August 18, 2012

Goody Proctor, I hereby sentence you to be burned as a witch!

From the Chronicles of Higher Education:
Harvard Sociologist Says His Research Was ‘Twisted’ 
By Tom Bartlett 
Robert D. Putnam’s research is being used to make the case that diversity is bad—and he’s not happy about it. 
The Harvard sociologist, best known for his book Bowling Alone, filed a supporting brief in the lawsuit over race-conscious admissions at the University of Texas at Austin, which is currently before the U.S. Supreme Court. 
In the brief, Putnam objects to how his research is characterized in another brief, by Abigail Thernstrom, an adjunct scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, and Stephan Thernstrom, a Harvard historian, among others (the two Thernstroms, in case you were wondering, are married). 
In the Thernstrom brief, a 2007 paper by Putnam, titled “E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-first Century,” is cited as evidence that diversity isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. 
In that paper, Putnam finds that in more diverse neighborhoods, people trust one another less, are less altruistic, and have fewer friends. They keep to themselves, “hunker down,” in his words. Not only do people in diverse neighborhoods trust those who are ethnically different less; they also tend to be less trusting of people who are similar to them. They don’t spend as much time volunteering in their communities, and instead “huddle unhappily in front of the television.” 
They hunker and huddle. 
The Thernstrom brief summarizes those findings by Putnam, but doesn’t note Putnam’s multiple cautions against concluding that this means diversity is mostly bad. 

We've been through this all before. Here's my 2007 American Conservative article Fragmented Future on how Putnam shelved his research results for a half decade while he tried to figure out how to spin them. Putnam's original findings make sense: in, say, the diverse San Fernando Valley, for instance, you don't see much ethnic conflict, just a lot of folks going home, locking the door, and watching TV.

But what caught my eye was Putnam's photo. I don't know how germane this is, but have you ever seen anybody who more resembles a 17th Century New England Puritan? He looks like he's about to get into costume to play a judge in The Crucible. Amusingly, when I Google "Putnam Puritan," up comes the Wikipedia article on the Salem Witch Trials:
The accusation by Ann Putnam Jr. is seen by historians as evidence that a family feud may have been a major cause of the Witch Trials. Salem was the home of a vicious rivalry between the Putnam and Porter families. 

140 comments:

dearieme said...

"but have you ever seen anybody who more resembles a 17th Century New England Puritan?": what a subtle way to allude to that lousy wig.

Anonymous said...

Academics constantly ignore evidence right in front of their faces, even when they're the ones who found it.

How brazen of the Thernstroms (who happen to be married in case you were wondering) to mention the emperor's missing clothes.

The willful stupidity of "smart" people like Putnam is appalling.

Dahinda said...

I am descended from the Putnams and Walcotts who were accusers in Salem.

John Derbyshire said...

Many readers of that tremendous bestseller We Are Doomed declared this passage from Chapter 2 to be their favorite:

[Putnam's paper "E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-first Century"] has a very curious structure. After a brief (2 pages) introduction, there are three main sections, headed as follows:

• The Prospects and Benefits of Immigration and Ethnic Diversity (three pages)
• Immigration and Diversity Foster Social Isolation (nineteen pages)
• Becoming Comfortable with Diversity (seven pages)

I've had some mild amusement here at my desk trying to think up imaginary research papers similarly structured. One for publication in a health journal, perhaps, with three sections titled:

• Health benefits of drinking green tea
• Green tea causes intestinal cancer
• Making the switch to green tea

Social science research in our universities cries out for a modern Jonathan Swift to lampoon its absurdities.

Anonymous said...

No one in the 'establishment' can admit that diveristy or multiculti is bad...if putnam did, his research would automatically be invalidated.

The willful stupidity of "smart" people like Putnam is appalling.
or is it fear?

SFG said...

New England is New England. They remain completely convinced of their intellectual superiority to the rest of the country despite swinging from the religious to the irreligious pole.

Hey, they've got lots of dorky girls.

Anonymous said...

"Diversity is bad". Three simple words. And obviously true. But they just can not be said in this day and age.

Anonymous said...

Is it just me? Just something about the picture of that guy just creeps me out. Like the scenes in horror movies where the guy who seemed helpful and friendly suddenly turns into a raging lunatic on the film's hapless victims.

Silver said...

Academics constantly ignore evidence right in front of their faces, even when they're the ones who found it.

Yes, but the question is why. Why do they willfully ignore it?

The only answer I can come up with with is that they're afraid people won't be able to handle the truth that virtually everything they've believed (and been led to believe) is true and good about the world is a bunch of hogwash.

It's' also quite likely academics can't handle this reality themselves. What a price to pay for the rest of us though.

Anonymous said...

"The Thernstrom brief summarizes those findings by Putnam, but doesn’t note Putnam’s multiple cautions against concluding that this means diversity is mostly bad."


Far be it from us to question King Robert's ruling.


Maybe if I discover some star I'll be able to "caution" other astronomers that it's a Red Dwarf no matter what the evidence actually says.

Anonymous said...

I had an ancestress who was accused in Salem, but who fought the charges furiously [with a bunch of character witnesses and whatnot] and who beat the rap.

Anonymous said...

TV and the internet have made hunkering down so entertaining. Look at the impact of TV's emergence alone, prior to major demographic changes. Wait until the Orgasmitron is perfected, no one will leave the house.

Anonymous said...

"tried to figure out how to spin them"

the herald of the golden age of randian individualism?
or is that against the curriculum?

Severn said...

Diversity is a jealous god - thou shalt have no other god's before him.

Anonymous said...

This is observable directly where I live - in an ethnically diverse Hollywood neighborhood. My building consists mostly of white hipsters who barely acknowledge each other. Next door is an Armenian clan. A couple of the women in this family will smile in greeting but the men refuse to acknowledge me when I walk by.

Anonymous said...

If academia is this corrupt, is it worth having?

People who try to shut down other people's research or refuse to publish their own findings because they do not conform to a pre-conceived ideology are NOT scholars.

This man is publicly betraying every single one of the ideals his profession claims to hold so dear. This is GROSS PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT.

Anonymous said...

he kind of looks like jared diamond, frankly

Anonymous said...

"The willful stupidity of "smart" people like Putnam is appalling. " - It's his job to not notice these things, so he messed up a little bit, but it launching the standard recovery. as long as most people don't question the "twisting" of his research he'll be fine.

Anonymous said...

Why do they believe their own koolaid though? what would possess him to actually study the effects of diversity? Could he not see the writing on the wall?

Anonymous said...

I am always amazed at how stupid most smart people are. Or perhaps they are afraid of the burning stake? I dunno anymore.

MDR

TH said...

At least Putnam published his results eventually. I wonder how much social science research never sees the light of day because it does not comport with liberal pieties.

Anonymous said...

Putnam should be proud of his research, don't need to spin it.

Anonymous said...

Looks like a hobbit to me.

