Second Amendment For All, Shot And Chaser Edition

Shot:

"I have a dream that enough is enough." -Yolanda Renee King, granddaughter of Martin Luther King Jr. #MarchForOurLives pic.twitter.com/gD5V8bQl1I

— March For Our Lives (@AMarch4OurLives) March 24, 2018

Chaser:

Martin Luther King Jr. carried guns for self-protection, applied for a conceal-carry permit (denied by racist white authorities), and once declared, "the principle of self-defense, even involving weapons and bloodshed, has never been condemned, even by Gandhi."

The War On Objective Competence

Campus Reform brings to us a masterpiece of feminist criticism of engineering and the hard sciences. And by "masterpiece", I mean a perfect example:

The professors are especially concerned with how engineering courses tend to be “depoliticized” compared to classes in other fields, which they contend is due in part to engineering culture’s emphasis on meritocracy and individualism.

“Socialization into the ideologies of meritocracy and individualism, coupled with a valorization of ‘technical’ prowess at the expense of ‘socially focused’ work processes, depoliticizes the gendered structure of the profession,” they write.

The professors add that this can be problematic because “students learn that raising concerns about marginalization—of themselves or others—is tangential or even distracting to what counts as the ‘real’ practical and objective work of engineering.”

The authors' credentials are all impeccable: none of them teach engineering classes, and only one drifted away from that discipline:

• Carroll Seron has a post at the Criminology, Law and Society department of UC Irvine's School of Social Ecology.
• Susan S. Silbey works at MIT's Sloan School of Management as a Professor of Behavioral and Policy Sciences.
• Erin A. Cech is an assistant professor in the sociology department at U. Michigan after obtaining an engineering degree at Montana State.
• Brian Rubineau teaches at McGill University as an Associate Professor of Organizational Behaviour.

As usual, none of these people have anything directly to do with their institutions' engineering or science schools. But it does qualify as yet another salvo in the ongoing war by idiot mandarins who do nothing upon objective measures of competence in fields where its exercise is of obvious import to society.

Matt Yglesias, Picker Of Free Speech Cherries

Time was, Vox published some decent defenses of free speech, even vile speech, and particularly, its constraint on campus in recent years. Matt Yglesias' recent effort, "Everything We Think About The Political Correctness Debate Is Wrong", is not one of them. He makes a number of claims regarding free speech, young people, and colleges, which rest on cherry-picked data, a stubborn refusal to engage with the more serious arguments of his adversaries, and studied ignorance of current events. He starts by tut-tutting David Brooks' review of events at Lewis & Clark Law School in Portland, Oregon, caricaturing his argument as

... broad generalizations about ... “basic understanding of how citizenship is supposed to work” versus “today’s students” for whom “reason, apparently, ceased to matter” and instead “see public life as an inevitable war of tribe versus tribe.”

He smirks at Reason's Eric Boehm's survey article and its characterization of "authoritarian political correctness" as so much bombast. He flippantly dismisses Bari Weiss' essay in the New York Times about Christina Hoff Sommers' premature ejection from a lectern at Lewis & Clark Law School by its dean of diversity and inclusion by noting Weiss got taken in by one — one! — tweet from a fake Twitter account that she subsequently removed from the piece. Ah, well, no need to deal with the rest of it, then!

Yglesias starts his counterattack with a disingenuous tweetstorm by Jeffrey Sachs, who cites a 2016 Gallup/Knight poll (PDF) as proof that students really do support free speech, despite all the anecdotal deplatforming. While they answer the question, "Should universities be open environments that permit offensive speech, or safe ones that forbid it?" in the affirmative, he conveniently ignores all the other polling data that shows how thin this commitment really is. As FIRE observes with a more recent (and more expansive) version of the same Gallup/Knight poll (emboldening mine):

