My own observation is that this reflex is linked to threatening beliefs: If I merely say "you're wrong", then it's possible, from my point of view, that you could be looking at different evidence than I am. In that case, I'd have to consider the possibility your belief could at least be justified, or even possibly better-supported than mine. (Or perhaps even correct!) That simply won't do.

I agree that some of what you describe is linked to threatening beliefs. But I think the issue is that those beliefs are interpreted as issues of morality or value judgements rather than statements of fact which can be supported by evidence.

For example, when Ann Coulter argued against women's sufferage (presumably, this was part of her shtick for garnering attention via controversy) she might be able to make a coherent argument for the benefits of that to society. Should I change my mind regarding women's sufferage based on that argument? I see universal sufferage and individual rights as values in their own right. But it can be daunting to persuade someone else to have a value or first premise if they don't already. How do you use logic to change someone's first premises, aside from showing them that those premises lead to self-contradiction?

There are things that college kids can do to reduce their carbon footprints (your call if they're worth the effort.) Don't leave electronic equipment on standby (One source claimed that electronics in standby in England used ~5% of the nation's electricity, but new technology might soon eliminate that problem) Use sunlight instead of electric light when possible. Many colleges already discourage driving in favor of biking. Students can choose not to leave windows wide open when the heat or AC is on. etc.

And if some student wants to turn these discussions into a push to increase textbook reuse, I'm all for it. I hope they do.

Education and outreach and changing behaviors will always take an investment in time and resources. I can understand that some of those behaviors (taking the article at face value for a moment) might go seriously overboard in a variety of ways or be misdirected. But printing 200 door posters could easily be viewed as a cheap investment if the cause is good.

I'm open to the notion that there are inefficiencies, hypocrisies and all kinds of instances of people in the environmental movement being misled. But the notion that environmentalists are hypocritical simply because they use resources to spread their beliefs is overdoing it. All activities use resources. The question (which really hasn't been addressed) is whether these activities yield some kind of net reduction or net benefit.

Just to be clear, I don't support things like the definition of racism in the article, which suggests that only whites can be racist. I don't think that there are 'systems of racism' to be dismantled. I can understand the invasiveness of asking(forcing?) incoming freshmen to take any kind of oath.

My focus was more on the issues that Tim addressed in his commentary.

Ryan!

Pleasant to talk with you, as always!

There are things that college kids can do to reduce their carbon footprints (your call if they're worth the effort.) Don't leave electronic equipment on standby (One source claimed that electronics in standby in England used ~5% of the nation's electricity, but new technology might soon eliminate that problem) Use sunlight instead of electric light when possible. Many colleges already discourage driving in favor of biking. Students can choose not to leave windows wide open when the heat or AC is on. etc...

I think there's a fine distinction between what I intended to say, and what I think you're responding to here.

Much of what you mention above are simply cases where a wasteful or wealthy college freshman can cut back. But the problem I'm seeing above is that all freshmen are being required to make said pledge. Entirely aside from any niggling questions of freedom of conscience, it isn't clear to me that the vast majority of them (much less all of them) could "reduce" their consumption in each of the ways you mention, unless they're already doing those wasteful things. Which, in most cases, most aren't, I would think.

Some of the things you mention (standby electronics, driving a car) I omitted (rightly or wrongly) because of my own experience: In the 80s, we didn't generally have electronics with a "standby" mode, and college freshmen staying in dorms weren't allowed a car.

Next, it seems to me that even the things you mention aren't sufficient to give the desired "20% reduction". For example, the "standby" savings was only 5% of electricity (assuming that's even accurate), and electrical power is a fraction of a student's "ecological footprint" -- many parts of which aren't all that malleable: freshmen need to eat, breathe, they produce waste of various forms, etc.

In short, however badly I may have worded it, my objection is not that there aren't a few college students who could save a lot, nor that there aren't many who could save a little, but that it's highly unlikely that all or even most could save anything near the pledged amount required from all.

When you're forced to sign a pledge you think is false in your case (or haven't even evaluated honestly for feasibility), we're in 1984 territory. Coerced hypocrisy is an important tool for controlling people.

But printing 200 door posters could easily be viewed as a cheap investment if the cause is good.

