goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: sonofdaxjones on November 10, 2015, 04:57:41 PM
-
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/01/not-a-very-pc-thing-to-say.html
After political correctness burst onto the academic scene in the late ’80s and early ’90s, it went into a long remission. Now it has returned. Some of its expressions have a familiar tint, like the protesting of even mildly controversial speakers on college campuses. You may remember when 6,000 people at the University of California–Berkeley signed a petition last year to stop a commencement address by Bill Maher, who has criticized Islam (along with nearly all the other major world religions). Or when protesters at Smith College demanded the cancellation of a commencement address by Christine Lagarde, managing director of the International Monetary Fund, blaming the organization for “imperialist and patriarchal systems that oppress and abuse women worldwide.” Also last year, Rutgers protesters scared away Condoleezza Rice; others at Brandeis blocked Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a women’s-rights champion who is also a staunch critic of Islam; and those at Haverford successfully protested former Berkeley chancellor Robert Birgeneau, who was disqualified by an episode in which the school’s police used force against Occupy protesters.
At a growing number of campuses, professors now attach “trigger warnings” to texts that may upset students, and there is a campaign to eradicate “microaggressions,” or small social slights that might cause searing trauma. These newly fashionable terms merely repackage a central tenet of the first p.c. movement: that people should be expected to treat even faintly unpleasant ideas or behaviors as full-scale offenses. Stanford recently canceled a performance of Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson after protests by Native American students. UCLA students staged a sit-in to protest microaggressions such as when a professor corrected a student’s decision to spell the word indigenous with an uppercase I — one example of many “perceived grammatical choices that in actuality reflect ideologies.” A theater group at Mount Holyoke College recently announced it would no longer put on The Vagina Monologues in part because the material excludes women without vaginas. These sorts of episodes now hardly even qualify as exceptional.
-
It is pretty concerning.
Some 800 students at a variety of colleges across the country were surveyed. The results, though not surprising, are nevertheless alarming. By a margin of 51 percent to 36 percent, students favor their school having speech codes to regulate speech for students and faculty. Sixty-three percent favor requiring professors to employ “trigger warnings” to alert students to material that might be discomfiting. One-third of the students polled could not identify the First Amendment as the part of the Constitution that dealt with free speech. Thirty-five percent said that the First Amendment does not protect “hate speech,” while 30 percent of self-identified liberal students say the First Amendment is outdated.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/notable-quotable-unfree-speech-on-campus-1445555707 (http://www.wsj.com/articles/notable-quotable-unfree-speech-on-campus-1445555707)
-
Yale students have every right to express their anger and frustration with Yale faculty. But FIRE is concerned by yet another unfortunate example of students who demand upsetting opinions be entirely eradicated from the university in the name of fostering “safe spaces” where students are protected from hurt feelings. Practicing free speech does not merely entail the right to protest opinions you object to—it also means acknowledging people’s right to hold those opinions in the first place
The ugliness of elite college student privilege, a more pampered and coddled college atmosphere then Yale would be extremely difficult to find anywhere else in the world.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NoxJKmuoBmE&feature=youtu.be&list=PLvIqJIL2kOMefn77xg6-6yrvek5kbNf3Z (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NoxJKmuoBmE&feature=youtu.be&list=PLvIqJIL2kOMefn77xg6-6yrvek5kbNf3Z)
https://www.thefire.org/yale-students-demand-resignations-from-faculty-members-over-halloween-email/
-
This:
http://chronicle.com/article/Sexual-Paranoia-Strikes/190351
Brought about this:
http://www.thenation.com/article/laura-kipnis-melodrama/
The chronicle article was written exclusively using only publicly available information.
-
what do you think the answer is, Dax? just hope these policies get challenged and courts do their jobs? courts have generally been pretty good with speech protection.
-
If it came and went (at least) once before, don't we have evidence that it's not actually a big deal? Just a case of students gonna student rather than a case of Heavens to Betsy our country is going to Hell in a handbasket?
-
If it came and went (at least) once before, don't we have evidence that it's not actually a big deal? Just a case of students gonna student rather than a case of Heavens to Betsy our country is going to Hell in a handbasket?
Internet tho. 24 hr hyper-sensational news tho.
-
If it came and went (at least) once before, don't we have evidence that it's not actually a big deal? Just a case of students gonna student rather than a case of Heavens to Betsy our country is going to Hell in a handbasket?
I hope so. But the poll results I posted are a little freaky. A majority of students favoring "speech codes" seems nuts.
-
If it came and went (at least) once before, don't we have evidence that it's not actually a big deal? Just a case of students gonna student rather than a case of Heavens to Betsy our country is going to Hell in a handbasket?
how do we know it came and went of its own volition? it could just as easily have invaded and been turned back only by heroic resistance.
-
If it came and went (at least) once before, don't we have evidence that it's not actually a big deal? Just a case of students gonna student rather than a case of Heavens to Betsy our country is going to Hell in a handbasket?
how do we know it came and went of its own volition? it could just as easily have invaded and been turned back only by heroic resistance.
Are dax, KSUW, and FSD actually heroes!?!?
-
If it came and went (at least) once before, don't we have evidence that it's not actually a big deal? Just a case of students gonna student rather than a case of Heavens to Betsy our country is going to Hell in a handbasket?
I hope so. But the poll results I posted are a little freaky. A majority of students favoring "speech codes" seems nuts.
Did not investigate, but could be a self selecting sample of students responding
-
Are dax, KSUW, and FSD actually heroes!?!?
men can only be highly civilized while other men, inevitably less civilized, are there to guard and feed them.
-
lol
-
Here's s really good example of the PC insanity that is destroying universities, and the nut jobs who defend it: http://goEMAW.com/forum/index.php?topic=36448.0 (http://goEMAW.com/forum/index.php?topic=36448.0)
I confess, I get some enjoyment watching these liberal professors reap what they sow. They created this madness. Unfortunately, just consider where most of these lunatics will be in a few years: a government job of some sort, most likely education or bureaucracy. Just like the radicals from the 70s found their way to positions of influence.
Seriously: take a good look at these coddled, boorish, fools. They'll be teaching your kids and grandkids. They'll be crafting and enforcing regulations. Some will even hold elected office. They are the future, and that's really scary.
-
what do you think the answer is, Dax? just hope these policies get challenged and courts do their jobs? courts have generally been pretty good with speech protection.
What's sad is that this rarely goes to court, and what's even worse is that we're engaging the notion of what is supposed to be intellectual discourse having to go to court.
-
I am really curious
a) how big of a problem this really is and
b) how to correct it
I mean why shouldn't Berkeley students have a voice in their commencement speaker? How many professors are really terrified of liberal students like the one in that viral vox article? I mean, I'm sure if that couple got fired from Yale, there would be dozens of applicants lining up to replace them.
IMO the solution has to start with organization of faculty at these schools that have a problem with "PC culture" or whatever. Is anyone at Yale standing up for the halloween email couple? The intitial email (without any context) seemed entirely reasonable. If the professors formed a union of solidarity (including popular/highly coveted professors), they could fight back against these punk kids. I wonder why this isn't happening?
-
I am really curious
a) how big of a problem this really is and
b) how to correct it
I mean why shouldn't Berkeley students have a voice in their commencement speaker? How many professors are really terrified of liberal students like the one in that viral vox article? I mean, I'm sure if that couple got fired from Yale, there would be dozens of applicants lining up to replace them.
IMO the solution has to start with organization of faculty at these schools that have a problem with "PC culture" or whatever. Is anyone at Yale standing up for the halloween email couple? The intitial email (without any context) seemed entirely reasonable. If the professors formed a union of solidarity (including popular/highly coveted professors), they could fight back against these punk kids. I wonder why this isn't happening?
You do realize that for example a recent survey of Cornell faculty yielded an overwheming belief that the existence of more politically conservative faculty members would immediately devalue the education process and reputation of the university. With such absurd and childish proclamations implying that literally all politically conservative faculty members would engage in creationism, climate denial-ism (a patently absurd precept in and of itself) and engage in a far right agenda. Because we all know that conservative faculty members inclined to apply to and qualified to teach at a school with the reputation of Cornell would most certainly have just stepped out of Theology class at Liberty.
