The Death of Free Speech: Uber PC'ism-A further look

[sonofdaxjones]

Yeah, I mean nice work skimmers, no content of that article was applicable to this thread    :

Some critics, however, say they worry that the microaggression movement chills free speech, increases conflict and perpetuates an aggrieved sense of victimhood.

Bradley Campbell, a an associate professor of sociology at Cal State Los Angeles, said the movement is transforming society from a "dignity culture," in which people are taught to have thick skins and refuse to allow others to affect their sense of self-worth, to a "victimhood culture" that advertises personal oppression.

[/i]

LibLogic and cRusty . . . are you sure you read the article.

that critic didn't say anything about free speech! And again, no examples of free speech being under attack. The author summarized "critics" saying it "chills" free speech? I mean that isn't even an anecdote, it's just sloppy writing designed to fire up the daxes of the world.

They didn't say anything about free speech . . . but the words "free speech" are direct quotes.   

If the writer wanted to get into the mountain of anecdotes related to that, then they would have had to reserve a substantial portion of additional column space.   You seem pretty upset about this cRusty.

[DQ12]

that critic didn't say anything about free speech! And again, no examples of free speech being under attack. The author summarized "critics" saying it "chills" free speech? I mean that isn't even an anecdote, it's just sloppy writing designed to fire up the daxes of the world.

I haven't read the article, but the "chilling effect" is a pretty common attack against prohibitions on speech.  Alluding to it isn't necessarilly crazy.

[sonofdaxjones]

It's fascinating that asking people to stop being dicks (often times unintentionally) is labeled as PC run amok and attacking free speech

Yes, because when there's protests over the capitalization of indigenous, or someone sends out an email about how college is about growing and learning to deal with the world and that causes a complete meltdown in the quad with over the top hyperbole being directed at faculty members, then everyone should just shut up and not say that it's gone too far (just 2 examples of 1000's).  Nice work LibLogic.   

It's their absolute right to meltdown over things, just like it's the right of sane people to call them on it.

None of which was in the article you linked but didn't read

I've linked a substantial number of articles which discuss that lib.   You probably haven't read any of that.   But keeping trying (poorly) to drive home a point about one article.   You're kind of a straight line monolithic thinker.   Sad

[star seed 7]

You should read the article Dlew12, I think you'd find the content reasonable, and misrepresented by dax

[sonofdaxjones]

You should read the article Dlew12, I think you'd find the content reasonable, and misrepresented by dax

Where have I said the content was unreasonable?  You sure do make a lot of crap up passive aggressive liblogic.  Sad

[michigancat]

that critic didn't say anything about free speech! And again, no examples of free speech being under attack. The author summarized "critics" saying it "chills" free speech? I mean that isn't even an anecdote, it's just sloppy writing designed to fire up the daxes of the world.

I haven't read the article, but the "chilling effect" is a pretty common attack against prohibitions on speech.  Alluding to it isn't necessarilly crazy.

Perhaps, but the author just didn't support it with any examples of a "chilling effect", like at all.

[sonofdaxjones]

One resolution supporter was Leslie Berntsen, a psychology graduate student whose mother is Nicaraguan and father, white. When she was applying to graduate schools, she said an admissions officer expressed surprise at her high test scores and encouraged her to apply for a scholarship for minorities.

"The implication is that Hispanics couldn't score so high on tests," she said.

Or maybe the admissions officer had never seen such high test scores?   This absolutely starts to dig into the domain of thought police.   The quest for non-emotion? 

[DQ12]

that critic didn't say anything about free speech! And again, no examples of free speech being under attack. The author summarized "critics" saying it "chills" free speech? I mean that isn't even an anecdote, it's just sloppy writing designed to fire up the daxes of the world.

I haven't read the article, but the "chilling effect" is a pretty common attack against prohibitions on speech.  Alluding to it isn't necessarilly crazy.

Perhaps, but the author just didn't support it with any examples of a "chilling effect", like at all.

Yeah.  Just realize I read this yesterday on my way home.  i don't think the point of the article was the focus on free speech, rather, explaining what "microaggressions" are.  that said, i also believe that when students express outrage at the term "melting pot" that it's fair to think that people in university settings may just skirt the issue of race altogether -- which i don't think is a positive thing.  Unless public universities actually codify "speech codes" or take some other action, "freedom of speech" isn't really implicated.  i think things like students catastrophizing microaggressions or other slights, real or perceived, is just harmful to the "general dialogue" that should occur on campuses.

[Fedor]

that critic didn't say anything about free speech! And again, no examples of free speech being under attack. The author summarized "critics" saying it "chills" free speech? I mean that isn't even an anecdote, it's just sloppy writing designed to fire up the daxes of the world.