I would argue -- since we're speaking from a materialist standpoint in this context -- that it's also necessary to make sure the effect is commensurate with the investment. If those signs don't end up ultimately saving 200 door posters' worth of paper (or some equivalent) then one can say they're a waste -- no matter how "good" the intended cause.

But the notion that environmentalists are hypocritical simply because they use resources to spread their beliefs is overdoing it.

Since they have a captive audience, and claim to be wanting to reduce ecological footprint, it seems they would mandate some activities which actually offset CO2. Instead, the only actions I see happening for sure are those which, in their minds, would consume resources.

Imagine I'm the head of such a program, and change my concern for the environment into an equal concern for poor, hungry people in my city.

In one scenario, I schedule sessions similar to those Adams' describes, in which I get people to sign a pledge saying they will reduce poverty in some family by 20%. In the other, I also or instead schedule events where the same people can either work in a soup kitchen or buy their way out of it by donating food or other resources to the poor. Which will have the greater actual effect?

I do not intend to imply they're hypocritical "simply because they use resources to spread their beliefs" but rather because I see talk and coercion, no action. And yes, it seems to me that simply showing door decorations which "shows" how much you care is quite a nice substitute.

I see no attempt to distribute or install energy-saving insulation to poor families (which my college Christian group did), no attempt to help harvest vegetables for poor people by hand (which my campus fellowship did -- and we weren't even trying to be "green"), no attempt to plant CO2-consuming trees, or sponsor an acre of rainforest, or offer to pay for a portion of the dormitory's power generation to be provided by "green" sources.

One might object: "Well perhaps some of the students might later do this." Well, perhaps. But if you have the power to compel them to participate in these indoctrination sessions, it seems you would also have the power to compel or at least encourage something with a real effect also, or instead.

Also, I should note again that I'm arguing from what I believe to the perspective of those in charge. I personally don't think our "ecological footprint" is the biggest problem facing humanity.

Regarding those pesky first premises...

I agree that some of what you describe is linked to threatening beliefs. But I think the issue is that those beliefs are interpreted as issues of morality or value judgements rather than statements of fact which can be supported by evidence.... But it can be daunting to persuade someone else to have a value or first premise if they don't already. How do you use logic to change someone's first premises, aside from showing them that those premises lead to self-contradiction?

You could also show that they themselves don't believe their own claimed first principles, such as in my argument against relativism. Not that the principles themselves are contradictory, but just that their entire life speaks a different set of principles. And of course, beyond our control, there are miracles and muggings, both of which can change a worldview.

But aside from that -- and even in those cases often (since people don't do what they believe to be right) you can't change people's first principles. Instead, you tolerate the fact they have an entirely different set of assumptions than yours. And that's the beauty and irony of this situation.

I don't feel a need to change people's first principles, other than by verbal persuasion (for the few who are open to such and might also find my particular argument sufficient). These people, who say they operate in the name of "tolerance", clearly do feel such a need, and aren't restrained by the same boundaries or ethics which would restrain, for example, you or me.

Lastly: As an aside, since you believe that women have an inherent right to vote, I'd ask you what from what that right derives. I'm not at all meaning to imply you're wrong; I'm just curious what answer you'll give.

Just to be clear, I don't support things like the definition of racism in the article, which suggests that only whites can be racist.

The irony is that this definition itself is racist, since it suggests that skin color is the prime determinant of ethics, or that people of different races have fundamentally different brains -- a belief which would have been quite common in Hitler's Germany or in casual talk among Klansmen.

And actually, the article goes further than you suggest: "the term ["racist"] applies to all white people... living in the United States, regardless of class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality." In short "white" is simply an exact synonym for "racist." Nice, eh? No thought or self-examination is needed.

Look at your arm: what color is the skin? If it's light, you're a racist, if it isn't, you're not. Either way, there's nothing you can do to change it (though you can, of course, atone for it your entire life), and we're done now. Don't bother examining your thoughts and actions, much less those of others.

Hey Tim! Hope your move went well.

Okay, I'll buy that the 20% reduction was arbitrary, and the forced commitment seemed ominous.

Lastly: As an aside, since you believe that women have an inherent right to vote, I'd ask you from what that right derives. I'm not at all meaning to imply you're wrong; I'm just curious what answer you'll give.

Interesting question.
Well, I suppose I'd give a confluence of reasons.