That's a perfectly applicable anecdote of why there is no "banding together" of any note.
-
http://www.vox.com/2015/6/5/8736591/liberal-professor-identity
-
sounds like an interesting survey dax, i guess we'll just trust that you're fully representing the findings.
-
sounds like an interesting survey dax, i guess we'll just trust that you're fully representing the findings.
Well I apologize, I remembered the article as a survey of politics, but it's actually a survey of political giving with commentary about conservative faculty.
http://cornellsun.com/2015/10/15/cornell-faculty-donations-flood-left%E2%80%88filings-show/
-
I am really curious
a) how big of a problem this really is and
b) how to correct it
I mean why shouldn't Berkeley students have a voice in their commencement speaker? How many professors are really terrified of liberal students like the one in that viral vox article? I mean, I'm sure if that couple got fired from Yale, there would be dozens of applicants lining up to replace them.
IMO the solution has to start with organization of faculty at these schools that have a problem with "PC culture" or whatever. Is anyone at Yale standing up for the halloween email couple? The intitial email (without any context) seemed entirely reasonable. If the professors formed a union of solidarity (including popular/highly coveted professors), they could fight back against these punk kids. I wonder why this isn't happening?
You do realize that for example a recent survey of Cornell faculty yielded an overwheming belief that the existence of more politically conservative faculty members would immediately devalue the education process and reputation of the university. With such absurd and childish proclamations implying that literally all politically conservative faculty members would engage in creationism, climate denial-ism (a patently absurd precept in and of itself) and engage in a far right agenda. Because we all know that conservative faculty members inclined to apply to and qualified to teach at a school with the reputation of Cornell would most certainly have just stepped out of Theology class at Liberty.
That's a perfectly applicable anecdote of why there is no "banding together" of any note.
so what you're saying is they aren't banding together to fight "uber jackboot PC culture" this because they don't have a problem with it? Interesting.
-
so i power skimmed your link, but i didn't see anything about a survey saying libtards are barring conservatives from teaching at cornell because it would devalue the education process. kindly point me to where that result was
-
How many professors are really terrified of liberal students like the one in that viral vox article? I mean, I'm sure if that couple got fired from Yale, there would be dozens of applicants lining up to replace them.
i don't know how you feel like the second statement informs the first. if we read "terrified" literally, rather than simply as a statement of how far beyond the pale the professor considers the students' attitudes to be, then certainly that terror is chiefly the knowledge of how easily they can be dismissed and replaced if student opinion coagulates against them.
-
How many professors are really terrified of liberal students like the one in that viral vox article? I mean, I'm sure if that couple got fired from Yale, there would be dozens of applicants lining up to replace them.
i don't know how you feel like the second statement informs the first. if we read "terrified" literally, rather than simply as a statement of how far beyond the pale the professor considers the students' attitudes to be, then certainly that terror is chiefly the knowledge of how easily they can be dismissed and replaced if student opinion coagulates against them.
You're right, I'm bouncing all over the place here.
-
Or afraid of it, I mean when people are forced to resign for not becoming more emotional, then that's a pretty slippery slope. When the mobs hit the quad because they don't like an article or an email, that's pretty scary and many university administrators are quite spineless.
"Placing more emphasis on diversity of political beliefs when hiring [would] almost certainly require sacrificing on general quality or other dimensions of diversity."
-
so basically you want the exact same thing you're accusing the mu students of wanting, to lower standards to hire a certain demographic
-
so basically you want the exact same thing you're accusing the mu students of wanting, to lower standards to hire a certain demographic
I haven't said one word about hiring practices at mu (at least that I can recall and it certainly hasn't been a focus at all). But it's good to know that you're implying that hiring political conservatives immediately lowers standards. LOL, so obvious.
-
No public university could ever legally hire or fire based upon political beliefs.
-
Or afraid of it, I mean when people are forced to resign for not becoming more emotional, then that's a pretty slippery slope. When the mobs hit the quad because they don't like an article or an email, that's pretty scary and many university administrators are quite spineless.
"Placing more emphasis on diversity of political beliefs when hiring [would] almost certainly require sacrificing on general quality or other dimensions of diversity."
That doesn't seem like a terribly strong connection to PC culture or overly sensitive students.
-
Seems like tenure could help.
-
according to the person in the link they haven't had a suitable conservative applicant. you either believe that or don't.
personally i don't see what political leanings has to do with teaching students. the information is the same no matter which side you fall on.
-
I mean, this board's namesake. good grief.
-
Seems like tenure could help.
:thumbs:
-
according to the person in the link they haven't had a suitable conservative applicant. you either believe that or don't.
personally i don't see what political leanings has to do with teaching students. the information is the same no matter which side you fall on.
You actually believe there aren't profs with political agendas or profs who don't disseminate information with a political bias? :rolleyes:
You've got academic fringe types like Bill Nye who are trying to silence "denialists" just like universities have tried to do the same. There's literally academics who want to prosecute so called "denialists" using RICO laws. :lol:
-
so a tv personality is your proof of bias? next are you going to cite the movie god's not dead?
-
so a tv personality is your proof of bias? next are you going to cite the movie god's not dead?
I guess you skipped over "fringe" and completely ignored the second part which has nothing to do with Nye.
When a fringe (there I said it again) academic like Nye gets the play he does, with his dystopian ideals of squelching any perceived decent on a scientific theory, it needs to be called out. You can take down your life size Nye poster now Lib.
-
well climate change is currently the global scientific consensus, so i'm not sure how teaching it would be political except to someone like yourself. surely your denier children will be able to brave though such scientific learning. the global scientific consensus of evolution should be taught too, despite what some religious organizations have to say on the matter.
-
well climate change is currently the global scientific consensus, so i'm not sure how teaching it would be political except to someone like yourself. surely your denier children will be able to brave though such scientific learning. the global scientific consensus of evolution should be taught too, despite what some religious organizations have to say on the matter.
My children have been firmly indoctrinated in Warmist Propagandism at public institutions of learning. It's political lib (you seem to have a real comprehension problem here) when Warmist Propagandist scientists seek to use a highly politicized legal process to prosecute scientists who disagree with them. This is not hard, quit skimming the posts or don't bother responding. Nothing says confidence in finding like running to the politicians to make the "bad people" go away . . . to jail.
-
i highly doubt your "rico" investigations are a) as you represent them and b) widely popular
-
i don't think we should turn the free speech on college campuses thread into a damn global warming debate.
-
dax thinks there's some sort of PC connection, i'm helping him flesh it out :dunno:
-
You know what's totally PC? Obamacare.
-
:lol:
-
i highly doubt your "rico" investigations are a) as you represent them and b) widely popular
Just the simple fact that even one scientist is proposing that is scary enough.
20 scientists (employed by predominately public universities) sent a letter to Obama wanting prosecution of "corporations and other organizations" under RICO. Other organizations implies the broad brush of anyone who disagrees. This isn't cigarette companies denying that Tobacco causes cancer, this is dissent in the study of one of the most complex systems in existence.
It's absolutely a PC connection when academics want to prosecute dissenters. This is not a stretch by any . . . stretch. You're getting killed here lib, absolutely killed.
-
20 out of literally hundreds of thousands of scientists wrote a letter. good grief dax, you really know how to make a mountain out of a mole hill
-
Restriction of my free speech, forcing their climate change OPINION on me, etc. All politics on campus imo.
-
20 out of literally hundreds of thousands of scientists wrote a letter. good grief dax, you really know how to make a mountain out of a mole hill
When 20 scientists at public universities write letters to the president and attorney general wanting to prosecute those who disagree and with the, dare I say, political climate that exists now. It's not a mole hill in the least. But it figures you don't think it's a big deal. 20 predominately publicly funded employees are lobbying the president and AG to prosecute those who disagree with them. Draconian.
-
Well, I mean, they're not getting prosecuted tho.
-
but 20 dudes wrote a letter!
-
Well, I mean, they're not getting prosecuted tho.
Why the concept of legal prosecution even enter into a scientific debate?
Face it lib, your stance was that nothing along the RICO lines even existed earlier, now you're just back tracking that it was "just 20" . . . how sad.