Steve Sailer said...

"he kind of looks like jared diamond, frankly"

Right. Jared Diamond looks like Captain Ahab.

Anonymous said...

"At least Putnam published his results eventually. I wonder how much social science research never sees the light of day because it does not comport with liberal pieties."

Sad but true.

Anonymous said...

Giles Corey said, "A fart on Thomas Putnam."

How appropriate.

Anonymous said...

Why is he leering....

Anonymous said...

Yes, but the question is why. Why do they willfully ignore it?
_________

For the same reason people willfully ignore hard truths about their own kids--that they lie, cheat, steal.

Anonymous said...

That man has Devil eyes.

Anonymous said...

Look at the guy and the backdrop.

The picture, the picture is the thing. It sums up what he wanted--that pose, that place. He got it.

Knowledge? Meh.

Seattle said...

"Is it just me? Just something about the picture of that guy just creeps me out. Like the scenes in horror movies where the guy who seemed helpful and friendly suddenly turns into a raging lunatic on the film's hapless victims."

No, it's not. I agree, he looks like the bad guy from a Stephen King novel- deluded and dangerous.

Anonymous said...

It's easy to criticize from the standpoint of anonymity on a blog site. How many of us have the balls to take the step of going public, putting our real name along with our real views and our real career (and real lives) on the line? Not many of us, that's for sure.

Publishing the real data with some squid ink is a lot better than not publishing, or fudging the results. Be thankful. Don't hate the player, hate the game.

Anonymous said...

She turned me into a newt! A Newt? I got better, Burn her anyway!!!

17th century Massachusets, 21st century Massachusets, The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Anonymous said...

"Diversity is a jealous god - thou shalt have no other god's before him."

The diversity god prefers to be described in gender-neutral language, or prepare thy house for smiting.

anony-mouse said...

In the 1600's young girls were put into crazed emotional fits by Barbadian slaves like Tituba.

Things are very different now. We have Rihanna.

John D said...

"It's easy to criticize from the standpoint of anonymity on a blog site. How many of us have the balls to take the step of going public, putting our real name along with our real views and our real career (and real lives) on the line? Not many of us, that's for sure.

Publishing the real data with some squid ink is a lot better than not publishing, or fudging the results. Be thankful. Don't hate the player, hate the game."


Yes, that's all too true. Each of us does a cost/benefit in determining just how forthright we wish to be in expressing these obviously true but heterodox HBD ideas.

You really do have to be willing to be labeled a modern day witch, and be willing to suffer the attendant consequences (of which there are many; some of which are severe; loss of employment,etc.) I really do applaud the intrepid souls who express the simple truth about race these days under their own names.

As Orwell said:

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act."

Sideways said...

" How many of us have the balls to take the step of going public, putting our real name along with our real views and our real career (and real lives) on the line? Not many of us, that's for sure"

Well, there's a Steve sailer who, I hear, has some connection with this blog

Auntie Analogue said...

Denial is a powerful river that courses through the Diversity Industries. Without that river to sustain its bottomless gravy trough, that industry would evaporate of its own phoniness.

Whiskey said...

Putnam is not very smart. Yes he's a Harvard Professor. And yes that does not make you smart. Among other things, if Putnam's research is correct, and it is, then diversity is an acid eating away at social cooperation, no matter how much he and other Upper Class, hereditary Puritan overlords want to prance around pretending that Black people have magical goodness and spirituality and intelligence (the Spike Lee "Magical Negro" essay and any Morgan Freeman role).

Its as stupid as Witchfinding. Putnam is just another modern day Witchfinder General.

If Putnam were TRULY smart, he'd seek a way to make BIG MONEY and BIGGER POWER by utilizing his findings. The way English and Dutch sea-captains used a Newtonian understanding of the Universe to better navigators than the head-start Portugese and Spanish who remained mired in an Aristotelian universe courtesy of the Catholic Church and Papal Inquisitions (against Galileo among others).

Dan said...

Top notch Steve, seriously. 50 dollars coming to you if you have finally fixed your PayPal


Dan in DC

ben tillman said...

In the brief, Putnam objects to how his research is characterized in another brief....

The Thernstrom brief summarizes those findings by Putnam, but doesn’t note Putnam’s multiple cautions against concluding that this means diversity is mostly bad.


Putnam's research is supposed to produce facts.

We've been through this all before.

Yes, we have. Jaff Schatz flipped out after Kevin MacDonald had the temerity to cite Schatz's book on Polish Jews as if the book were actually a work of scholarship rgar others could use to support or challenge other theories.

ben tillman said...

"Academics constantly ignore evidence right in front of their faces, even when they're the ones who found it."

Yes, but the question is why. Why do they willfully ignore it?


It's one or more of the four I's -- indoctrination, intimidation, incentivization, and imitation.

Beecher Asbury said...

es, that's all too true. Each of us does a cost/benefit in determining just how forthright we wish to be in expressing these obviously true but heterodox HBD ideas.

You really do have to be willing to be labeled a modern day witch, and be willing to suffer the attendant consequences (of which there are many; some of which are severe; loss of employment,etc.) I really do applaud the intrepid souls who express the simple truth about race these days under their own names.


Obviously most people are afraid to express views that run counter to PC orthodoxy. But as I see it, that is not the main problem. The main problem is not the lack of people expressing non-PC views, but the abundance of people who publicly decry those views.

Every time I see a kommissar, i.e. an MSM reporter, identify someone who has violated some tenet of PC, they always get an average Joe to give his two cents. And Joe doesn't disappoint. He roundly rebukes the PC transgression.

That's the problem. People who are not ideologues, and know deep in their hearts the truth, are used to denounce others who speak out by mouthing the tenets of PC that they themselves know are false. This self enforcing mechanism keeps others from speaking out, and is a force multiplier for the real cadre of hard core believers who probably number no more than 10 percent of the population.

Anonymous said...

This guy fits into Mencius Moldbug's theme on modern progressive universalists descending from Puritanism. All Jesus but not God.

Anonymous said...

"" How many of us have the balls to take the step of going public, putting our real name along with our real views and our real career (and real lives) on the line? Not many of us, that's for sure"

Well, there's a Steve sailer who, I hear, has some connection with this blog."

You're supporting the point. Steve, Derb, all those guys in the famous "Unpatriotic Conservatives" article, were, and are, marginalized. I'm sure Steve wouldn't mind a grant to do a little research, rather than relying on the kindness of strangers. You can say anything, but it doesn't carry any weight until a university name is attached to it. They're a lot of Alpha Males out there, but few are willing to cross the PC line. I guess that makes Steve and his ilk Super Alphas, I bet they don't even know it.

I once heard Alec Baldwin, renowned Uber Alpha, deride Sean Hannity as nothing but a construction worker. Kind of a typical Alpha, tough on the whites he leapfrogs and all kid gloves with anyone who could derail his comfort and career. I guess it is a good survival strategy.