• In the new survey, conducted in November and December of 2017, students said they preferred an “open learning environment” that allows offensive speech (70 percent) to a “positive environment” that prohibits certain speech (29 percent). However, students’ attitudes have become more speech restrictive since 2016, when the percentage point difference was 78 percent to 22 percent.
• More students today than in 2016 believe campuses should restrict slurs or “language that is intentionally offensive to certain groups” (73 versus 69 percent) and “political viewpoints that are upsetting or offensive to certain groups” (30 versus 27 percent). ....
• More students today than in 2016 think their campus “prevents some people from saying things they believe because others might find them offensive” (61 versus 54 percent).
• Students also think that First Amendment rights are less secure today than they were in 2016: freedom of speech (64 versus 73 percent), freedom of religion (64 versus 68 percent), freedom of press (60 versus 81 percent), freedom of assembly (57 versus 66 percent), the right to petition the government (67 versus 76 percent).

In other words, students

• are getting more, not less, censorious (with a significant minority advocating censorship)
• like censorship when it serves a politically useful purpose
• unsurprisingly believe that colleges are stifling offensive speech
• also believe that First Amendment rights (consequently?) are under attack.

Among the newer survey's findings:

• ... Forty-nine percent of students favor “instituting speech codes, or codes of conduct that restrict offensive or biased speech on campus that would be permitted in society more generally.” However, 83 percent of students favor “establishing a free speech zone, a designated area of campus in which protesting or distributing literature is permitted, usually with pre-approval.” It’s possible most students don’t know that inaptly named “free speech zones” are a type of restriction on speech – or speech code – which might explain the disparity with students’ mixed support for speech codes.
• Students narrowly prefer “diversity and inclusion” as a more important value when pitted against free speech (53 versus 46 percent).
• Students perceive that political conservatives are the least free to express their views on campus by a pretty wide margin, though most students (69 percent) believe political conservatives are free to express their views. Ninety-two percent of college students think that political liberals are free to express their views on campus.
• A majority of students (69 percent) are in favor of canceling planned speeches because of concerns about the possibility of violence. Most students, however, (72 percent) oppose disinviting a speaker because some students are opposed to the invitation. That said, FIRE’s “Speaking Freely” survey found that when students are presented with the actual names of speakers or ideologies represented by those speakers, most students (56 percent) support disinviting some guest speakers.
• [A] minority of students — 10 percent —  report that it is sometimes acceptable to use violence to silence a speaker. The survey also found that 37 percent of students think it is sometimes acceptable to shout down speakers.

Given prior fatuous conflations of disagreeable speech and violence, let alone spurious historical claims of "racist" speech or "sexist" speech (ahem, Laura Kipnis), one can't condemn this sort of censorship advocacy by other means too strongly. Yet Yglesias ignores it all, just as he doesn't mention the FIRE disinvitation database, cataloguing hundreds of such events — and most of them at the hands of supposed liberals. If he thinks this is even remotely convincing outside the universe of pro-censorship-under-another-name types in colleges, he is deeply mistaken.

Why Are Winter Sports Gender Segregated? Part 1: The Luge

I've written before about the absurdists claiming, without evidence, that men and women are perfectly identical on the athletic playing field — or would be if it wasn't for socially constructed limitations. This seems to come up every so often in areas where men and women play the same game, or at least similar games with the same name, with slightly watered-down rules for the women. Perhaps nowhere has this been more true than in tennis, as we saw this last summer when John McEnroe disrupted the zeitgeist by stating the obvious: a man at the peak of his game could whip a top woman without too much difficulty, claiming "if [Serena Williams] played the men’s circuit she’d be like 700 in the world"¹. This caused a good bit of predictable horrified tweeting from the chattering classes, but to her credit, Williams, who had embarrassed herself as a mouthy teen against #203-ranked Karsten Braasch, recognized the futility of a do-over:

“For me, men’s tennis and women’s tennis are completely, almost, two separate sports,” Williams said. “If I were to play Andy Murray, I would lose 6-0, 6-0 in five to six minutes, maybe 10 minutes. No, it’s true. It’s a completely different sport. The men are a lot faster and they serve harder, they hit harder, it’s just a different game. I love to play women’s tennis. I only want to play girls, because I don’t want to be embarrassed.”