-
you still haven't even provided a link to back up your claims. like your cornell survey earlier, it's very likely you're misrepresenting heavily
-
you still haven't even provided a link to back up your claims. like your cornell survey earlier, it's very likely you're misrepresenting heavily
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2015/09/19/letter-to-president-obama-investigate-deniers-under-rico/
happy skimming!
-
dax what does climate change have to do with uber PC'sim?
-
Well, I mean, they're not getting prosecuted tho.
Why the concept of legal prosecution even enter into a scientific debate?
Face it lib, your stance was that nothing along the RICO lines even existed earlier, now you're just back tracking that it was "just 20" . . . how sad.
I'm not the same person you're arguing with
-
dax what does climate change have to do with uber PC'sim?
It starts with the precept that publicly funded scientists seek to use political powers to prosecute so called dissenters. It pretty much walks hand in hand with PC'ism in many ways.
But at this point, the rest of the conversation needs to be moved to the climate thread.
-
Well, I mean, they're not getting prosecuted tho.
Why the concept of legal prosecution even enter into a scientific debate?
Face it lib, your stance was that nothing along the RICO lines even existed earlier, now you're just back tracking that it was "just 20" . . . how sad.
I'm not the same person you're arguing with
That means nothing.
-
dax what does climate change have to do with uber PC'sim?
It is all the same effort to suppress views you disagree with rather than engage in debate.
-
would you debate those that deny 1+1=2?
-
would you debate those that deny 1+1=2?
:ROFL: :Woot:
-
;)
-
would you debate those that deny 1+1=2?
In your example, which scientists are saying 1+1=2? The ones who can acknowledge that temperatures haven't increased in nearly 20 years despite dumping more and more man made CO2 into the air (such CO2 being a tiny fraction of a gas that is already a tiny fraction of our atmosphere), or is it the ones saying "it's either gotta be hiding in the oceans or we need to 'adjust' the temperature data"?
By the way, there's nothing "scientific" about relying on "consensus." That is antithetical to science.
But again, this effort to silence scientific debate is drawn from the same well as fascist efforts to silence "offensive" speech in the name of PC.
-
ok just to be clear some people that think global warming exists also think speech should be allowed unfettered on campuses
-
ok just to be clear some people that think global warming exists also think speech should be allowed unfettered on campuses
maybe even *gasp* the vast majority :runaway:
-
ok just to be clear some people that think global warming exists also think speech should be allowed unfettered on campuses
maybe even *gasp* the vast majority :runaway:
The vast majority of people think climate change exists, it's just that a large majority of those don't believe it's the problem that draconian climate warmest propagandists economy killers think it is. Not hard.
-
Dax is bitching about someone exercising their right to free speech in a thread where he's complaining about the right to free speech being trampled.
-
like, what in the rough ridin' world?!
-
ok just to be clear some people that think global warming exists also think speech should be allowed unfettered on campuses
The first amendment doesn't guarantee employment if you say something stupid and/or offensive. That said, everyone should have a right to say whatever they want wherever they want without fear of prosecution (which the first amendment protects).
And I know you didn't cite the first amendment.
-
http://www.vox.com/2015/6/5/8736591/liberal-professor-identity
This was a good read.
-
Dax is bitching about someone exercising their right to free speech in a thread where he's complaining about the right to free speech being trampled.
Your name messes up my browser . . . oh, and not really.
-
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/the-new-intolerance-of-student-activism-at-yale/414810/ (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/the-new-intolerance-of-student-activism-at-yale/414810/)
Very well written article analyzing the ideology of those trying to quell speech on campuses.
-
http://www.latimes.com/local/education/la-me-college-microaggression-20151112-story.html
In essence almost anything could be considered a microaggresion and it has and will heighten actual aggression.
-
I am a pretty traditional liberal in that I value offensive, free speech above all else. I never had a problem with Phelps, or the bible guys or the abortion sign people or whatever on K-State's campus. There were a number of protests against the Iraq War that resulted in people screaming or flipping me off or whatever and I thought that was pretty great. I don't think the public square should be a place of tip-toeing speech only, I favor expansive free speech rights.
I think K-State is largely insulated from a lot of this because it is a pretty conservative state school that welcomes everyone. I am thankful that the conservatives that wish to squelch speech mostly find K-State not to their tastes and simply leave for an overtly Christian campus (as one parent seriously wrote in to the Manhattan Mercury this fall) and there are the occasional clowns like that op ed columnist that wrote about how hard it is to be a Christian conservative at Kansas State, but these people are ridiculed and mocked, not shouted off the stage.
I don't think that this "movement" is inevitable or that it will dictate the new orthodoxy on campuses for all time, but I do think it is a reflection in the changing norms on campuses where minorities are nosier about being actually considered as a part of campus life and not just an invisible group that keeps to themselves. I think many of the older generations of academics are not prepared for a lot of this, are threatened by student voices and the power they wield in a time when many of the barriers to mass dissemination of information are removed.
It was only a few years ago that professors were gleefully emailing/facebooking the hero professor who smashed a student cell phone when it rang in their class. How much has changed since then?
I don't think professors being so tyrannical and treating students like they are garbage is all that great, so maybe things will balance out for the better?
I see some work where undergraduate students on campus can be treated with dignity and given opportunities to participate in research and actually a get a foot in the door in the field of academia and I think that as undergraduates and graduate students gain more of a voice they will balance out some of the abuses that academia has traditionally wrought on students, while perhaps creating some new problems that hopefully will get changed for the better over time.
-
change is not inherently bad? now i've heard everything.
-
That's great Kat Kid, but you do realize that on other campuses something like this is considered a microagression.
Budget Cuts:
Someone says, "I think the Japanese program should get a 10% cut in their budget, because the enrollment of students in that program has dropped 4%". Someone will construe that has a microagression against Japanese and Asians. Too many examples to say that isn't a plausible scenario. How can you even function in society when some consider innocuous speech aggression. There's literally protests over the capitalization of Indigenous . . . absurd.
I got a laugh out of your conservatives that want to squelch free speech . . . Is that tongue in cheek joke? I mean Seinfeld actually joked that he won't play college campuses . . . too conservative.
-
I got a laugh out of your conservatives that want to squelch free speech . . . Is that tongue in cheek joke? I mean Seinfeld actually joked that he won't play college campuses . . . too conservative.
good grief dax
-
I got a laugh out of your conservatives that want to squelch free speech . . . Is that tongue in cheek joke? I mean Seinfeld actually joked that he won't play college campuses . . . too conservative.
good grief dax
That's your go to when you've got nothing.
-
That's great Kat Kid, but you do realize that on other campuses something like this is considered a microagression.
Budget Cuts:
Someone says, "I think the Japanese program should get a 10% cut in their budget, because the enrollment of students in that program has dropped 4%". Someone will construe that has a microagression against Japanese and Asians. Too many examples to say that isn't a plausible scenario. How can you even function in society when some consider innocuous speech aggression. There's literally protests over the capitalization of Indigenous . . . absurd.
I got a laugh out of your conservatives that want to squelch free speech . . . Is that tongue in cheek joke? I mean Seinfeld actually joked that he won't play college campuses . . . too conservative.
1) I'm fully aware of the free speech issues you are talking about above
2) On K-State's campus the student body president, the SGA, the Collegian, and the student body at large, are all majority conservative, my anecdotes were not made up
3) I am very thankful that the free speech issues that liberal campuses are having are not major problems at K-State, but I don't think that the current situation is permanent in any sense, so demographics and ideology will not save free speech from being attacked at K-State if that is your implication
-
I didn't say the anecdotes were made up.
-
It really seems like only moderates and libertarians value free speech anymore.
-
free speech is one of my favorite things.
-
free speech is one of my favorite things.
Man, that deserves a hug
-
How much longer does free speech have to live? Is it already too late?
-
To expand on 8MP's point. The left isn't the only one doing it. This link, along with Carson's idea of a department to root out liberal thought on campuses. http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/missouri-lawmaker-tries-block-abortion-study (http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/missouri-lawmaker-tries-block-abortion-study)
-
To expand on 8MP's point. The left isn't the only one doing it. This link, along with Carson's idea of a department to root out liberal thought on campuses. http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/missouri-lawmaker-tries-block-abortion-study (http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/missouri-lawmaker-tries-block-abortion-study)
That's good. My post was going to be longer, but I couldn't think of relevant recent conservative examples of this off the top of my head.