John said...

"Obviously most people are afraid to express views that run counter to PC orthodoxy. But as I see it, that is not the main problem. The main problem is not the lack of people expressing non-PC views, but the abundance of people who publicly decry those views.

Every time I see a kommissar, i.e. an MSM reporter, identify someone who has violated some tenet of PC, they always get an average Joe to give his two cents. And Joe doesn't disappoint. He roundly rebukes the PC transgression."

Judging from the comments that I read on every news report (MSM) about some NAM on White crime, most people seem quite aware of what a load of crap PC is, which is why most sites shut down the comments. I also think that challenging PC on non-HBD sites is productive if only because it let's other Whites know that they're not alone in noticing what the emperor's not wearing. So, even though you will inevitably encounter the same boiler plate crap that multiculti fetishists have been fed their entire lives about white privilege or white racism, and other nonsense, it's worth it to throw a Turd of Truth into their PC punch bowl just to let other sane Whites know they're not alone. The more that sane comments about HBD happen, the more they will happen. Just be prepared to be called a witch. Small price to pay if you're using a pseudonym anyway.

Anonymous said...

Poor Putnam looks like The Forger in the Great Escape after spending too many hours peering through a monocle. Either his parents were cousins or he is legally blind.

Reg Cæsar said...

"Putnam" is unusual among Colonial-era surnames in that it is evenly distributed between the Northeast and the South. Even stranger is that few Putnams from either region moved west with everybody else.

Anybody know if Robert is a Yankee or a Dixie Putnam, ancestrally? (Putnam, by the way, derives from the English hamlet of Puttenham.)

Another Ivy Leaguer who caveats/"cautions" his research is Kyle Pruett of Yale, whose work on the importance of fatherhood turns out to be uncomfortably handy to James Dobson.

Can't allow that! Everyone knows a bull dyke with chains on her Wranglers is a perfectly acceptable substitute for a natural father.

Reg Cæsar said...

Actually, Putnam kinda looks like Harry Browne back in the '70s. I used to wonder if Browne wasn't Jewish, but someone recently discovered Harry descended from more Mayflower passengers than just about anybody else in public life.

Anonymous said...

reminds me of a leprechaun, a bit of evil added in the mix

run and hide your children!

"The diversity god prefers to be described in gender-neutral language, or prepare thy house for smiting. "

actually they are considerate of the oppression of women in the past and thus would only accept female pronouns and notions, for the next few thousands of years.

"Yes he's a Harvard Professor. And yes that does not make you smart. "

well, the wasp-harvard mafia isn't exactly known for their smarts.

Anonymous said...

Everyone should be familiar with:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivated_reasoning

But keep in mind it's easier to see in others than in yourself.

Anonymous said...

With the chin-strap beard Puttnam looks more like a modern day Amish.

Anonymous said...

Western society used to hunt for "witches"; now we hunt for "racists." For like the "witches" of the 17th century, the "racists" are lurking everywhere and guilty of all manner of insidious evils.

And, conveniently for the accusers, the charge of "racism", like "witchcraft", is practically impossible to disprove.

Anonymous said...

Here's to "Turds of Truth" (TM). I certainly do my part, lol.

Comments draw readers, so surely those sites that shut down comments aren't as popular.

Anonymous said...

"Is it just me? Just something about the picture of that guy just creeps me out. Like the scenes in horror movies where the guy who seemed helpful and friendly suddenly turns into a raging lunatic on the film's hapless victims."

Don't throw the baby away with the bathwater. The guy could scarcely look more upstanding. Are you guys criticizing Putnam's arch beta white guy appearance just sucking up to whiskey?

Gilbert pinfold.

IHTG said...

Re: Tituba, from her Wikipedia article

"In supporting the African origin of Tituba, Veta Smith Tucker claims that Puritan society “…did not perceive African and Indian as thoroughly contrasting racial identities,” and often lumped the two together."

Seems to me this never changed. Another inheritance from the Puritans.

IHTG said...

(by that I mean that American liberal culture still tends in general to treat all non-whites as a monolithic oppressed "other". Indians have actually managed to set themselves apart over the years, though)

Seice said...

"

Academics constantly ignore evidence right in front of their faces, even when they're the ones who found it.

Yes, but the question is why. Why do they willfully ignore it?

The only answer I can come up with with is that they're afraid people won't be able to handle the truth that virtually everything they've believed (and been led to believe) is true and good about the world is a bunch of hogwash.

It's' also quite likely academics can't handle this reality themselves. What a price to pay for the rest of us though."

- If they do come out against the left wing orthodoxy, their lives and careers are mostly over. They will be shunned or visciously criticized by other lefties, they will be fired/laid off, etc as being unsuitable to teach students or for a made up reason if they are not tenured, if they are tenured, they will be shunned and can forget about progressing further through the ranks. Finding funding will be more difficult for research, etc. It pays to tow the party line for academians.

Anonymous said...

"This guy fits into Mencius Moldbug's theme on modern progressive universalists descending from Puritanism"

Blogger RHE has a lot of stuff debunking that aspect of Moldbugism:
Mendacious Moldbug
Moldbug once again holds forth on the history of Bizarro World in the safety of the gnxp comments section:
to succeed [Jews] assimilated the cultural tropes of America's highest status caste - the Boston Brahmins, basically. For every "Punch" Sulzberger, there is an Alger Hiss. No, he was not born "Hissjewsky."
Back on Earth:
Into the 1930s the American Communist Party (CPUSA) had a Yiddish-speaking Jewish section. [. . .]

Jews were also vastly overrepresented in high-profile cases among those invoking the Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate oneself, so that public hearings like McCarthy's inevitably highlighted the Jewish role in communism. For example, in 1952, of 124 people questioned by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs, Weingarten identifies 79 Jews, 32 non-Jews and 13 with unknown ethnicity. All invoked the Fifth.

Even more remarkably, of the 42 people who were dismissed from their positions at the Fort Monmouth Laboratories in New Jersey on suspicion of constituting a spy ring (the same one that Julius Rosenberg belonged to), 39 were Jews and one other was married to a Jewish woman.
Alger Hiss was born in Baltimore (not Boston) to a "middle class wholesale grocer" who killed himself when Hiss was two. His family was neither wealthy nor socially prominent. His Supreme Court clerkship indicates little more than that he had the favor of Felix Frankfurter, to whom an aged Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., delegated the choice.

(...)

Robert James said...

"If Putnam were TRULY smart, he'd seek a way to make BIG MONEY and BIGGER POWER by utilizing his findings."

-I think what needs to be done is to incentivize defying diversity and the PC nonsense. Currently for whites seeking to claw their way to the top, the incentives are all there to support the PC line. The fact that it would benefit whitey overall, and therefore a bit of benefit for their children too, is apparently not big enough for them, probably in part because alot of them are childless.