The short version is that I believe people should have equal rights before God and the law. Inequality before the law causes harm to both individuals and society. And it's less prone to abuse than trying to determine which rights should go to which individuals based on their unique abilities. I don't really give much weight to the history of male-only enfranchisement and leadership since outside of the fact that men are more likely to be military leaders, I don't see much reason for male-only enfranchisement. Just about any argument for universal male suffrage could also be applied to universal suffrage.

Organizations generally tend to work better when people feel they own the organizations that they work for.

Political leaders are more likely to acknowledge, affirm and utilize the abilities of women if women have the right to vote. I assume that this has some effect on the rest of society as well as the efficiency of our economy. Women who can earn a living will be able to leave abusive relationships or afford lawyers if their families do not provide them.

To not allow women's sufferage implies some level of disrespect that I simply don't see a justification for.

Abuse, including institutionalized abuse, seems more likely when people are disenfranchised. While men obviously want the best for their wives and daughters, I don't think their views are identical to women's views, so their perspectives are not accurate stand-ins.

I think that prosecutions of rape cases still is abysmal, and believe (possibly on bad evidence) that it was worse prior to women's suffrage. This is especially true in instances like date rape and some forms of spousal abuse. Women were (and are) often blamed for sexual incidents which weren't primarily their fault.

I'm fine with whoever is elected in our current system (U.S.), even if the government is predominantly male. I'm not sure why fewer women aren't in office. Possibly fewer seek high office, or else fewer have spouses who are willing to work in a supporting role. Probably there's cultural lag in deciding who can chart a path for high office, with the current crop determined by attitudes 30 or 40 years ago.

The political indoctrination does seem to be real and frightening. But at least the University seems to be stepping away from things, in due to the heat of the blowback.

Ryan!

Thanks for your answer. I agree with most of what you've said. Was just curious.

I'm not sure why fewer women aren't in office. Possibly fewer seek high office, or else fewer have spouses who are willing to work in a supporting role.

I think the former is a big factor, and the latter, possibly a smaller one. Perhaps it was bogus, but I was influenced a study done a while ago which showed that people preferred a woman candidate as often as a man, given the same hypothetical resume. If that was true, I surmised, it was that fewer women are interested in seeking office.

Since, I've seen other research which indicates the corporate "glass ceiling" is more often a matter of women's priorities and choices, and less of discrimination, so I would probably guess that politics might be an extension of that. I'd expect we'd see more women involved in local politics than at the highest levels.

Women were (and are) often blamed for sexual incidents which weren't primarily their fault.

Wow. Well, I'm seeing a bit of the opposite perspective: that men are being convicted and having their lives destroyed on very little evidence, because a woman's word alone is taken so highly now (probably to counterbalance the opposite injustice in the past).

I have a friend who spent several years in jail on nothing more than a verbal allegation. I also have a friend in Paris whose teenage brother was put behind bars for the same: an allegation of rape at a party, where others said no such thing occurred. (In France, apparently, you spend time awaiting your trial in jail. And the waits can be many years. Her brother was subsequently raped in prison, and now has HIV.)

Most likely, both problems are true: the court system strikes me as being like a game of roulette or dice, ready to dispense two completely opposite forms of injustice, or even, sometimes, get it right, depending on the luck of the spin or roll.

Well, I'm seeing a bit of the opposite perspective: that men are being convicted and having their lives destroyed on very little evidence

Wow. Maybe it's just that I have more female friends, so absorb the perspective. That's awful what happened to your friend's brother.

You know, I read an article in Discover a long while back where using PCR on the viruses in a person's body could be used to determine whether two people had had unprotected sex. (Everyone has viruses in their body sufficient for a viral signature. Most of the viruses are believed to be benign.) The article claimed that using the viral mutation rate, it could be extrapolated roughly how long ago those people had sex. The "calculating when" part seemed a bit iffy since I assumed that mutation rate wasn't totally fixed (though it seems pretty stable for most viruses most of the time.) However the "did it happen" part seemed a pretty straighforward and useful way to at least demonstrate if two people had had unprotected sex.

I haven't heard any instance of this type of technology being used in court, though. Have you?

I've had several friends who were raped, two while under age. It seems like tech like that would be a slam dunk in statutory rape trials.