-
http://www.latimes.com/local/education/la-me-college-microaggression-20151112-story.html
In essence almost anything could be considered a microaggresion and it has and will heighten actual aggression.
no one is attacking "free speech" in that article.
And there seems to be little evidence that this is a problem, beyond a few anecdotes.
-
To expand on 8MP's point. The left isn't the only one doing it. This link, along with Carson's idea of a department to root out liberal thought on campuses. http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/missouri-lawmaker-tries-block-abortion-study (http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/missouri-lawmaker-tries-block-abortion-study)
That's good. My post was going to be longer, but I couldn't think of relevant recent conservative examples of this off the top of my head.
:cheers:
-
A republican state senator tried to get the human sexuality class shut down while I was in the class at ku. She said it was dirty and not appropriate for college students.
-
A republican state senator tried to get the human sexuality class shut down while I was in the class at ku. She said it was dirty and not appropriate for college students.
Yes that's ridiculous. As is the example ChuckJames posted.
-
http://www.latimes.com/local/education/la-me-college-microaggression-20151112-story.html
In essence almost anything could be considered a microaggresion and it has and will heighten actual aggression.
no one is attacking "free speech" in that article.
And there seems to be little evidence that this is a problem, beyond a few anecdotes.
Okay there cRusty
Thanks for weighing in.
-
Off topic..but the word anecdote has to be being used on a record pace this week. ITS EVERYWHERE.
-
http://www.latimes.com/local/education/la-me-college-microaggression-20151112-story.html
In essence almost anything could be considered a microaggresion and it has and will heighten actual aggression.
no one is attacking "free speech" in that article.
And there seems to be little evidence that this is a problem, beyond a few anecdotes.
Okay there cRusty
Thanks for weighing in.
I'm not sure dax read the article.
-
I'm not sure dax read the article.
no but he likes to type "microagression"
-
Yeah, I mean nice work skimmers, no content of that article was applicable to this thread :rolleyes: :rolleyes::
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.
-
It's fascinating that asking people to stop being dicks (often times unintentionally) is labeled as PC run amok and attacking free speech
-
Why's that black guy all offended that I called him a negro? Victimhood culture much? Get some thicker skin, negros, you won't trample my free speech with your PC bullshit! - daxlogic
-
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. :thumbsup:
It's their absolute right to meltdown over things, just like it's the right of sane people to call them on it.
-
Yeah, I mean nice work skimmers, no content of that article was applicable to this thread :rolleyes: :rolleyes::
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.
-
Why's that black guy all offended that I called him a negro? Victimhood culture much? Get some thicker skin, negros, you won't trample my free speech with your PC bullshit! - daxlogic
I haven't said anything like that . . . liblogic. Just more liblogic passive aggressive/microaggressions
Sad
-
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. :thumbsup:
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
-
microaggression microaggression microaggression microaggression microaggression microaggression microaggression microaggression microaggression microaggression microaggression microaggression microaggression microaggression microaggression
-
Yeah, I mean nice work skimmers, no content of that article was applicable to this thread :rolleyes: :rolleyes::
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.
-
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.
-
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. :thumbsup:
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
-
You should read the article Dlew12, I think you'd find the content reasonable, and misrepresented by dax
-
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
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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."
-
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."
:dunno: 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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/ (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/the-new-intolerance-of-student-activism-at-yale/414810/)
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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/ (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.
-
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2015/11/the-revenge-of-the-coddled-an-interview-with-jonathan-haidt (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.
-
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2015/11/the-revenge-of-the-coddled-an-interview-with-jonathan-haidt (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.
-
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.
-
Article - this is a tiny minority
Ksuw - good article, proves this is a gigantic problem and will doom America
-
Article - this is a tiny minority
Ksuw - good article, proves this is a gigantic problem and will doom America
lib7 - not good at reading
-
Article - this is a tiny minority
Ksuw - good article, proves this is a gigantic problem and will doom America
the article did not indicate that the discussed viewpoint was a tiny minority. perhaps you were confused by the "The vast majority on the left are not illiberal", but the author and interviewee subsequently made clear that while they (or perhaps just the interviewee) considered that most on the left to be uncomfortable with the hypersensitive pc view, it is held by a large proportion of university students.
-
I'll have to read it again later sys, I skimmed some towards the middle. But I'll trust you're correct.
-
Yeah, I'm more worried about Syrian refuge terrorists.
And I also think these professors should unionize to fight back against the reverse microaggression.
-
I'm more worried about Syrian refuge terrorists
Same. I think the positive aspects will be picked up and the negatives will be ridiculed and brought back down to earth, ultimately having not much effect. That's just my proglib opinion tho
-
Yeah, I'm more worried about Syrian refuge terrorists.
And I also think these professors should unionize to fight back against the reverse microaggression.
would be tough. there are so many people applying whenever a professor job opens, that schools wouldn't need to use union members
-
Yeah, I'm more worried about Syrian refuge terrorists.
And I also think these professors should unionize to fight back against the reverse microaggression.
would be tough. there are so many people applying whenever a professor job opens, that schools wouldn't need to use union members
it's interesting that there are so many people are clamoring to deal with these coddled hyper-sensitive PC culturites
-
liblib is under 35 and michigancat is pretending to be. pretty much proves the prof's point.
-
:D
-
Yeah, I'm more worried about Syrian refuge terrorists.
And I also think these professors should unionize to fight back against the reverse microaggression.
would be tough. there are so many people applying whenever a professor job opens, that schools wouldn't need to use union members
it's interesting that there are so many people are clamoring to deal with these coddled hyper-sensitive PC culturites
it is
-
Yeah, I'm more worried about Syrian refuge terrorists.
And I also think these professors should unionize to fight back against the reverse microaggression.
would be tough. there are so many people applying whenever a professor job opens, that schools wouldn't need to use union members
it's interesting that there are so many people are clamoring to deal with these coddled hyper-sensitive PC culturites
it is
the humanities have a terrible glut of people looking for jobs. High double digits for every job opening, pretty much have to have a book at press to get a sniff of an interview.
-
Yeah, I'm more worried about Syrian refuge terrorists.
And I also think these professors should unionize to fight back against the reverse microaggression.
would be tough. there are so many people applying whenever a professor job opens, that schools wouldn't need to use union members
it's interesting that there are so many people are clamoring to deal with these coddled hyper-sensitive PC culturites
it is
Is it? There are a lot of people who come out of college with nearly useless degrees suitable only for academia. These are the people who sort of flit around undergrad, graduate with a "_______ studies" degree, then continue on to grad school, and at least $100k in student loans later they try to glom on somewhere as an adjunct while working as a Starbucks barista on the side.
-
Yeah, I'm more worried about Syrian refuge terrorists.
And I also think these professors should unionize to fight back against the reverse microaggression.
would be tough. there are so many people applying whenever a professor job opens, that schools wouldn't need to use union members
it's interesting that there are so many people are clamoring to deal with these coddled hyper-sensitive PC culturites
it is
Is it? There are a lot of people who come out of college with nearly useless degrees suitable only for academia. These are the people who sort of flit around undergrad, graduate with a "_______ studies" degree, then continue on to grad school, and at least $100k in student loans later they try to glom on somewhere as an adjunct while working as a Starbucks barista on the side.
You seem to have a strong disdain for all parties involved.
-
Yeah, I'm more worried about Syrian refuge terrorists.
And I also think these professors should unionize to fight back against the reverse microaggression.
would be tough. there are so many people applying whenever a professor job opens, that schools wouldn't need to use union members
it's interesting that there are so many people are clamoring to deal with these coddled hyper-sensitive PC culturites
it is
Is it? There are a lot of people who come out of college with nearly useless degrees suitable only for academia. These are the people who sort of flit around undergrad, graduate with a "_______ studies" degree, then continue on to grad school, and at least $100k in student loans later they try to glom on somewhere as an adjunct while working as a Starbucks barista on the side.
You seem to have a strong disdain for all parties involved.