Of course, this by far isn't the whole explanation because I've met some ultra liberal profs with several small kids in tow, and think," How the f*ck can you support this crap when its taking a crap on your childrens' lives down the line?". Its clear that their support is entirely from on self-centered benefit to the profs, regardless of whether it is factually wrong, morally wrong, and regardless of who it hurts. These people know they are putting out lies, yet go on with it anyway.

That's why I find it so surprising that conservatives keep trying again and again to appeal to these people with appeals to facts,logic, and honesty, appeals to morality, appeals to national interest, etc. In other words, appeals to things that the conservatives value.

These appeals don't work, precisely because the liberals don't have these value sets. It needs to be a response to things more base- how does it benefit them in terms of jobs, money, social status, prestige, etc?

This can be done, because the society at large is still conservative. But we would have to condemn them for their behavior, demand to congress and gov't agencies to cut off funding, pull kids out of their colleges into less liberal ones, protest, write letters of complaint, etc. We have to be the leader instead of making appeals to them to behave a certain way as a leader. And for this to work, it has to be of a group effort of a large enough number of people acting the same way.

NOTA said...

Beecher:

Presumably no man on the street who isn't sufficiently outraged makes it onto the air, even if the reporters must interview a dozen people to get the right answer.

John:

This is worthwhile if done intelligently. No slurs, no rant, nothing objectionable except the unappealing truth, ideally with a link to a mainstream source. You're not trying to convert anyone, you're just making it harder to ignore stuff in their ideological blind spot. Explicitly don't try to "win.".

Anonymous said...

"the diverse San Fernando Valley, for instance, you don't see much ethnic conflict, just a lot of folks going home, locking the door, and watching TV."

Mostly true - the violent ethnic conflict is concentrated in schools, to and from schools, and among older teenagers who are compelled to go out by their hormones.

Cars insulate people from it to a large extent.

Anonymous said...

"At least Putnam published his results eventually. I wonder how much social science research never sees the light of day because it does not comport with liberal pieties."

Quite

Anonymous said...

"well, the wasp-harvard mafia isn't exactly known for their smarts."

Putnam graduated from Swarthmore College in 1963, won a Fulbright Fellowship to study at Balliol College, Oxford, and went on to earn master's and doctorate degrees from Yale University, the latter in 1970. He taught at the University of Michigan until going to Harvard in 1979, where he has held a variety of positions, including Dean of the Kennedy School, and is currently the Malkin Professor of Public Policy. - Wikipedia..

This blog has a very high standard for smart.

Anonymous said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZf3EuZNIms&feature=relmfu

Climate change bad but allowing more immigrants to the West and having them use more energy good.

Anonymous said...

Diversity is fun if you ask me. I had the pleasure of visiting a foreclosed home yesterday that had a basement converted into 7 bedrooms. That's right, 7 bedrooms in a suburban home's basement.

All the people stuffed into the basement were apparently from Vietnam and no one called the county or cops because all the surrounding neighbors are Hondurans, Guatemalans, and Salvadorans. The neighbors share the same proclivity of renting out each square foot of their home to strangers they met in front of the 7-11.

Anonymous said...

http://the-american-interest.com/article.cfm?piece=1297

Anonymous said...

whose work on the importance of fatherhood
liberals spend millions of dollars and years researching what should be common sense, then are 'uncomfortable' when they reach conclusions that don't coincide with their ideology. - hate facts, as Peter Brimelow coined them

Mr. Anon said...

Yikes. One could almost add to that picture a dialog balloon that reads "Burn, Witch, Burn!"

Anonymous said...

OT,

Steve, do you remember your first musical emotion?

Dahlia said...

Greatest headline and picture, ever.

Carol said...

The Magic Negro essay was by David Ehrenstein.

SFG said...

Actually, I sympathize with Putnam. A lot of us unphotogenic types have to work really hard to look presentable in pictures, and it's not too hard to screw it up and have people who don't like you circulating it forever.

Big Bill said...

Anony-mouse: "In the 1600's young girls were put into crazed emotional fits by Barbadian slaves like Tituba."

Read any books on religion in Haiti, the mamaloi and papaloi, and the wild African all-nighter dances, complete with child-sacrifice. It was (and is) a real Dionysian orgy. You can take the girl out of the jungle, but you can't take the jungle out of the girl. Tituba was a was a little piece of African diversity right there in Massachusetts.

Roissy has written extensively about females, their hamsters and the female need for an excuse--any excuse--to get down and get nasty.

Tell girls of some magical beast with a huge member who will take control of them against their will, and you have them, body and soul.

RKU said...

Putnam's original findings make sense: in, say, the diverse San Fernando Valley, for instance, you don't see much ethnic conflict, just a lot of folks going home, locking the door, and watching TV.

Well, I'm no sociologist, but don't modern American suburbanites *all* watch a lot of TV, regardless of the particular ethnic demographics of their neighborhoods?...

Anonymous said...

""Putnam" is unusual among Colonial-era surnames in that it is evenly distributed between the Northeast and the South. Even stranger is that few Putnams from either region moved west with everybody else.

Anybody know if Robert is a Yankee or a Dixie Putnam, ancestrally? (Putnam, by the way, derives from the English hamlet of Puttenham.) "

I've never once heard of a southerner with the last name "Putnam." Must be the upper south.

Jason said...

It shouldn't require that much courage for Putnam to be honest, since he almost surely has tenure and makes loads of $$$ as a Harvard professor. Really, it's just tremendous cowardice, pure and simple. If he isn't honest about his research, then he isn't doing his job.

Hedgerow said...

Multiculturalism is such a muddle-headed concept that making sense of it is difficult. On the one hand the multiculturalists tell us it is a good thing. On the other they tell us or implicitly indicate do not worry, that third-world immigrants will come to see our values as superior and adopt Anglo-American concepts of civil liberties and the like. Honor killings, wife beating, animal cruelty, religion-based law, etc. will be abandoned.

Either way, they offer up no viable historical model for their social engineering dreams.

Anonymous said...

To me he looks like Captain Ahab stoned on crystal meth.

gummishness said...

Yeltsin to Putin.

Bush to Obama.

Do you see a pattern here? Putin may be an autocrat but he's a strong, sober individual and has made Russia seem strong in the world. In contrast, during the Yeltsin yrs, Russians felt embarrassed to be 'led' by a drunken clown who allowed globalists to run the nation's affairs.
So, even though Putin was far from ideal--and undemocratic--, he was appealing to many Russians for his aura of power. Through him, Russians also felt powerful.

Now, many liberals have accused Bush of being 'dictatorial' and all that, but I wonder if the main gripe against Bush(at least subconsciously) was he was such a klutz and putz like Yeltsin. Even liberals who didn't like Reagan thought the old man stood proud and made them feel strong and powerful as Americans. But Bush II was such a dumbass moron that everyone--even conservatives--felt embarrassed to be American.

