseph Christian stabbing people on a train.  The interviews I've seen with Richard Spencer and David Duke, both of whom would meet legal definitions of sanity, also struck me as indicative of mental illness.  Perhaps I am drawing the distinction too broadly and judging from superficial traits, but in all these cases I thought there was something very wrong with their demeanor that spoke to something more than, say, inculcation of racist beliefs from childhood or immersion in a racist culture (which I don't think is the case with Duke and certainly not with Spenser).  There was simply something badly skewed in their thoughts and motivations.   There is a distinct lack of logic and empathy in these sorts of people, grinding hate, and delusion about what they can actually accomplish (the white father-land pipe dream) that just speaks to a dislocation from reality, not to mention that they have endangered their own persons and made themselves public pariahs, which just screams mental dysfunction...or maybe I don't know what I am talking about.

How about the BLM leader saying that whites are sub-human? Does that count as mental illness as well?
It takes so little to be above average.