A lot them are the same people, just at different stages in their lives. Many of these idiot students are on exactly the same track and they don't even realize it. They'd be better off with some mandatory training on "preparing to get a paying job in the real world" instead of "cultural sensitivity."
Here's a good article on the topic: http://www.salon.com/2014/09/21/professors_on_food_stamps_the_shocking_true_story_of_academia_in_2014/ (http://www.salon.com/2014/09/21/professors_on_food_stamps_the_shocking_true_story_of_academia_in_2014/)
-
Article - this is a tiny minority
Ksuw - good article, proves this is a gigantic problem and will doom America
What the article is saying is that the public school liberal indoctrination is fully implemented and working, but has also caused unintended consequences, ie, children adults that can't take care of themselves.
-
Liberal indoctrination :curse:
-
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2015/11/the-revenge-of-the-coddled-an-interview-with-jonathan-haidt (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.
OK, I finally read it. I thought it was interesting, but puzzling that the interviewee talks about this overwhelming culture of fear and PC-ness, yet no one pushed back on his article and there's no real data that this is a problem. Which seems kind of ironic since the complaining is coming from someone with a PhD.
-
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2015/11/the-revenge-of-the-coddled-an-interview-with-jonathan-haidt (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.
OK, I finally read it. I thought it was interesting, but puzzling that the interviewee talks about this overwhelming culture of fear and PC-ness, yet no one pushed back on his article and there's no real data that this is a problem. Which seems kind of ironic since the complaining is coming from someone with a PhD.
the coddled youth don't read, michigancat. obviously, people of reading age would agree with the thesis
while most of the article the interviewee co-wrote focuses on series of anecdotes, there is a little bit of data presented as well.
-
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2015/11/the-revenge-of-the-coddled-an-interview-with-jonathan-haidt (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.
OK, I finally read it. I thought it was interesting, but puzzling that the interviewee talks about this overwhelming culture of fear and PC-ness, yet no one pushed back on his article and there's no real data that this is a problem. Which seems kind of ironic since the complaining is coming from someone with a PhD.
There was no pushback because everyone that reads his article agrees, which is all the data you need.
-
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2015/11/the-revenge-of-the-coddled-an-interview-with-jonathan-haidt (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.
OK, I finally read it. I thought it was interesting, but puzzling that the interviewee talks about this overwhelming culture of fear and PC-ness, yet no one pushed back on his article and there's no real data that this is a problem. Which seems kind of ironic since the complaining is coming from someone with a PhD.
There was no pushback because everyone that reads his article agrees, which is all the data you need.
You'd think hyper sensitive coddled kids would be bothered. Because they're hypersensitive.
-
That article has a lot more than 140 characters.
-
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2015/11/the-revenge-of-the-coddled-an-interview-with-jonathan-haidt (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.
OK, I finally read it. I thought it was interesting, but puzzling that the interviewee talks about this overwhelming culture of fear and PC-ness, yet no one pushed back on his article and there's no real data that this is a problem. Which seems kind of ironic since the complaining is coming from someone with a PhD.
the coddled youth don't read, michigancat. obviously, people of reading age would agree with the thesis
while most of the article the interviewee co-wrote focuses on series of anecdotes, there is a little bit of data presented as well.
I reread the original article. The little data they presented made their broad claims seem insignificant. They really seem like they're overreacting to microaggression or something. No one is actually losing their job over this (other than the "Notre Dame vs. The Klan" guy). Professors are just forced to think about what they say a bit more and these two guys had a major forum to whine about it for a couple thousand words.
-
What kind of data are you police state nazis looking for?
-
I reread the original article. The little data they presented made their broad claims seem insignificant. They really seem like they're overreacting to microaggression or something. No one is actually losing their job over this (other than the "Notre Dame vs. The Klan" guy). Professors are just forced to think about what they say a bit more and these two guys had a major forum to whine about it for a couple thousand words.
the coauthor is a lawyer, i think. the article is presented like lawyers argue - a series of anecdotes that they think support their thesis. data would be more convincing regarding the scale of the issue, but anecdotes are not nothing, it's an effective means of communication.
i think your problem with the article is you're looking for evidence that this is a problem of a scale worth worrying about. however, the scale of the problem is not crucial to identifying it as an interesting phenomenon. look no further than your inability to process the mu student v.p.'s words arguing against the media's right to cover their protest. a pure one-off, but fascinating.
-
I think it's a very interesting phenomenon - the fact that articles like that are written are part of what fascinates me
-
Also, I thought it was interesting that at some school mentioned in the Atlantic piece a professor published a memo or something about trigger warnings or something and was mushed by his/her fellow professors
-
Liberal KU Communications professor attempt an honest dialogue about race; is eaten by her own; now on administrative leave pending investigation by something called the Office of Institutional Opportunity and Access. That's got a nice Orwellian ring to it.
http://m.ljworld.com/news/2015/nov/20/ku-communications-prof-who-used-n-word-class-discu/?templates=mobile (http://m.ljworld.com/news/2015/nov/20/ku-communications-prof-who-used-n-word-class-discu/?templates=mobile)
Sara Shepherd
Story by Sara Shepherd
Friday, November 20, 2015
A Kansas University professor who used the n-word during a class discussion about race is on leave while the university investigates a discrimination complaint against her.
Andrea Quenette, assistant professor of communication studies, said she was notified Friday morning that five individuals, whose names she does not know, filed a discrimination complaint against her with KU’s Office of Institutional Opportunity and Access. She said her supervisors agreed to her request for a leave of absence with pay until the investigation concludes.
The formal complaint follows more than a week of public criticism perpetuated by graduate students in the communications department. Students have posted messages to Twitter with the hashtag #FireAndreaQuenette, shared a lengthy letter online and complained about her in a Student Senate meeting Wednesday night.
Sparking their outrage was Quenette’s use of the n-word and statements about retention rates at KU and the concept of systematic racism during her Communications Studies 930 class — focused on best practices for graduate students who teach undergraduate classes — on Nov. 12, the morning after KU’s heated university-wide town hall forum on race.
Quenette, who is 33 and has been teaching at KU for two years, said she believes academic freedom protects her comments and that they were not discriminatory.
“I didn’t intend to offend anyone, I didn’t intend to hurt anyone. I didn’t direct my words at any individual or group of people,” she told the Journal-World tearfully in a phone interview Friday.
“It was an open conversation about a serious issue that is affecting our campus, and it will affect our teachers. In that regard, I consider it within my purview ... to talk about those issues.”
The graduate students saw it differently.
“It was outright racism,” said Amy Schumacher, a first-year Ph.D. student who was in the class, which she said is composed of nine white students and one black student. “I don’t think that it was an open dialogue — she wasn’t receptive to hearing any other ideas.”
Schumacher said she believes Quenette “actively violated policies” during the discussion, hurt students’ feelings :lol: — including the one black student, who left “devastated” — and has a previous history of being unsympathetic to students.
Class discussion in dispute
Diversity in the classroom was, coincidentally, on the syllabus for Quenette’s Nov. 12 class.
Inspired by the previous night’s forum, Quenette said, a student asked how they could talk about race issues in their own classes, and the conversation naturally shifted to how the university should address problems.
“I tried to preface everything I said with, ‘I don’t experience racial discrimination so it’s hard for me to understand the challenges that other people face, because I don’t often see those,’” said Quenette, who is white. [Man, she even confessed her WHITE PRIVILEGE but that wasn't enough. Sad.]
She said she pointed out that racist incidents on other campuses, including the University of Missouri in Columbia, have been very visible, and she used the n-word when comparing KU to them.
“I haven’t seen those things happen, I haven’t seen that word spray-painted on our campus, I haven’t seen students physically assaulted,” Quenette said.
Quenette said she could have apologized “in the moment” if anyone had responded but that no one did, and the discussion continued.
On the subject of low graduation rates for black students and whether institutionalized racism is to blame — students in class said it was — Quenette said students who don’t graduate do so for a number of reasons, and from what she’s seen at KU it’s often academic performance. Quenette said she’s on a College of Liberal Arts and Sciences committee studying retaining and supporting students, and that “all students” who come to KU with low academic preparedness are at risk.