But the case for sex segregation in the sports of the Winter Olympics would seem at least superficially different than tennis. Many of them are about going downhill very fast on waxed sticks or sleds, and as the acceleration due to gravity is 9.8 m/s² is true for everyone, it would appear those, at least, ought to negate most or even all of any sexual advantage. So, Maggie Mertens asks in Deadspin, why are winter sports sex-segregated? Why, for that matter, are there so many male sports for which there are no female analogues? Why, when men and women do participate in the same events, the course distances, and sometimes even rules are changed?

Luge

These questions need answering at some length. Mertens starts with the luge, which is maybe ideal for her argument. It's just a sled, so why is it that the men's Pyeongchang course (1,344.08m) is longer than the women's course (1,201.82m)?²

The sport in which you lay on a sled and hurtle yourself down an icy track the fastest wouldn’t immediately seem like it has any kind of bias favoring athletes of one gender or the other. But think again! The women competing in Pyeongchang will barrel down a track that’s 10.6 percent shorter than the men’s. That’s a difference of just 142m. And when it comes to doubles, women don’t have an event at all. Apparently only two dudes can lay on top of each other and fly down the ice on a sled.

I immediately grant the unfairness of having no women's double event, and possibly its absurdity, presuming there's no compelling reason to omit it. (There is a mixed doubles relay race.) I also concede the oddity of having a ladies start (reused for men's doubles). So why have sex segregation at all?

Looking at the final results page from the men's and women's luge events (both PDFs), doing the math and equalizing for course length, we find that gold medalist Natalie Geisenberger of Germany had an average speed of 93.4299 km/h, where her male counterpart, Austrian David Gleirscher, went a sizzling 101.492 km/h. That's 8.6% faster! Is the ice slicker for men?

One obvious answer might be that the initial push has a great deal to say about course times, and in fact if you compare the Gleirscher's fastest time (2.595s) with Geisenberger's (4.318s), you'll note that Geisenberger's is 66% longer than her male counterpart. Yet, at the end of the event, Geisenberger's average speed is 92% of Gleirscher's. Also, Gleirscher's averaged start time of 2.547s placed him in the bottom to middle of the pack of start times on each run; the consistently fastest luger at the start, Tucker West of the United States, who had two firsts, didn't even qualify for a fourth run. These in tandem strongly suggest the initial push isn't all that important, and/or we need to look more closely at why that difference might exist at all. So what else could account for it?

1. It appears that women have a longer distance to start their sleds, an artificial handicap. I base this on the fact that the men's doubles event (PDF), which begins at the women's start, has similar but shorter start times. (The shortest start time was recorded by the men's doubles gold medal winning team, Tobias Wendl of Germany, who clocked in at 4.174s, where the best time in the women's single, a tie between German Tatjana Huefner and Korean Aileen Kristina Frisch at 4.310s, is 96% of the men's speed. The average gold medal men's doubles course speed was 92.43 km/h, slightly slower than the women's single time.)
2. The track for the upper 142.86m of the men's course is steeper. I have no way of ascertaining this, and so ignore it.
3. Even if it is not steeper, the drop through the additional 142.86m provides enough boost to accelerate the men's sled to higher speeds. Using the average³ course 10% slope, we can work backwards to an estimated acceleration on an idealized course:
   
   
   A 10% slope is a rise:run of 1:10, or tan^-11/10 = 5.711°
   
   Acceleration due to gravity, adjusted for slope (ignoring⁴ friction due to ice), and assuming no other losses (as by non-ideal course traversal), we get
   
   a = 9.8 m/s² * sin(5.711°) = .9752 m/s²
   
   Distance is expressed by the equation
   
   x = 1/2at² + vt + x₀, where
   
   

   x = position in m
   a = acceleration in m/s²
   v = initial velocity in m/s (0 in this case)
   x₀ = initial position (also 0)

