Is it really a conspiracy when we're watching exactly what the theorists said would happen, happen?

An earnest, good-hearted, and well-cited author and scientist is removing himself from academia because of the ever-accelerating creep of DEI influence into entirely unrelated work. This sounds like exactly what the so-called 'conspiracy theorists' were trying to warn us about back in 2012 or so.

If anything, your comment really just solidified to me that maybe we should have taken those folks a bit more seriously, and encouraged folks like you to quiet down. :)

Something of almost no significance to freedom of speech.

Universities are advising their staff not to council in favour of abortion or offer condoms for the purposes of birth control (but OK for purposes of diseas prevenion). Violating these rules can result in felony convictions.

This is what an attack on freedom of speech looks like. And the consequences are of far more significance in this case.

Being fired for bringing the university in to disrepute barely even registers.

So if you want to know whether someone's position on free speech is hysterical posturing, or whether it's genuine, you can compare their reaction on these two paired issues.

I'm confused, you think adding restrictions to what someone is and isn't allowed to publish has no significance to freedom of speech?

> Violating these rules can result in felony convictions.

Can you provide us with an example of a university prof being given a felony sentencing for providing counsel related to abortion? It was a bizarre thing to bring up and admittedly just sort of reads like American fear-mongering. You're coming at this from a very strange angle, you're gonna need a better formed argument if you want to change any minds here.

The way I read it was he was removing himself from an organization, not from academia entirely.

This particular organization wants to follow the antiracist line of thinking, and they probably feel that strengthens their community. He's perfectly entitled to leave it and complain about it. But, the organizations reasons for making people who join the organization align with this values statement seems like it should be their prerogative.

Maybe they feel like to grow as an organization, they need to ask their community to that line of thinking. If they have done the work to understand that's what they should do, isn't it correct, even if they lose a researcher like Haidt?

Pro-tip: being a "toxic toss-pot" should not be a reason for getting fired. People should not be fired for any non-criminal behavior outside of their workplace, even if it's racist.

Employers who fire people over non-criminal supposedly "racist" behavior should be sued and made to pay big bucks.

Being a toxic toss-pot should very much be a reason to be fired. Toxic people are notoriously destructive to the work environment, almost always in a greater degree to what they add -- even if they are top performers. Removing them can result in a more productive/creative team who can now thrive in their absence.

Are they more destructive than woke activists? I very much doubt that.

Your employer has no business judging you for how you (non-criminally) behave outside your working time. Firing over any such non-criminal behavior should be punishable severely.

I agree they shouldn't if its outside working time, but they can and should fire you for being an asshat at work.

Also, sounds like you think all 'woke activists' everywhere are always destructive. Which is an interesting take. At what point does someone cross the line to become an inherently destructive 'woke' person?

When they do one or more of the following:

a) call/protest for firing people for said outside-of-work activities

b) protest/lobby for legislation changes restricting freedom of speech in any way

c) protest/lobby for any sort of affirmative action policies

d) protest/lobby against enforcing criminal laws because they disproportionally affect minorities (when said disproportionate effect is a result of minorities committing said crimes at higher rates)

I have question, because some of these would result in 'woke activists' on the right as well as the left.

> protest/lobby for legislation changes restricting freedom of speech in any way

There are conservative politicians, florida in particular, that have passed legislation banning CRT and gender studies. Is this not a restriction of free speech?

Toby Price was fired for reading a popular children's book to children. Was this not a form of censorship?

> protest/lobby for any sort of affirmative action policies

Does this mean that that discrimination based on race/gender be allowed or not allowed? Should bakers in an open market be permitted to say no to gay wedding cakes? Should banks be able to say no to non-white loan applicants?

> protest/lobby against enforcing criminal laws because they disproportionally affect minorities (when said disproportionate effect is a result of minorities committing said crimes at higher rates)

Does uneven enforcement count as a factor? White suburban teens smoke pot (in states where its still illegal) at rates the same as non-white urban teens, but enforcement is highly disprortionate. So what's the solution to that?

CRT and gender studies should not be part of the high school curriculum in public schools and should not receive any sort of government funding in universities because at best they are pseudoscience. Private institutions not receiving government funding should teach whatever they like, including white nationalism.

Discrimination based on race should either be allowed in all circumstances or disallowed in all circumstances. Affirmative action is discrimination based on race so it's hypocritical to have this as government policy while explicitly prohibiting discrimination against minorities.

Uneven enforcement calls for punishing those not enforced against, not letting guilty minorities walk.

Any further attempts of sealioning will be ignored.

so "restricting freedom of speech in any way" really means it can be restricted in some cases. This was your definition, not mine.

Again interesting that you consider discrimination based on race in all cases as an acceptable position equal to no discrimination based on race.

The unequal enforcement bit would mean that white neighborhoods should be given the same level of enforcement as minority ones. Is that really what you want? Where literally everyone is treated by the police exactly how they treat minorities?

I consider "restrictions of freedom of speech" justified only in the context of employment, during work hours, where said restriction directly influences your working output. If public school teachers want to teach woke pseudoscience on their own premises, during their off hours, using their own money, that's OK.

I have absolutely no problem with increasing policing in white neighborhoods. The risk to people who are not criminal lowlifes is not zero, but is negligible. And I place 0 weight on the lives and well-being of criminal lowlifes.

So, "restricting freedom of speech in any way" is actually "restricting freedom of speech in any way unless during working hours and influences working output". This revised definition now supports the use of DEI in the OP article.

I will take your word that you'd be happy with increased policing even if it affected you personally, but I doubt that if you actually experienced it that you would be happy with the outcome.

It's actually not consistent (and the example is compelled speech not restricting speech). But then again, I shouldn't be breaking what I said earlier about responding to sealioning.

It didn't take long for my point to be proven in a dramatic act of unaware self-parody. Thanks for making it perfectly clear to OP (I mean, original question asker) - if OP was indeed, genuinely unaware of what far right wing narcissistic rage looks like, which i kind of doubt.

I can be racist (teach white nationalism), you can't call me racist (that's the dread cultural cultural marxism again!). I should be subject to no laws (that restrict fascist propagandisation or mobilisation), but laws that restrict the rights of women, blacks, degenerate leftists etc. should be enforced presumably to the point of street execution (it's your own fault! gotta obey those laws!)

And so it goes..

I suggest you work on your reading comprehension and attend logic 101 lest you continue inventing idiocy out of thin air.

Then you have an extreme far-left position, way to the left of the labour movement.

But let me guess, only in the case of fascists?

Reading comprehension lacking again. As I stated clearly in a comment above, I support banning employers from firing anyone over anything non-criminal they are doing during off-hours.

Also, I don't know exactly how far this is from the "opinion" of the so-called "labor movement" given that something closer to this than to anglosphere practice is the reality in most of continental Europe currently.