I haven't read the article, but the "chilling effect" is a pretty common attack against prohibitions on speech.  Alluding to it isn't necessarilly crazy.

Perhaps, but the author just didn't support it with any examples of a "chilling effect", like at all.

Yeah.  Just realize I read this yesterday on my way home.  i don't think the point of the article was the focus on free speech, rather, explaining what "microaggressions" are.  that said, i also don't think that when students express outrage at the term "melting pot" that its outrageous to think that people in university settings will just skirt the issue of race altogether.  Unless public universities actually codify "speech codes" or take some other action, "freedom of speech" isn't really implicated.  i think things like students catastrophizing microaggressions or other slights, real or perceived, is just harmful to the "general dialogue" that should occur on campuses.

"A white male speaker, apparently frustrated by the discussion, questioned the need for diversity training for guest lecturers and whether one student was human at all. He told the packed room that "you guys don't understand how endowments" and university finances work.

Several students groaned, and Cynthia Blondeel-Timmerman, a junior, told the speaker she found the term "you guys" offensive.

"This isn't a men's issue," she said. "How dare you come into this space and say that [females] aren't important."

Shortly afterward, he left in a huff, declining to give his name."

Isn't this an example? 

[michigancat]

that critic didn't say anything about free speech! And again, no examples of free speech being under attack. The author summarized "critics" saying it "chills" free speech? I mean that isn't even an anecdote, it's just sloppy writing designed to fire up the daxes of the world.

I haven't read the article, but the "chilling effect" is a pretty common attack against prohibitions on speech.  Alluding to it isn't necessarilly crazy.

Perhaps, but the author just didn't support it with any examples of a "chilling effect", like at all.

Yeah.  Just realize I read this yesterday on my way home.  i don't think the point of the article was the focus on free speech, rather, explaining what "microaggressions" are.  that said, i also don't think that when students express outrage at the term "melting pot" that its outrageous to think that people in university settings will just skirt the issue of race altogether.  Unless public universities actually codify "speech codes" or take some other action, "freedom of speech" isn't really implicated.  i think things like students catastrophizing microaggressions or other slights, real or perceived, is just harmful to the "general dialogue" that should occur on campuses.

That's reasonable. Although I didn't see any examples of "catastrophizing microagressions" in the piece, either. I thought most of the examples of students experiencing "microagressions" were taking the approach of recognizing and educating rather than expressing outrage or wanting to suppress speech.

[michigancat]

did the white guy leave because he was experiencing microagression?

Also, WTF was up with this sentence: "A white male speaker, apparently frustrated by the discussion, questioned the need for diversity training for guest lecturers and whether one student was human at all."

[Fedor]

did the white guy leave because he was experiencing microagression?

Also, WTF was up with this sentence: "A white male speaker, apparently frustrated by the discussion, questioned the need for diversity training for guest lecturers and whether one student was human at all."

  Maybe he left because he felt he has something to add to the discussion but was bludgeoned with accusations of misogyny because he used the common term "you guys" to address a mixed gender crowd.

Re: the bolded, I dont know but I noticed the article took quite a turn in tone at the end, the author really seemed to not like the unnamed white guy.

[sys]

the movement is transforming society from a "dignity culture," in which people are taught to have thick skins and refuse to allow others to affect their sense of self-worth, to a "victimhood culture" that advertises personal oppression.

that critic didn't say anything about free speech!

the discussion about whether focusing on things like micrroaggressions is harmful to overall culture as it values/emphasizes victimhood would be a more interesting discussion anyways.

[DQ12]

that critic didn't say anything about free speech! And again, no examples of free speech being under attack. The author summarized "critics" saying it "chills" free speech? I mean that isn't even an anecdote, it's just sloppy writing designed to fire up the daxes of the world.

I haven't read the article, but the "chilling effect" is a pretty common attack against prohibitions on speech.  Alluding to it isn't necessarilly crazy.

Perhaps, but the author just didn't support it with any examples of a "chilling effect", like at all.

Yeah.  Just realize I read this yesterday on my way home.  i don't think the point of the article was the focus on free speech, rather, explaining what "microaggressions" are.  that said, i also don't think that when students express outrage at the term "melting pot" that its outrageous to think that people in university settings will just skirt the issue of race altogether.  Unless public universities actually codify "speech codes" or take some other action, "freedom of speech" isn't really implicated.  i think things like students catastrophizing microaggressions or other slights, real or perceived, is just harmful to the "general dialogue" that should occur on campuses.