   This reduces to x = 1/2at², or transposing and substituting,
   
   t = sqrt(2*142.86 m/.9752 m/s²) = 17.12 s
   
   The final speed at the base for our idealized luger is thus
   
   v = .9752 m/s² * 17.12s * 3.6 km*s/m*hr = 60.09 km/h
   That's a pretty serious advantage! Of course, this is a back of the envelope guesstimate, without knowledge of the course details.
4. Wind speed on the course (if any). I also ignore this factor as evening out over time.
5. Strength and body control factor in steering and thus navigating the fastest path through the course.
6. Other, unknown factors.

The third element would appear to be, by far, the biggest factor. Looking through the results, you might notice a couple interesting things about the record keeping:

1. Average speed differs from finish line speed.
2. Fastest finish speed is not the same thing as a first place finish. German Andi Langenhan's second round finish speed of 130.5 km/h was a men's solo track best, but he only placed eighth with his time of 47.850.

 As this How Stuff Works article suggests, lugers have intense training regimens that would tend to confer advantages to men (as ever, emboldening is mine):

The start is the most important part of the race. It's the time when the slider is most in control, so his or her training can have the greatest affect on the outcome. Luge athletes build tremendous upper body strength for the start, when they'll propel themselves, their sled and any extra weights onto the course. Hand strength is also required for the start, when the slider paddles as quickly as possible for the first several feet of the course. Since a slider's body faces up to 5 Gs during a run, he must be in overall excellent physical and mental condition to manage the 50-second attack on his body and his focus.

In the summer months, luge athletes train hard to build upper body muscles through swimming, weight training and calisthenics. In the winter months, typical luge training includes practice runs every day. Sometimes, they'll practice only starts, developing strength, agility and technique.

So upper body strength — surprisingly — is the major focus of luge training, as is hand strength. And yet we see no compelling evidence that faster starts correlate to better finish times. As the luge is an event timed down to the third decimal (thanks to a .002 difference in the 1998 Nagano Olympics' womens' singles event, then within the margin of error of the timing system), superior male body control affecting steering could mean women might not end up on the podium very often. Yet at this point, I see no reason to rule it out entirely, either. While I see little reason to believe that male and female records will eventually match for sheer physical contests (in general, male and female records in summer Olympic games have reached a limit of about 90%), it is not obvious that this applies to the luge, at least.

---

¹ An interesting sidebar on Serena Williams' and John McEnroe's public throwdown comes in this Stats On The T post, which favorably compares Williams' serve speeds with those of top male competitors. But as the commenters following point out, service speed is only one part of the game, asserting (without specific data) Williams lacks the three-step sprint speeds of her male competitors. Given Williams' avowed refusal to play men, I take her as an authority.
² The governing body for luge events, the International Luge Federation, or FIL for its French acronym, Fédération de Internationale de Luge de Course, prescribes flexible course lengths in their posted rules (PDF); men's courses may be up to 1,350m, with a minimum of 1,000m for men's singles. All other courses must be no less than 800m, with no specified maximum; presumably the women's start is customarily set after the men's.
³ From FIL rules Supplement 1 §3.1.1, "The average gradient of a track from the men’s start to the low point should not exceed 10%." It could of course be lower, though in §3.1.1 of the general rules it says, "The start ramp should have a gradient of 20-25% and a length of min. 10m and max. 30 m." I don't know whether the start ramp is considered part of the overall time or not, but it seems reasonable that it would be. I have sent an inquiry to the US luge team's offices and await their response.
⁴ An earlier version of this post had an erroneous calculation for the acceleration due to gravity on the inclined plane that included friction, so I simplified it to ignore friction.

No, You Were Fired For Getting James Damore Pointlessly Fired

Tim Chevalier is the kind of person who needs to be nowhere near any sort of power, yet always seeks it out. "Too much 'social activism'" sounds like an excuse.