So, even though liberals accused Bush II of having 'too much power', the bigger problem may have been the fact that Bush didn't exude enough power. With his shoulders shrugged, with a funny smirk/grimace on his face, and with his inability to string two words together, he looked weak and made American look weak.

Now, liberals supported Obama as being more 'democratic', but Obama's style has actually been far more authoritarian and BIG-MAN-ish than Bush. So, you'd think liberals would be put off by such 'autocratic' style. But they actually like to be led by someone who exudes power. When a leader exerts/exudes lots of power, one part of us feels afraid and oppressed, but another part of us feels empowered. Consider all those Germans going 'heil hitler, heil hitler'. Though Hitler was taking power away from them, they felt power THROUGH him. Funny psychology of politics.

And this may be said for independents too. Even those who don't like Obama's policies feel drawn to him because he comes across as a strong, commanding American--in such contrast to the klutzy Bush, Mr. Magoo McCain, and flippy floppy Romney. Obama is actually no less a tool than Bush II, Yeltsin, and Romney, but he at least has the commanding powerful style.
And style makes the political fight in the age of mass media.

Simon in London said...

"The Thernstrom brief summarizes those findings by Putnam, but doesn’t note Putnam’s multiple cautions against concluding that this means diversity is mostly bad. "

Putnam's findings are empirical. His cautions are opinion.

It seems to me completely legitimate to cite the facts he found while ignoring his opinions concerning those facts.

Anonymous said...

Symphony says Cobb high school choruses are not diverse enough
By Carl Willis
Thursday, Aug. 16, 2012
wsbtv.com

MARIETTA, Ga. - Two Cobb County high school choruses will not be performing with the Atlanta Symphony Orchestra this year, because the symphony said their groups are not racially diverse enough.

Video of the Walton and Lassiter High School choruses performing can be found all over YouTube, but they will not be found on stage with Atlanta's professionals this fall...




HS Choirs Banned From Singing Because They Are Too White
By NewsOne Staff
Aug 18, 2012
newsone.com, For Black America

Of all of the things a chorus could be penalized for, you would never imagine that one could be banned from singing because it is too White.

But, according to WSB-TV, that is exactly the case for Cobb County’s Lassiter And Walton High School choruses.

The Atlanta Symphony Orchestra (ASO) told both schools that, because their choruses were not diverse enough, neither could not sing at its annual Christmas concert...

Anonymous said...

The beard w/out a mustache is really unattractive on any and all men.

Take it to the bank, guys.

bjdubbs said...

This from WR Mead sounds like Steve on blacks and car rental agencies:

Affirmative action and other methods of improving black access to middle-class jobs work best in large, stable firms with fairly bureaucratic structures and large numbers of employees performing reasonably similar functions.

I suppose others have made the point before Steve, but I haven't seen it.

Anonymous said...

Even if we bowl alone, at least we burn witches together.

Anonymous said...

" Really, it's just tremendous cowardice, pure and simple. If he isn't honest about his research, then he isn't doing his job."

Can't argue with you there, but it might get dull when every one of your social events consists of you, the Walts and the Mearsheimers.

Anonymous said...

It shouldn't require that much courage for Putnam to be honest, since he almost surely has tenure and makes loads of $$$ as a Harvard professor. Really, it's just tremendous cowardice, pure and simple.

On the contrary. If the anonymous HBD blog comments to public, named HBD advocates ratio is anything to go by, all it really says is one of two things. It's very possible that Putnam is a PC true believer (in which case he has been as honest as can be asked of him - he's published his results unaltered). The other possibility is that Putnam is not a PC true believer. This makes his opinions plus his claim his research was "twisted" was a way for him to get his research out there but avoid being a pariah. If so, the only thing you can surmise is that he doesn't have an extreme amount of courage. He might be more courageous than most. Plenty of people would simply shelve the research.

Men like Sailer, Derb, KMac et al have an extraordinary amount of courage, and I have great respect for them. Very, very few people have both the intellect and the balls to do what they do. I'm sure that there is a lot that they've had to deal with that they've never made public. Stalkers, threats, intimidation, trumped up charges and the elevated risk profile - the ever-present possibility of being made an international pariah in the media, or worse. Look at Pim Fortuyn or Theo Van Gogh.

Heathrow said...

Discovering something that is politically incorrect is risky in social science, which should be called "social doctrine." If one is untenured, it is especially risky.

What Robert Putnam found became evident with the passage in 1978 of Proposition 13 in California. Whites in the formerly Golden State were unwilling to finance their own displacement. The state is now a multicultural basket case. It is flat broke. Arizona is trying to avoid that fate.

Anonymous said...

One thing Jared Taylor emphasized in his last book: there is no evidence whatsoever that diversity has any benefit- yet it marches on, like a zombie.

Anonymous said...

Roissy has written extensively about females, their hamsters and the female need for an excuse--any excuse--to get down and get nasty.


Sounds like those "females" are just completely different from males than. You'd never catch guys dreaming up some goofy theory -"game", for instance" - as an excuse to get down and nasty. No sir!

Anonymous said...

Tituba was a was a little piece of African diversity right there in Massachusetts.


She wasn't African, you nitwit.

Anonymous said...

He looks like Silence Hardwood, the infamous rapist of Salem.

Dahlia said...

Steve,

This is completely off topic, but I just got caught up on several of your posts and ventured into the comments thread of a couple....

You're right that men notice more things, but I did notice this:

Albertosaurus provided the best evidence for your supposition that steroids really, really aren't such a great thing.

A commenter over there was right, it's the comment of the decade (from Feminism, Arnie thread):

pat said...

This is a very informed discussion. Clearly the glory of this blog is the quality of its readership. I'm impressed. So what can I possibly contribute?

Well one thing that sets me a bit apart is a certain familiarity with BDSM. I'm quite sure that as many a quarter of the men who comment here also have some experience with BDSM, but they wish to remain in the closet for now. That's fine. That used to be the situation regarding homosexuality when I was younger. It has all reversed for gays, maybe a similar transposition is coming for BDSM. But probably not real soon.

I also worked for many years as a sort of professional Alpha. At age fifty I went into corporate technical consulting. I marketed myself as a programmer but I soon found that I was in more demand as a tough guy. My first such job was as a "Tamer". That's what my boss wanted - someone to tame his unruly programmers and data base base administrators. My job was bring them into a state of submission. They had run off two previous managers. They conspired against me of course but they were no real match. I was very good at it.

My next job was nominally to run a couple information system projects but the real job was to beat up on the contractors. Then I once again was hired to bring a technical staff under control. I fired about half of them including my boss. I became the new CTO.

I've always been this way, just more so as I got older. Smart is good, but tough is better. Industry is eager for managers and executives who have alpha personalities.