That's reasonable. Although I didn't see any examples of "catastrophizing microagressions" in the piece, either. I thought most of the examples of students experiencing "microagressions" were taking the approach of recognizing and educating rather than expressing outrage or wanting to suppress speech.

Well, I think the phrase "you guys" or using the term "melting pot" are completely innocuous things.  When someone makes a point using the phrase "you guys" and the retort is met with "How dare you come into this space and say that [females] aren't important," it would be harm to blame the guy for saying "F this.  I'm through speaking publicly about the university's hiring." 

Side note: Imagine if instead of "you guys" he went with the gender neutral "you people."  Yikes.

did the white guy leave because he was experiencing microagression?

No, it sounds like he left because members of his audience were being him unreasonable and misconstruing his point.

[sonofdaxjones]

Great examples of the deterioration of reasonable discourse, outside of the whole human thing.

A culture where every word must be policed and intent established . . . terrifying.

[DQ12]

the discussion about whether focusing on things like micrroaggressions is harmful to overall culture as it values/emphasizes victimhood would be a more interesting discussion anyways.

I agree.  The Atlantic article discussing the Yale situation had a pretty interesting quote:

Here’s one of the ways that white men at Yale are most privileged of all: When a white male student at an elite college says that he feels disempowered, the first impulse of the campus left is to show him the extent of his power and privilege. When any other students say they feel disempowered, the campus left’s impulse is to validate their statements.

This does a huge disservice to everyone except white male students. It’s baffling that so few campus activists seem to realize this drawback of emphasizing victim status even if college administrators sometimes treat it as currency.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/the-new-intolerance-of-student-activism-at-yale/414810/

[sys]

it sounds like he left because members of his audience were being him unreasonable and misconstruing his point.

if being unreasonable and misconstruing a point isn't a microaggression, then i don't know what one is.

[star seed 7]

that critic didn't say anything about free speech! And again, no examples of free speech being under attack. The author summarized "critics" saying it "chills" free speech? I mean that isn't even an anecdote, it's just sloppy writing designed to fire up the daxes of the world.

I haven't read the article, but the "chilling effect" is a pretty common attack against prohibitions on speech.  Alluding to it isn't necessarilly crazy.

Perhaps, but the author just didn't support it with any examples of a "chilling effect", like at all.

Yeah.  Just realize I read this yesterday on my way home.  i don't think the point of the article was the focus on free speech, rather, explaining what "microaggressions" are.  that said, i also don't think that when students express outrage at the term "melting pot" that its outrageous to think that people in university settings will just skirt the issue of race altogether.  Unless public universities actually codify "speech codes" or take some other action, "freedom of speech" isn't really implicated.  i think things like students catastrophizing microaggressions or other slights, real or perceived, is just harmful to the "general dialogue" that should occur on campuses.

That's reasonable. Although I didn't see any examples of "catastrophizing microagressions" in the piece, either. I thought most of the examples of students experiencing "microagressions" were taking the approach of recognizing and educating rather than expressing outrage or wanting to suppress speech.

Well, I think the phrase "you guys" or using the term "melting pot" are completely innocuous things.  When someone makes a point using the phrase "you guys" and the retort is met with "How dare you come into this space and say that [females] aren't important," it would be harm to blame the guy for saying "F this.  I'm through speaking publicly about the university's hiring." 

Side note: Imagine if instead of "you guys" he went with the gender neutral "you people."  Yikes.

did the white guy leave because he was experiencing microagression?

No, it sounds like he left because members of his audience were being him unreasonable and misconstruing his point.

I agree with you, on that example. Do you think this a major movement, or fairly isolated?

[michigancat]

that critic didn't say anything about free speech! And again, no examples of free speech being under attack. The author summarized "critics" saying it "chills" free speech? I mean that isn't even an anecdote, it's just sloppy writing designed to fire up the daxes of the world.

I haven't read the article, but the "chilling effect" is a pretty common attack against prohibitions on speech.  Alluding to it isn't necessarilly crazy.

Perhaps, but the author just didn't support it with any examples of a "chilling effect", like at all.

Yeah.  Just realize I read this yesterday on my way home.  i don't think the point of the article was the focus on free speech, rather, explaining what "microaggressions" are.  that said, i also don't think that when students express outrage at the term "melting pot" that its outrageous to think that people in university settings will just skirt the issue of race altogether.  Unless public universities actually codify "speech codes" or take some other action, "freedom of speech" isn't really implicated.  i think things like students catastrophizing microaggressions or other slights, real or perceived, is just harmful to the "general dialogue" that should occur on campuses.

That's reasonable. Although I didn't see any examples of "catastrophizing microagressions" in the piece, either. I thought most of the examples of students experiencing "microagressions" were taking the approach of recognizing and educating rather than expressing outrage or wanting to suppress speech.