Interesting commentary from @iamcuriousblue:

Now THIS is an interesting development. I didn't know that Tim Chevelier was with Google or played a role in the Damore case, but it fits. I can confirm that Chevelier/Catamorphism is a particularly nasty SJW troll. > https://t.co/23l1KtNMZa @jaspergregory

— iamcuriousblue (@iamcuriousblue) February 22, 2018

In particular, Chevelier was one of the more aggressive members the online mob Kitty Stryker raised up to attack Madison Young a few years back. He made a point of contacting groups Young was a part of to try to get her booted. @jaspergregory

— iamcuriousblue (@iamcuriousblue) February 22, 2018

So Chevelier definitely has this pattern of horizontal hostility, of trying to get people fired, or kicked out of organizations. Not surprising that he was at Google that he would have been one of the people stirring the pot against Damore. @jaspergregory

— iamcuriousblue (@iamcuriousblue) February 22, 2018

It is interesting to see Chevelier sue on the same grounds that Damore did, and on general principal I'd support it. However, based on what I know about Chevelier's history, I suspect there was more to it than the suit admits. >

— iamcuriousblue (@iamcuriousblue) February 22, 2018

My guess is that Chevelier was actively at war with other Google employees, tried to get the wrong person fired, and was fired himself.

— iamcuriousblue (@iamcuriousblue) February 22, 2018

Tim Chevelier's targeting of Madison Young and her participation in HackerMom's over Young's disagreement with the infamous Antioch College sexual offense policy. https://t.co/6ROZmHDo1y

— iamcuriousblue (@iamcuriousblue) February 22, 2018

(Dutifully noted in Geek Feminism Wiki's "Timeline of Incidents" for July 2014. https://t.co/xiq8ZNA5oQ) 🙄

— iamcuriousblue (@iamcuriousblue) February 22, 2018

Joss Whedon Unconvincingly Quits Batgirl Development

Joss Whedon quitting Batgirl seems more like taking cover until the #MeToo storm passes:

Industry sources add that even as Whedon faced story issues, in today's cultural entertainment environment, a male filmmaker may have faced greater public scrutiny if he were to have tackled a movie with such feminist importance such as Batgirl or Wonder Woman, much like a white filmmaker would have seen backlash taking on the Black Panther movie.

Once again, this recalls Whedon's Twitter sabbatical of three years ago (he's baaack). The Hollywood Reporter story recalls his success with Buffy The Vampire Slayer, so once again, we're left guessing at the real story: was it his treatment of the Black Widow character in Age of Ultron? Or his estranged wife's lengthy accusation of him as a serial philanderer? At some point, you have to wonder if there will be anyone left standing once every possible objection to a man directing a story with a woman in it. Because it certainly will not end there; there's a lot of intersectional nonsense to mine yet.

It's Only "Undeniable" That "Russia Affect[ed] the 2016 Elections" If You Assume Your Conclusions

The last section of Molly McKew's Wired essay about the recent DOJ indictment of Russian influence in the 2016 is a conclusion in search of supporting evidence:

4. What impact did it have?
We’re only at the beginning of having an answer to this question because we’ve only just begun to ask some of the right questions. But Mueller’s indictment shows that Russian accounts and agents accomplished more than just stoking divisions and tensions with sloppy propaganda memes. The messaging was more sophisticated, and some Americans took action. For example, the indictment recounts a number of instances where events and demonstrations were organized by Russians posing as Americans on social media. These accounts aimed to get people to do specific things. And it turns out—some people did.

How many? Did the material change the minds and votes of undecided voters? These questions she lacks answers to, but that it did is taken as an article of faith. It explains the nutjobbery of CNN in this excerpt:

The Russians must be licking their chops watching stuff like this happen.

Does CNN realize it may be unwittingly facilitating what the actual goal of the "interference" seems to have been? https://t.co/00I7aNttvf

— The Alt-Primate (@OneCuriousLemur) February 22, 2018