In BDSM I'm a classic Dominant or Master. This always meant that I was in demand in that the sex-love arena too. Certain women find a Dominant man very attractive. Before I got too old I always had plenty of women. The BDSM web sites are filled with women desperate to find a "real" Dominant. Many men apparently like to fake it but ultimately reveal that they are actually submissive. This sort of would-be Dominant disgusts and disappoints submissives. When I entered the local BDSM sub-culture the word quickly spread among the girls. All of them wanted to meet me.

That's why I've always been amused by the guys who discuss "Game" here. They seem to be looking for a magic formula that they can use to pick up women in bars. I never went to bars. Why bother?

I kept a string of women for a while. In fact I began to write a software system to keep all of them under control. It's very much like the responsibilities you incur if you keep a harem.

People should read the Feynman books. He too discovered that there are plenty of women but that conventional advice to be sweet and solicitous will keep you lonely. Or just watch an Apache dance.

I'm currently reading "Chimpanzee Politics" - an ethology classic. There's no doubt that alpha is a real phenomenon among primates. BDSM too. None of this stuff is a mere social construct. It's real.

One reason it is good to be a Dominant in BDSM is because most real Dominants are also real ass holes. When they discover that many women want a certain amount of abuse, it goes to their head. They think they no longer need to be polite. They let their BDSM persona intrude into their vanilla life.

Albertosaurus"

Anonymous said...

In the real world this Putnam looks like an idiot to his Volvo repairman. At Harvard he looks hi-IQ and intriguing with his Robbie Roberston style beard.

http://www.landyvision.com/Slideshow/image/290.jpg

Dahlia said...

"Sounds like those "females" are just completely different from males than. You'd never catch guys dreaming up some goofy theory -"game", for instance" - as an excuse to get down and nasty. No sir!"

Remember when Undiscovered Jew was arguing that "Game" would lead young men to HBD and the rest of us said, "Please don't"?

A commenter at Jezebel, but this is said to girls who are nice and normal, too:

"Don't even get me started on evolutionary psychology. As a tall, slender woman with modest curves, people I barely know have had the nerve to tell me that straight men have been duped into thinking bodies like mine are attractive. That gay men in fashion choose women like me for models because I am shaped like a boy. But every man REALLY desires short women with big boobs. University of Pittsburgh even funded studies to "prove" that women shaped like J Lo and Scarlett Johansson are more intelligent than women shaped like Maya Lin and Natalie Portman because they have wide hips! WHAT?!"
http://jezebel.com/5935534/?comment=51941354

It's kind of like "reason": it doesn't often lead to the truth, but is usually just a tool to advance oneself and the sharper guy always wins. So many of the guys in the steveosphere are not that interested in the science and are more interested in cobbling together just-so-stories to prove to themselves and others that they, and their tastes, are superior.

Anonymous said...

"And this may be said for independents too. Even those who don't like Obama's policies feel drawn to him because he comes across as a strong, commanding American"

Hmmm. Sounds as if we don't live in the same country. Everyone I know thinks Obama comes across as effete, weak. Even his physical appearance--thing, baggy suits--suggests an effete male, a metrosexual sort.

Anonymous said...

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/education/95-year-882-nypd-school-arrests-involved-minorities-article-1.1137804

I thought blue states were full of love and didn't 'unfairly' target 'minorities'.

Anonymous said...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/12/movies/homevideo/jaws-seminal-blockbuster-now-on-blu-ray.html?_r=1

Anonymous said...

In 1692, women were condemned to be burned as witches based "spectral evidence" that was promoted by Harvard graduate Cotton Mather (also son of Harvard president).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectral_evidence

In 2012, Harvard professor Robert Putnam claims that Multiculturalism is mostly good based on what evidence?

Julian O'Dea said...

Whiskey:

"If Putnam were TRULY smart, he'd seek a way to make BIG MONEY and BIGGER POWER by utilizing his findings. The way English and Dutch sea-captains used a Newtonian understanding of the Universe to better navigators than the head-start Portugese and Spanish who remained mired in an Aristotelian universe courtesy of the Catholic Church and Papal Inquisitions (against Galileo among others)."

Whiskey, I pointed out the problems with your peculiar anti-Catholic ideas in a previous post. You failed to reply. Here you are, writing more drivel.

This was the thread:

http://isteve.blogspot.com.au/2012/07/who-whom-awareness-month.html

If the Portugese and Spanish were such poor navigators, why did they plant colonies all over the world?

I cannot believe you are this stupid. It must be a joke of some kind.

Have you heard of Vasco Da Gama or Magellan? Portugese navigators.

Whiskey, keep writing this anti-Catholic ahistorical rubbish, and I shall keep correcting it.

Anonymous said...

Putnam may look like a hobbit, but I bet he knows one thing that neither Steve nor, apparently, most of his readers know: No-one was "burned as a witch" in New England (or Old England, come to that). Those accused of witchcraft were tried for acts which would have been crimes if achieved by natural means, and if convicted of carrying out one of the large number of capital crimes by means of witchcraft, hanged.
That kind of sloppiness means everything you say is treated with less respect.

Anonymous said...

""Sounds like those "females" are just completely different from males than. You'd never catch guys dreaming up some goofy theory -"game", for instance" - as an excuse to get down and nasty. No sir!""

since when have men needed excuses?

Anonymous said...

"A commenter at Jezebel"

the boner doesn't lie!

"It's kind of like "reason": it doesn't often lead to the truth, but is usually just a tool to advance oneself and the sharper guy always wins."


at least there is reason, the Jezebelites are continuing the legacy without.

In other words, feminist theory cannot be accurately regarded as a competing or rival account, diverging from patriarchal texts over what counts as true. It is not a true discourse, nor a more objective or scientific account. It could be appropriately seen, rather, as a strategy, a local, specific intervention with definite political, even if provisional, aims and goals.

In the 1980s, feminist theory no longer seems to seek the status of unchangeable, trans-historical and trans-geographic truth in its hypotheses and propositions. Rather, it seeks effective forms of intervention into systems of power in order to subvert them and replace them with other more preferable. "

Anonymous said...

No more white cadet pilots for SAA
Aug 17 2012
fin24.com

Johannesburg - Cadet pilot training course applications from white men are no longer being accepted by South African Airways (SAA), it was reported on Friday.

SAA spokesperson Kabelo Ledwaba told Beeld that the cadet programme was being advertised online as an initiative to bring pilot demographics in line with the country's broader demographics.

"Only 15% of SAA's pilots are currently black, and this includes Indians and coloureds. The rest are white, and 91% of them are men."

Ledwaba said the airline would appoint male, white pilots when there were vacant posts for which applicants of other races could not be found...

Anonymous said...

Steve -

Hopefully you're asleep at this point [it must be about 4:45 AM on the West Coast], but we are going to be getting the big Tony Scott thread later today - right?

'Cause I know that the iSteve-o-sphere is gonna have a ton of stuff to say about that dude.

Anonymous said...

Oops - just looked at the clock again - make that "3:45AM on the West Coast".

Knowing you, you might still be awake.

