Liberals use political correctness as de facto censorship.

Or maybe it's that liberals use political correctness as de facto censorship to silence any and all debate that does not fit the liberal narrative, regardless of its truthfulness.

For example, for every one Sociologist who does not identify as a liberal, eight other sociologists do and 82% admit to being willing to discriminate against conservates.

 

What the right means by "liberals use political correctness as de facto censorship" is their opinions are criticized as biased and are generally wrong. The right has no counterargument and debate ends.
Source for the 82%?

 

Inbar, Y., & Lammers, J. (2012). Political diversity in social and personality psychology. Perspectives on
Psychological Science

In a study by Inbar, Y., & Lammers, J. (2012) titled, Political diversity in social and personality psychology, found that 82% of social psychologists who responded to a survey admitted to being willing to discriminate against conservatives.

 

If the right is incorrect about the issues of genes, crime, and race, why do leftists try to suppress the assertions of Charles Murray, Jared Taylor, and Professor's Richard Herrnstein, Arthur Jensen, and J. Philippe Rushton?

Why does the left avoid debating them in civil environments where facts and logical reasoning are respected?

 

The right has plenty of counter arguments on hereditarianism and race realism. The debate ends when the left suppresses it, and resorts to insults, name calling, and efforts to destroy the careers of hereditarians and race realists.

 

Interesting study although I never found the "82%", but here are some of the findings.... Hostility toward and willingness to discriminate against conservatives is widespread. One in six respondents said that she or he would be somewhat (or more) inclined to discriminate against conservatives in inviting them for symposia or reviewing their work. One in four would discriminate in reviewing their grant applications. More than one in three would discriminate against them when making hiring decisions....

This hostile climate offers a simple explanation of why conservatives hide their political opinions from colleagues.

Explanations why there are more liberals in psych science..... “liberals may be more interested in new ideas, more willing to work for peanuts, or just more intelligent, all of which may push them to pursue the academic life while deterring their conservative peers.” and “there are very few conservatives in social psychology possibly not because it’s a hostile environment but because the field of social psychology self-selects for liberals and might even create them.”

I think liberals mistrust conservatives in the social sciences because of their psychology. Conservatives tend to have lower empathy for outside groups, a more rigid morality, trust the status quo, see social groups as hierarchal, do not see fairness as a priority and prize authority/security. Traits that really do not fit the field.

Speaking of name calling you have white nationalists and white separatists on your list and what you advocate is pseudoscience. No proof of genetic differences, just correlation proving causation, which is not science. I have given you lists as to why IQ results legitimately vary...ignored.

 

The men on my list do not descend to name calling and insults. Instead they provide scientific evidence that intractable racial differences in average intelligence are genetically caused.

 

Well I would not call it name calling, I would call it clearly labeling. One on your list, Mr. Taylor, called for a white homeland and Blacks should live separately. I believe that is called white nationalism and white separatism.
I'm no geneticist, but a "statement by the American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG) expressed alarm at the "resurgence of groups rejecting the value of genetic diversity and using discredited or distorted genetic concepts to bolster bogus claims of white supremacy." The ASHG denounced this as a "misuse of genetics to feed racist ideologies", and highlighted several factual errors upon which white supremacist claims have been based. The statement affirms that genetics "demonstrates that humans cannot be divided into biologically distinct subcategories" and that it "exposes the concept of 'racial purity'' as scientifically meaningless."
Rationalized racism, nothing more.

 

You never define what a liberal narrative is.

 

Jared Taylor banned me from his website for expressing my admiration for Jews and East Asians.

 

The alarm is felt by those who fear the growing scientific evidence in favor of race realism. They fear the political results that will come when this scientific evidence is widely discussed and acknowledged.

In his essay "The Inequality Taboo," Charles Murray mentions an interesting experiment. 3,636 people were asked to identify their race. Then they were asked to donate a tissue sample for DNA testing. Those doing the testing did not know what races the donors claimed for themselves. Nevertheless, they identified over 99% of the time. This experiment has been repeated several times with the same results.

https://www.aei.org/articles/the-inequality-taboo/

Once we acknowledge that race is an important biological category it becomes legitimate to acknowledge the durable ways the races differ in average intelligence and behavior, and to look for genetic reasons for the differences.

 

Link?

 

Not really. It's just using speech to criticize speech . . . meaning that the OP (if it were correct) would ALSO be engaged in de facto censorship. And the right wing has their own political correctness and does the same thing.

 

Gross, N. & Simmons, S. (2007). The social and political views of American professors. Working paper

Klein, D. B., & Stern, C. (2009). By the numbers: The ideological profile of professors. In R. Maranto, R.

Rothman, S. & Lichter, S. R. The vanishing conservative: Is there a glass ceiling? In R. Maranto

 

In the soft sciences, the distribution between liberals and conservatives is 8:1.

However, in the hard sciences the distribution between conservatives and liberals is about 1:1.

People in the hard sciences tend to be more intelligent.

People in the hard sciences can generally do what people in the soft sciences do; but people in the soft sciences generally can't do what people in the hard sciences can do.

It's like the difference between someone running a 4 minute mile and someone leisurely walking a mile in 30 minutes.

Very few people can run a mile in 4 minutes, however; nearly everyone can walk a mile in 30 minutes.

 

Yea, like banning books, and creating forbidden topics lists, attacking corporations for speaking their mind or running un-PC ads.......wait....... Things have changed, and now the populist pseudo-cons not only wear the PC crown, they took it to a whole new level where they use the government force to make sure people obey the PC rules.

What 'debate' are those libburals banning, and how do they do it?

 

Liberal Narratives:

Liberals are tolerant of other people's beliefs

Feminism is an equality movement

White Male Privilege

GMO's are bad for people and the environment

Alternative Medicine

Sugar is better for you than artificial sweeteners

Banning abortion after 15 weeks with the exception of rape, incest and the life of the mother will eventually lead to a banning on all abortions

Smoking marijuana is benign

The consequences of your actions and choices are not your fault. You're the victim.

Minorities are under-privileged

Affirmative Action is not racist and/or sexist

How are they doing it?

By making white males the only race and gender combination exempt from constitutional protections

 

Narrative <> censorship. Narrative is an opinion. The topic is censorship. Who cares what they think about marijuana sweeteners. Being offended by their opinions is a tell tale sign of PC mindset.

 

Nice bumper sticker logic.

 

Liberals, and people on the left generally, are rarely tolerant of the beliefs of others. They try to prevent men like Charles Murray, Jared Taylor, and Professor's Arthur Jensen, Richard Herrnstein, and J. Philippe Rushton from expressing their opinions.

 

Liberals ban debates on black social pathology and the genetic reasons for it.

 

Which debate are you referring to?

 

I've read studies that found when adoptees of different races are raised by the same race of parents there is no statistically significant difference in IQ but the sample size in those studies are woefully small.

But the studies suggest the difference in IQ are not so much the result of nature as they are nurture.

But the difference in pathology of African Americans is suppressed by the left.

I've read studies that found the homicide rate of African Americans is many times greater than the homicide rate of Caucasians.

And that is something that is not politically correct and suppressed by the left.

 

How are they doing it???

They're doing it by making white males exempt from constitutional protections, like the 14th amendments equal protection clause.