Well, I think the phrase "you guys" or using the term "melting pot" are completely innocuous things.  When someone makes a point using the phrase "you guys" and the retort is met with "How dare you come into this space and say that [females] aren't important," it would be harm to blame the guy for saying "F this.  I'm through speaking publicly about the university's hiring." 

did the white guy leave because he was experiencing microagression?

No, it sounds like he left because members of his audience were being him unreasonable and misconstruing his point.

It was a terribly written article, but his quote and what he said before was pretty condescending, with or without the "you guys".

Also, perhaps because almost everyone I worked with at my last job was a woman, I tried not to use the term "you guys" when addressing a room full of women - IMO that's not an unreasonable consideration. It is more likely to be an innocuous term to you than the female who spoke out because you're a man.

[ednksu]

that critic didn't say anything about free speech! And again, no examples of free speech being under attack. The author summarized "critics" saying it "chills" free speech? I mean that isn't even an anecdote, it's just sloppy writing designed to fire up the daxes of the world.

I haven't read the article, but the "chilling effect" is a pretty common attack against prohibitions on speech.  Alluding to it isn't necessarilly crazy.

Perhaps, but the author just didn't support it with any examples of a "chilling effect", like at all.

Yeah.  Just realize I read this yesterday on my way home.  i don't think the point of the article was the focus on free speech, rather, explaining what "microaggressions" are.  that said, i also don't think that when students express outrage at the term "melting pot" that its outrageous to think that people in university settings will just skirt the issue of race altogether.  Unless public universities actually codify "speech codes" or take some other action, "freedom of speech" isn't really implicated.  i think things like students catastrophizing microaggressions or other slights, real or perceived, is just harmful to the "general dialogue" that should occur on campuses.

That's reasonable. Although I didn't see any examples of "catastrophizing microagressions" in the piece, either. I thought most of the examples of students experiencing "microagressions" were taking the approach of recognizing and educating rather than expressing outrage or wanting to suppress speech.

Well, I think the phrase "you guys" or using the term "melting pot" are completely innocuous things.  When someone makes a point using the phrase "you guys" and the retort is met with "How dare you come into this space and say that [females] aren't important," it would be harm to blame the guy for saying "F this.  I'm through speaking publicly about the university's hiring." 

did the white guy leave because he was experiencing microagression?

No, it sounds like he left because members of his audience were being him unreasonable and misconstruing his point.

It was a terribly written article, but his quote and what he said before was pretty condescending, with or without the "you guys".

Also, perhaps because almost everyone I worked with at my last job was a woman, I tried not to use the term "you guys" when addressing a room full of women - IMO that's not an unreasonable consideration. It is more likely to be an innocuous term to you than the female who spoke out because you're a man.

In fairness there are a lot of idiots out there that don't know how endowments work, see the phog. I'm sure there were lots of we have X sized endowment, why can we just "Y" it.

[ednksu]

the discussion about whether focusing on things like micrroaggressions is harmful to overall culture as it values/emphasizes victimhood would be a more interesting discussion anyways.

I agree.  The Atlantic article discussing the Yale situation had a pretty interesting quote:

Here’s one of the ways that white men at Yale are most privileged of all: When a white male student at an elite college says that he feels disempowered, the first impulse of the campus left is to show him the extent of his power and privilege. When any other students say they feel disempowered, the campus left’s impulse is to validate their statements.

This does a huge disservice to everyone except white male students. It’s baffling that so few campus activists seem to realize this drawback of emphasizing victim status even if college administrators sometimes treat it as currency.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/the-new-intolerance-of-student-activism-at-yale/414810/

that was a fantastic piece, thanks for posting it.

[Cartierfor3]

http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2015/11/the-revenge-of-the-coddled-an-interview-with-jonathan-haidt

I found this provocative. Was posted by my bro-in-law who is a college professor on the west coast and is a liberal.

[sys]

http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2015/11/the-revenge-of-the-coddled-an-interview-with-jonathan-haidt

I found this provocative. Was posted by my bro-in-law who is a college professor on the west coast and is a liberal.

interesting piece.  thanks for posting it.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Yes, that interview nailed it. We've got a big problem on our hands and it's going to get worse before it gets better. One thing omitted from the interview is, what happens to this current crop of coddled, fragile, mental lightweights (and the ones to follow, until such time as we can fix childhood)? How are they going to impact the workplace, government, and society at large? Not in a good way.

[star seed 7]

Article - this is a tiny minority

Ksuw - good article, proves this is a gigantic problem and will doom America