She acknowledged there was “confusion” during that conversation and that it ended “abruptly” when class was over.
Schumacher, who is also white, described Quenette’s interactions during the conversation as “disparaging” and “deeply disturbing.”
“They articulated not only her lack of awareness of racial discrimination and violence on this campus and elsewhere but an active denial of institutional, structural and individual racism,” Schumacher wrote in the letter signed by the students in the class, plus one other graduate student. “This denial perpetuates racism in and of itself.”
Schumacher said students “had no words” and most “just shut down” after Quenette’s use of the n-word in class.
The next class
Graduate students gathered with other communications faculty and administrators for a town hall of their own on Monday, to which Quenette was asked not to come.
At the next class meeting, on Tuesday, the graduate students demanded that Quenette read aloud their letter, “An Open Letter Calling for the Termination of Dr. Andrea Quenette for Racial Discrimination.” [Wow, it's just like Animal Farm. Can't make this crap up!]
Quenette said she began reading the letter but stopped partway through, stating that there were legal implications and that she would not read any more.
She then listened as some students read personal statements aloud.
“I feel terrible, upset and sad that I had hurt their feelings and made them feel uncomfortable, because I do care about them as people,” Quenette said. “I felt frustrated by some of the things written in the letter that I don’t remember happening like they described.”
Quenette had prepared a statement of her own to clarify her comments and apologize.
But she said several students said they didn’t want to hear her apology.
“Someone said, ‘No, this is over,’ and they all got up and left,” Quenette said.
Schumacher said students insisted Quenette read their letter aloud “to make sure that she got it.”
She described Quenette as calloused, dismissive and scoffing despite “pain” visible on students’ faces. Schumacher said it became clear that Quenette still was not respecting the students, so they told her they did not want to hear her statement and left.
We need a reap/sow emoticon.
-
She's a liberal?
-
She's a liberal?
I think that's a fair assumption with about a 97% chance of accuracy.
-
hahaha Joe Davis left a comment
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F15%2F11%2F22%2F15ea4cfa5d0b47e32474e53bf5d45aef.jpg&hash=df2675b8560db67037889646f730ac5d409adcd4)
-
haha :thumbsup:
-
Who is Joe Davis?
-
So this move by the libtards to erase history and delete all racists and slave holders from the Democrat party - does that apply to Margaret Sanger?
I'm just not up to speed on the latest hierarchy. I would have said the holy right and prerogative to kill babies trumps all other considerations, including racism, but racism really seems to be moving to the forefront.
-
her downfall was spending 6 years at NDSU. She never stood a chance of being a well adjusted member of society.
-
It is pretty awesome how the snake appears to be eating its tail
This is a whole new kind of delusion and empowerment, and it's so pathetic you can't help but feel a little sorry for these weirdos.
-
What the hell happens to these kids in the real cruel world? Are we going to burn books next? I bet these sensitive children do not realive what can be found in books in the KU library.
-
:curse:
http://abcnews.go.com/Lifestyle/florida-teacher-starts-day-complimenting-students/story?id=35259600
-
:curse:
http://abcnews.go.com/Lifestyle/florida-teacher-starts-day-complimenting-students/story?id=35259600
Those college kids look really young. I must be getting old.
-
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2015/11/the-revenge-of-the-coddled-an-interview-with-jonathan-haidt (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.
OK, I finally read it. I thought it was interesting, but puzzling that the interviewee talks about this overwhelming culture of fear and PC-ness, yet no one pushed back on his article and there's no real data that this is a problem. Which seems kind of ironic since the complaining is coming from someone with a PhD.
the coddled youth don't read, michigancat. obviously, people of reading age would agree with the thesis
while most of the article the interviewee co-wrote focuses on series of anecdotes, there is a little bit of data presented as well.
I reread the original article. The little data they presented made their broad claims seem insignificant. They really seem like they're overreacting to microaggression or something. No one is actually losing their job over this (other than the "Notre Dame vs. The Klan" guy). Professors are just forced to think about what they say a bit more and these two guys had a major forum to whine about it for a couple thousand words.
Didn't the UMo president lose his job?
-
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2015/11/the-revenge-of-the-coddled-an-interview-with-jonathan-haidt (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.
OK, I finally read it. I thought it was interesting, but puzzling that the interviewee talks about this overwhelming culture of fear and PC-ness, yet no one pushed back on his article and there's no real data that this is a problem. Which seems kind of ironic since the complaining is coming from someone with a PhD.
the coddled youth don't read, michigancat. obviously, people of reading age would agree with the thesis
while most of the article the interviewee co-wrote focuses on series of anecdotes, there is a little bit of data presented as well.
I reread the original article. The little data they presented made their broad claims seem insignificant. They really seem like they're overreacting to microaggression or something. No one is actually losing their job over this (other than the "Notre Dame vs. The Klan" guy). Professors are just forced to think about what they say a bit more and these two guys had a major forum to whine about it for a couple thousand words.
Didn't the UMo president lose his job?
He deserved it.
-
He deserved it.
based on what?
-
He deserved it.
based on what?
His football coach was willing to help his team go on strike to get him fired. That's almost unprecedentedly poor management.
-
His football coach was willing to help his team go on strike to get him fired. That's almost unprecedentedly poor management.
oh, a football coach. say no more.
-
Here's a fun roundup of campus insanity. I hadn't heard of many of these.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/higher-education-brought-low/2015/11/25/a79f118e-92d6-11e5-b5e4-279b4501e8a6_story.html (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/higher-education-brought-low/2015/11/25/a79f118e-92d6-11e5-b5e4-279b4501e8a6_story.html)
-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/11/23/university-yoga-class-canceled-because-of-oppression-cultural-genocide/
lol wat
-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/11/23/university-yoga-class-canceled-because-of-oppression-cultural-genocide/
lol wat
that's pretty funny.
-
Ha ha. Would that every university handled their coddled babies like this. http://www.okwu.edu/blog/2015/11/this-is-not-a-day-care-its-a-university/ (http://www.okwu.edu/blog/2015/11/this-is-not-a-day-care-its-a-university/)
-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/11/23/university-yoga-class-canceled-because-of-oppression-cultural-genocide/
lol wat
“We’re trying to establish to the world that it’s ours.”
how inclusive of them. imagine how well it would work out if MLB said the same thing and kicked out anyone that wasnt a white american.
-
a world that is ours . . . and not anyone else's #divesity #openmind
-
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/dec/01/fat-shaming-cards-tube-overweight-haters-ltd-police
(https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/0c9638b64d49c6f2905a56b173ea29a2f79d4c82/0_304_600_360/master/600.jpg?w=620&q=85&auto=format&sharp=10&s=8740a617f7d8663655ab7715d581feae)
disgusting. police investigating a group that is only looking out for the health of others. cigarette-shaming is working. fat-shaming is the way to go. plus it is easy to not eat, unless excuses are your thing.
Knox described the man who handed over the card as a “hipster.. smartly, trendily dressed” with a beard.
stud
-
I have no sympathy for fat people who blame anyone but themselves. If you want to be fat, or don't mind being fat because you love food/booze, that's great, but it's not out of your control. It's your lack of self-control.
-
you don't know what you're talking about 8man.
-
Lol at young people with fast metabolisms that think they have their weight by the balls.
-
Lol at young people with fast metabolisms that think they have their weight by the balls.
Yo. This. I have to hit the gym daily now or the muscle turns to fat in a matter of days.
-
I just roll with the fat
-
I just roll with the fat
Heh
Is it hard not to be fat? I can go a long time without eating
-
I have no sympathy for fat people who blame anyone but themselves. If you want to be fat, or don't mind being fat because you love food/booze, that's great, but it's not out of your control. It's your lack of self-control.
What about when parents force feed their kids shitty food and soda from the moment they can eat solid foods? I mean, if you're trained to not have self control from age 2 onwards I'd imagine it's pretty hard to grasp the concept later on in life.