Svigor said...

The anonymous pedant too cowardly to pick a handle is lecturing us by way of ad hominem.

Requiem said...

"Diversity is fun if you ask me. I had the pleasure of visiting a foreclosed home yesterday that had a basement converted into 7 bedrooms. That's right, 7 bedrooms in a suburban home's basement.

All the people stuffed into the basement were apparently from Vietnam and no one called the county or cops because all the surrounding neighbors are Hondurans, Guatemalans, and Salvadorans. The neighbors share the same proclivity of renting out each square foot of their home to strangers they met in front of the 7-11."


If so, then I need to visit the local 7-11 more often. I have space under my kitchen sink and could use an extra $50/mo.

Anonymous said...

Anon 1:50, don't forget Giles Corey, the 80-year old farmer who was "pressed" to death.

Joseph Moroco said...

It appears Mr. Putnam lives on one of the more diverse sections of Memorial Drive. Surely he has a few Gujariti Ph.D.s for neighbors. Maybe a Han cancer specialist is on the block.

Harvard's Kennedy School is known as Camelot High among the wags in Greater Boston.

Anonymous said...

Steve (or anyone else familiar with Putnam's research): Does this research show that the negative qualities of "diverse" neighborhoods that Putnam studied are primarily a result of diversity *per se*, rather than a result of a large number of NAMs? Do these neighborhoods have lower levels of trust, cooperation, altruism, etc. than, say, an entirely African-American neighborhood? It seems a natural hypothesis to me that a mixed black-white neighborhood would be worse than an all-white neighborhood but better than an all-black neighborhood on various dimensions.

Camlost said...

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/education/95-year-882-nypd-school-arrests-involved-minorities-article-1.1137804

I thought blue states were full of love and didn't 'unfairly' target 'minorities'.


Northeastern states also incarcerate a much higher percentage of blacks than Southern States.

Kylie said...

"I bet he knows one thing that neither Steve nor, apparently, most of his readers know: No-one[sic] was "burned as a witch" in New England (or Old England, come to that)."

I searched this thread and of ninety-eight comments posted so far, found only four, along with Steve's title, that refer to witches being burned. Of those four comments, three were submitted anonymously. That's hardly "most" of Steve's readers; "some" would have been a more accurate, and honest, choice of words.

That kind of sloppiness means everything you say is treated with less respect.

BrokenSymmetry said...

"Anonymous said...@8/20/12 1:50 AM

Putnam may look like a hobbit, but I bet he knows one thing that neither Steve nor, apparently, most of his readers know: No-one was "burned as a witch" in New England (or Old England, come to that). Those accused of witchcraft were tried for acts which would have been crimes if achieved by natural means, and if convicted of carrying out one of the large number of capital crimes by means of witchcraft, hanged.
That kind of sloppiness means everything you say is treated with less respect."

So nice of you to drop by Professor Putnam.

Marc B said...

"This man is publicly betraying every single one of the ideals his profession claims to hold so dear. This is GROSS PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT."

I suspect he is doing what he has to; going along, to get along. While he definitively lacks the backbone to express the most obvious conclusions from his research, perhaps we need to read between the lines. Since the results of his research so heavily contradict his opinion, perhaps he is expressing those obviously ridiculous pro-multiculti catch phrases to subversively to call attention to being silenced by academia, and he may actually stand by his research but can't come out and admit it. Cognitive dissonance of this magnitude is could actually be a "dog whistle" for the intelectually curious.

If he came right out and said things that were congruent with his research, all of his valid work could likely end up on the junk heap of "psuedo science", and he could be end up a discredited academic. By capitulation, his work at least manintains enough academic capital to still reach it's intended audience.

Anonymous said...

The beard w/out a mustache is really unattractive on any and all men.

Yes, that is the point.

That is why the Amish wear it, because wearing a mustache was cool and attractive. So for humility they don't wear it.

Also, Hare Krishnas wear hideous hair cuts as did medieval monks with those stupid tonsures.

It is the sort of self flagellation you would expect from the fake humility of Puritans.

'Ol Pal Jim Putnam said...

few Putnams from either region moved west with everybody else

"I've been selling Buicks in Burlingame since 1965!"

Anonymous said...

"The beard w/out a mustache is really unattractive on any and all men."
________________________________

Yes, that is the point.

That is why the Amish wear it, because wearing a mustache was cool and attractive. So for humility they don't wear it.

Also, Hare Krishnas wear hideous hair cuts as did medieval monks with those stupid tonsures.

It is the sort of self flagellation you would expect from the fake humility of Puritans.
___________________________________

So, would you try to convince me that it's actually an act of "self-flagellation" and "fake humility" when a good portion of black males and some white males shave their heads, revealing bumpy, knobby skulls and oft-times rolls of fat?

Anon 6:46 said...

Anon 10:48: the Amish do not wear mustaches because at the time at which they stopped wearing them they were common among military men (think of old photos of generals with huge mustaches). It was a sign of their pacifism, not a rejection of it for being "cool and attractive."

Florida resident said...

Dear Mr. Sailer !
On un-related topic (hat tip to HBD*chick):
"What predicts college grades better than IQ score?"
According tho reference below,
"Being an introvert."

http://www.bakadesuyo.com/what-predicts-college-grades-better-than-iq-s

Any comments?

Respectfully, Florida resident.

Anonymous said...

Putnam was separated at birth from the equally scary Robert Bork.

pat said...

The human male beard is very odd. Chimpanzees have beards so I guess we come by our chin whiskers legitimately. I can't figure out why the hair is so coarse. I would thought if it's on your face it would be soft and silky.

My cat has a coat that is short and soft. He feels good to pet. Why aren't beards like that? It would work just as well as a sign of sexual maturity. Maybe when we get just a little more control over our genetics men will opt for beards that feel better and require less care.

I grew a little monkey beard last year. Some people call them goatees but they look more like the beards of chimps than goats - so monkey beard. I grew it to add interest to my aging face. A little beard is like a big beauty spot. Women just have to let their faces sag. A man can always experiment with some ornamental hair.

One theory about the origin of the myth of the Amazons is that the Hittites who had invented steel could shave. They shaved off their beards and appeared in battle to their enemies like some sort of bellicose women. There are other theories of the Amazons but this is my favorite. It leaves open the question as to why the Hittites bothered with shaving at all? If a beard is natural. Why shave it off?

When I first saw the Samurai trilogy I was surprised that Mifune shaved his hairline on the top of his head back to the level of his ears. This looked very strange to my Western eyes. This seemed to support the idea that what you shaved and didn't shave is completely an arbitrary cultural choice. But that can't be it. Almost all cultures - including the Japanese - shave the male face and very few shave the parts of the head. A completely shaved head is popular with many cultures but partial shaving of the head like a Mohawk haircut is usually only for marginal people making some kind of statement. Your doctor or lawyer won't sport a Mohawk.

So we are left with the question as to why do we shave off our beards?

The Romans shaved or grew full neatly trimmed beards. They held the "hairy lips" (moustaches) of the Gauls in contempt. Putnam here has what might be called a reverse moustache. To my eyes, like Steve's, it carries a bushel load of connotations. Why?

This moustacheless beard style sends a signal - patriarch in an extreme religion. Recognition of the human male hairline and beard line are obviously built into our genes. There seem to be cross cultural shaving patterns that convey specific messages.

All very odd.

Albertosaurus



Anonymous said...

"If he came right out and said things that were congruent with his research, all of his valid work could likely end up on the junk heap of "psuedo science", and he could be end up a discredited academic. By capitulation, his work at least manintains enough academic capital to still reach it's intended audience."

Is he as clever as you are? Maybe subconsciously. Is this whole act to keep his work the academic equivalent of a R or NC-17 rating, instead of an X? As an extra benefit, he might get some arguments at social events, but he won't be uninvited. You should be his lawyer. A damn good comment.

Anonymous said...

It is the sort of self flagellation you would expect from the fake humility of Puritans.

How about the short hair and beardlessness of middle-class military-industrial American males from 1920-1965?

Some of it is no doubt for practical reasons, such as keeping away lice, preventing industrial accidents, and preventing enemy soldiers from grabbing hair/beards. But there must have been some "self-flagellation" also, and possibly lower-middle-class hatred of the old upper classes. It was the upper classmen of 1880-1920 that had the elaborate hair and beards. Some of this attitude can be seen in the term "long-hair" for classical musicians.

Mac said...

I often wear a moustacheless beard. It's not because Im trying to look like a weirdo, but it's more comfortable. My moustache itches for some reason, the beard doesn't. So I simply shave off the moustache.

Anonymous said...

This moustacheless beard style sends a signal - patriarch in an extreme religion. Recognition of the human male hairline and beard line are obviously built into our genes. There seem to be cross cultural shaving patterns that convey specific messages.

Indeed.

The Anti-Constitutionalist [until the rise of Bolshevism, perhaps the greatest mass-murderer in all of human history] adopted this style.

Anonymous said...

I read Putnam's book Bowling Alone. It's bizarrely filled with lots of Yiddish and references to Jewish stuff. Wikipedia says Putnam converted to Judaism for his wife. Reminds me a bit of that dentist from Seinfeld.

Anonymous said...

its seems that wasps who want to remain in the establishment do that (Trumps kid, bush's ect) which should tell you who weilds power now...

Anonymous said...

Whenever the glory of diversity is the topic, I always flash back to this classic study:

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/prison/report4.html#_1_27

Anonymous said...

"All the people stuffed into the basement were apparently from Vietnam and no one called the county or cops because all the surrounding neighbors are Hondurans, Guatemalans, and Salvadorans. The neighbors share the same proclivity of renting out each square foot of their home to strangers they met in front of the 7-11."

Someone's hiring all those people presumably.

Anonymous said...


"So, would you try to convince me that it's actually an act of "self-flagellation" and "fake humility" when a good portion of black males and some white males shave their heads, revealing bumpy, knobby skulls and oft-times rolls of fat?"

Maybe the hair is a bit warm on their heads. Also, shaving is cheap and do it yourself. Anyway, I bet they fancy themselves gorgeous no matter the objective assessment.

the Amish do not wear mustaches because at the time at which they stopped wearing them they were common among military men (think of old photos of generals with huge mustaches). It was a sign of their pacifism, not a rejection of it for being "cool and attractive."

Do chicks find pacifism cool and attractive? Or do they find macho military men cool and attractive?

Execution 101 said...

Anonymous said...
In 1692, women were condemned to be burned as witches based "spectral evidence" that was promoted by Harvard graduate Cotton Mather (also son of Harvard president).


I know someone already caught this error, but it's so common, it can't be countered too often: NOBODY WAS BURNED AS A WITCH OR FOR ANYTHING ELSE in New England. Burning alive as a form of execution was reserved in English law for traitors and women who killed their husbands, and who were thus considered traitors. The women were usually stangled first, as one article in an 18th century newspaper assured its gentle readers.
In effect, Engish forms of execution and torture were milder than those of the Continent. The German forms were especially gruesome. In all countries, but especially England, the mood of the crowd could cause the executioners to give it up. When several men were drawn and quatered during the reign of Elizabeth I, for treason, the crowd was so horrified by their sufferings that the remaining prisoners were dispatched more quickly the next day, without the embellishments.
The execution/torture practices in the American colonies were even milder.
Witches were hanged, and one accused male witch was pressed to death under boards, trying to get a confession out of him.

ben tillman said...

Northeastern states also incarcerate a much higher percentage of blacks than Southern States.

No, they don't.

What you're trying to say is that the percentages are more "disproportionate" in those states.

http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/prison.htm

Svigor said...

Someone's hiring all those people presumably.

Someone's buying/hiring all those women trafficked from eastern Europe, presumably. And the drugs from South America and Asia. And the arms from Russian stockpiles...

Some people even hire terrorists.

So, what was your point?

Anonymous said...

Do chicks find pacifism cool and attractive? Or do they find macho military men cool and attractive?

Both, and neither. It really depends on the chicks, and their backgrounds. Most chicks find nonconformity to be a turn-off, even a sign of insanity, unless the non-comformist could somehow make themselves look heroic rather than self-serving. In 1964, dodging the Vietnam War draft was uncool. In 1968, it was cool.

Anonymous said...

Dan Brown is from the same neck of the woods as the prof at the university that hired as an Indian (feathered)professor someone who also was not a dot so I would not be too sure that he knows that no one was burned for being a witch.

Anonymous said...

Joseph Monoco, the only diversity on Memorial Drive occurs when there's a Nike sale at the Gallaria!

Anon 6:46 said...

"Do chicks find pacifism cool and attractive? Or do they find macho military men cool and attractive?"

It could be that they find it unattractive. My point was just that that's not why the Amish do it. Women probably find sitting around and watching TV all day unattractive; that doesn't lead the Amish to do that.

Additionally, and for what it's worth, I suspect that the average Amish man has significantly more children than most of the men who comment on this site.

James Kabala said...

"It is the sort of self flagellation you would expect from the fake humility of Puritans."

Actually, I can't think of anyone well-known real-life Puritan who actually wore this style. Most had full beard-and-mustache or were clean-shaven.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:JohnWinthropColorPortrait.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:JohnEndecottPortrait.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cotton_Mather.jpg

Anonymous said...

"All the people stuffed into the basement were apparently from Vietnam and no one called the county or cops because all the surrounding neighbors are Hondurans, Guatemalans, and Salvadorans. The neighbors share the same proclivity of renting out each square foot of their home to strangers they met in front of the 7-11."


Someone's hiring all those people presumably.



What a peculiar assumption. The libertarian mind is an odd thing.