-
hard yes, but not impossible. Also file those parents in the 'shitty parents' category
-
hard yes, but not impossible. Also file those parents in the 'shitty parents' category
Absolutely they are shitty parents. But I would file it under "extremely hard". I know from personal experience how hard it is to reclaim that self control and I was only fat for 3.5 years out of 30. Imagine being fat from age 2 - 18
-
hard yes, but not impossible. Also file those parents in the 'shitty parents' category
Absolutely they are shitty parents. But I would file it under "extremely hard". I know from personal experience how hard it is to reclaim that self control and I was only fat for 3.5 years out of 30. Imagine being fat from age 2 - 18
I could see how that would be very difficult. Glad you got your self control back :)
-
thanks dude :thumbsup:
-
I just roll with the fat
Heh
Is it hard not to be fat? I can go a long time without eating
Same. Today I ate a protein bar, Quest, hit the gym for 75 minutes, ate a salad for lunch. Won't eat any dinner to speak of because I will have some creatine/protein in a few minutes.
-
I just roll with the fat
Heh
Is it hard not to be fat? I can go a long time without eating
Same. Today I ate a protein bar, Quest, hit the gym for 75 minutes, ate a salad for lunch. Won't eat any dinner to speak of because I will have some creatine/protein in a few minutes.
eff that crap.
-
"if you are born fat it is not your mistake, if you die fat it is your mistake"
- bill plates, ceo of macrohard
-
"if you are born fat it is not your mistake, if you die fat it is your mistake"
- bill plates, ceo of macrohard
What if you are 'borted fat, Bill?
-
Looks like Rubio is in favor of curtailing free speech on campuses too.
https://twitter.com/samsteinhp/status/672439432507736064
-
Looks like Rubio is in favor of curtailing free speech on campuses too.
https://twitter.com/samsteinhp/status/672439432507736064
How is one person voicing an opinion "curtailing" the free speech of others? Oh yeah, that's the way it works in libtard land.
-
Looks like Rubio is in favor of curtailing free speech on campuses too.
https://twitter.com/samsteinhp/status/672439432507736064
How is one person voicing an opinion "curtailing" the free speech of others? Oh yeah, that's the way it works in libtard land.
Oh irony...
-
i read the tweet about the guy handing the fat girl his anti-fat card. made me wish i was in that subway so i could finally contribute to the adult fighting thread. what hateful people.
-
you would be doing the world a disservice if you stuck up for that woman.
pros of fat-shaming
- less hurt feelings in the long run (to me this is a con)
- better-looking people
- better relationships
- better sex
- better health
- more active lifestyle
cons of fat-shaming
- hurt feelings in the short run (to me this is a pro)
fat-shaming works in countries where they don't root for you for being fat.
-
Why would you care if somebody else is fat? Mind your business.
-
you would be doing the world a disservice if you stuck up for that woman.
pros of fat-shaming
- less hurt feelings in the long run (to me this is a con)
- better-looking people
- better relationships
- better sex
- better health
- more active lifestyle
cons of fat-shaming
- hurt feelings in the short run (to me this is a pro)
fat-shaming works in countries where they don't root for you for being fat.
stunz took a wrong turn somewhere. probably beems frat pep talks.
-
Looks like Rubio is in favor of curtailing free speech on campuses too.
https://twitter.com/samsteinhp/status/672439432507736064
How is one person voicing an opinion "curtailing" the free speech of others? Oh yeah, that's the way it works in libtard land.
Oh irony...
So you think a president "speaking out" against anti-Israel rhetoric is the same as, say, students demanding a university president be fired because he doesn't whole-heartedly endorse their views? That seems different to me.
-
Why would you care if somebody else is fat? Mind your business.
It increases the cost of healthcare for one. diabetes, heart problems, and they're gross to look at. And when you get stuck behind a porker because they walk at a snails pace and you can't get around them because their too fat is super annoying
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/04/30/obesity-now-costs-americans-more-in-healthcare-costs-than-smoking/
-
Why would you care if somebody else is fat? Mind your business.
I don't like that they take up more than their allotted bleacher space at 'Cat games. It wouldn't be that bad if there were only a few, but that isn't the case.
-
the morbidly obese ones are smelly too because they don't clean in between their fat rolls. And have you ever sat next to one on the airplane. It's awful
-
Jesus.
-
Jesus.
Jesus can't help them. They need to make the decision to stop being fat. It's pretty easy to lose weight. Take in less calories then you burn.
-
you would be doing the world a disservice if you stuck up for that woman.
pros of fat-shaming
- less hurt feelings in the long run (to me this is a con)
- better-looking people
- better relationships
- better sex
- better health
- more active lifestyle
cons of fat-shaming
- hurt feelings in the short run (to me this is a pro)
fat-shaming works in countries where they don't root for you for being fat.
stunz took a wrong turn somewhere. probably beems frat pep talks.
I remember when I was around 10 I called an older girl fat. Years later I find out she ended up being anorexic. At the time I felt horrible (felt bad when I did it, but when I heard of her thing I felt horrible). Then she ended up being pretty. Have her on fb, pretty sure she added me a few years ago. Looks like she is doing great.
People are going to get fat shamed regardless, I'm sure everyone overweight gets it at least indirectly. The only thing that can help lower the shaming is all the fat pride stuff, and you have to be a huge dumbfuck to support something so hurtful. It ranks up there with black lives matter for being Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) and illogical.
Everything in life you can improve on has some kind of pain period. Separates the winners from the losers. Losing weight is no different. But people like you would rather the world be some mediocre circle jerk.
-
Sounds like a success story, great job stunz
-
Thanks
-
I've never heard of fat pride. Is that like the pride I feel when I shame plumpers or are fat people actually proud of being fat?
-
less fat people = lower health care. so really for everyone bitching about obamacare and health insurance companies at least I am being part of the solution
-
I'm guessing there are a lot of people that lopak and stunz consider to be "fat" that are perfectly healthy and add nothing to health insurance costs. Because they (lopak and stunz) are bad people.
-
I'm guessing there are a lot of people that lopak and stunz consider to be "fat" that are perfectly healthy and add nothing to health insurance costs. Because they (lopak and stunz) are bad people.
Well then you clearly don't understand what my definition of fat is.
Let me help you.
fat, disgusting and unhealthy. These people affect your health care. I'm sure you'd advocate that at least he's 'trying to be healthy' by sucking down a diet coke with his french fries
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.dailymail.co.uk%2Fi%2Fpix%2F2007%2F07_03%2FFatyEatChipsREX_468x311.jpg&hash=06565ac32c0bd610f6210b6de39e699687dd9929)
overweight, still unhealthy but probably doesn't affect health care costs much
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffile.answcdn.com%2Fansw-cld%2Fimage%2Fupload%2Ff_jpg%2Cw_672%2Cc_fill%2Cg_faces%3Acenter%2Cq_70%2Fv1%2Ftk%2Fview%2Fcew%2F893f23cf%2F499efb2fbac7010f5fdc82da4784ceaa84663056.png&hash=f2288f2f205c82e1e647b5774e7e58c980d5568e)
-
I'm guessing there are a lot of people that lopak and stunz consider to be "fat" that are perfectly healthy and add nothing to health insurance costs. Because they (lopak and stunz) are bad people.
Well then you clearly don't understand what my definition of fat is.
Let me help you.
fat, disgusting and unhealthy. These people affect your health care. I'm sure you'd advocate that at least he's 'trying to be healthy' by sucking down a diet coke with his french fries
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.dailymail.co.uk%2Fi%2Fpix%2F2007%2F07_03%2FFatyEatChipsREX_468x311.jpg&hash=06565ac32c0bd610f6210b6de39e699687dd9929)
overweight, still unhealthy but probably doesn't affect health care costs much
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffile.answcdn.com%2Fansw-cld%2Fimage%2Fupload%2Ff_jpg%2Cw_672%2Cc_fill%2Cg_faces%3Acenter%2Cq_70%2Fv1%2Ftk%2Fview%2Fcew%2F893f23cf%2F499efb2fbac7010f5fdc82da4784ceaa84663056.png&hash=f2288f2f205c82e1e647b5774e7e58c980d5568e)
Well, you're still a bad person.
-
you mean in your opinion, which I don't care about
-
It's a fact, and you care
-
i didn't even realize lopak was a bad person until this thread. apparently he's a horrible person.
-
gotta tear down that Cathedral guys
-
Fat shamer shaming.
-
i didn't even realize lopak was a bad person until this thread. apparently he's a horrible person.
It was established very early on
-
:lol: lotta chubby chasers at goEMAW. Not really surprising considering the people posting in this thread
-
i didn't even realize lopak was a bad person until this thread. apparently he's a horrible person.
It was established very early on
i miss a lot.
-
:lol: lotta chubby chasers at goEMAW. Not really surprising considering the people posting in this thread
interesting. the overwhelmingly male goEMAW posters are chubby chasers, not fat themselves. fat women are the problem.
-
I'm just going to assume this is all a bad joke.
-
http://www.boston.com/news/local/2015/12/21/maine-teacher-forced-say-goodbye-pink-hello-kitty-christmas-tree-classroom/2T5p49dKXsyaoA0mhbJe2I/story.html
what a world we live in
-
How true
“It just seems that in our quest to be tolerant of everything, we’ve become intolerant to everything,” an emotional Gordon said
-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2015/12/22/fat-but-fit-may-be-a-myth-researcher-say/
Haha fat
-
since we're talking about fat ass liberal scum bags and all.....
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Those are all 'shopped
-
Radio silence from the police of the supposed pc police on ted cruz. If this happened to Sasha and Malia the usual suspects would decry the country of being too pc and monkeys as a symbol aren't racist.
-
I don't think the Rosie one is shopped.
-
The way she's clutching that mic is unnerving
-
Those are all 'shopped
Don't think the Rosie pic is. Honestly, I'm surprise you noticed as liberals can rarely tell fact from fiction.
-
http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=7269
We'll decide what's free speech!
-
Yeah! Ban protesters!
-
Yeah! Ban protesters!
A strawman tap out already?
Oh Lib :lol: :lol: :lol:
-
that actually sounds like it went pretty great. good job by everyone involved, especially the focal speaker who i've never heard of and have no idea if he's a political figure, a comedian or what.
-
Yep, it went great, instead of engaging in the debate they were invited to during the Q&A session, interrupt the whole thing, make sure attendees can't hear and then storm out like spoiled children. :thumbsup:
Only we can say who can and can't invoke MLK!!
-
but the event went on and everyone who wanted to q&a was able to and they could all lol @ how the protesters were all hyped to protest but too lazy to engage in a debate. pretty win/win.
-
Dax wants to ban those protesters so hard
-
Get those people practicing free speech out of here!
-
Lib is all for walking all over others free speech, as long as the disrupters are a cause he can believe in ... Truly sad.
-
The protesters got what they wanted and the speaker clearly got what he wanted by holding an event on a campus with "man of taste and distinction" in the title. I don't know what Dax is mad about, seems like a win/win
-
The protesters got what they wanted and the speaker clearly got what he wanted by holding an event on a campus with "man of taste and distinction" in the title. I don't know what Dax is mad about, seems like a win/win
It was all free speech.
-
Everybody who showed up to "The Most Dangerous man of taste and distinction" event in order to take place in an open-minded debate must feel robbed. Stupid protesters.
-
Look at the too cool for schoolers, sad.
-
It was all free speech.
Obviously the First Amendment doesn't give you the right to speak whenever, wherever and however you want.
-
It was all free speech.
Obviously the First Amendment doesn't give you the right to speak whenever, wherever and however you want.
Well, it was a free event with an open forum/Q&A. And he was brought in pretty much explicitly to bait protesters.
http://www.dailytargum.com/article/2016/02/rutgers-students-protest-journalist-milo-yiannopouloss-visit-to-campus
Matthew Boyer, president of Young Americans for Liberty's Rutgers chapter, disagrees.
Young Americans for Liberty invited Yiannopoulos to the school in order to expose students to opinions that do not align with their own, Boyer said.
In the past few years, Boyer said college students have been censoring ideas on campus that do not match their own liberal views. Such instances at Rutgers include the Condoleezza Rice protests in 2012 and the school’s restrictive “free speech zones.”
“No matter how provocative or taboo the speech may be, there’s still a value to that speech," said Boyer, a School of Arts and Sciences senior. “I think it’s really important to hear people come speak, even if you don’t agree with them.”
Boyer believes there is a hypocrisy in social justice movements, whose demonstrators want the freedom to protest racial inequality, but simultaneously want to quell opposing views using “safe spaces” and “trigger warnings.”
“If you’re a climate change denier, you might be upset that Bill Nye came and pushed climate change at your commencement. But those people weren’t protesting at your commencement,” said Boyer, whose own “trigger words” include Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
So it seems like everyone got exactly what they wanted. Win-win.
-
It was all free speech.
Obviously the First Amendment doesn't give you the right to speak whenever, wherever and however you want.
Most people don't know this, but the First Amendment really only requires that the government not pre-censor speech (i.e., stop you from saying something) except for extreme circumstances. You can still be held accountable for what you actually say.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j556MWGVVqI
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.easyapns.com%2Femoji%2Fe412.png&hash=845ec69b058560bb2362f1859f9ca2222b831f6a)
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j556MWGVVqI
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.easyapns.com%2Femoji%2Fe412.png&hash=845ec69b058560bb2362f1859f9ca2222b831f6a)
that's great
-
It was all free speech.
Obviously the First Amendment doesn't give you the right to speak whenever, wherever and however you want.
Most people don't know this, but the First Amendment really only requires that the government not pre-censor speech (i.e., stop you from saying something) except for extreme circumstances. You can still be held accountable for what you actually say.
Well, yeah prior restraints are one aspect of the freedom of speech. But really, the heart of the first amendment is the prohibition government punishment based on the content of your speech.
That said, time/place/manner restrictions are also permitted in some circumstances.
-
http://thefederalist.com/2016/02/24/trump-is-a-rump-but-he-has-a-point/
-
I.read on Drudge and heard on Hannity the DOJ discussed bringing civil lawsuits against earth warming deniers, especially oil companies. This is scary.
-
I.read on Drudge and heard on Hannity the DOJ discussed bringing civil lawsuits against earth warming deniers, especially oil companies. This is scary.
:dunno:
-
http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2016/05/27/depaul-sociology-professor-angrily-resigns-following-milo-visit/
crazy bitch
-
http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2016/05/27/depaul-sociology-professor-angrily-resigns-following-milo-visit/
crazy bitch
Resigned and then spent the next 3 days polishing her jackboots and buying book burning material.
-
the yale profs resign.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/the-peril-of-writing-a-provocative-email-at-yale/484418/
-
Sounds like their job was part babysitter, which is the part that they failed at.
-
Such pathetic behavior by those students.
-
What a bunch of dorks.
-
http://www.mtv.com/news/2887603/like-a-prayer-is-social-justice-the-new-campus-religion/
-
interesting article chum.
the thing a lot of people forget is that really, at its core, many of those seeking "social justice" on campus have good intentions. they want to curb bullying and be more thoughtful of others' feelings -- essentially, their message is be nice. noble goals. goals I agree with.
I do think the author of the MTV article was a little soft on their "overreaches," and maybe that's a product of the media's reporting on these movements (which the author acknowledged). but most of what I've seen from those groups is just vile, anti-intellectual, anti-rights (actual rights), obnoxious crap.
-
http://www.mtv.com/news/2887603/like-a-prayer-is-social-justice-the-new-campus-religion/
the idea that nevertrump has come down to david french. i mean, bring him on, more power to him, etc. but good lord, talk about the capitulating of the republican mind.
-
Donald Trump’s Little Boy Is a Gay Half-Jew With Jungle Fever (http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/203888/donald-trumps-little-boy)
Yiannopoulos published a long article championing the “alt right,” the largely Internet-based, populist movement that has surged to prominence on the heels of Trump’s success. Among its various constituencies, the alt right is comprised of mens’ rights advocates, pseudo-intellectual “race realists,” technocratic authoritarians whose paeans to Chinese efficiency resemble those of Tom Friedman (if Tom Friedman thought Ian Smith was a sell-out), and outright neo-Nazis. Speaking of the movement’s “intellectuals,” the bulk of whom write for avowedly racist and anti-Semitic publications like VDARE and American Renaissance, Yiannopoulos and his co-author described them as “dangerously bright.”
lots of other important stuff in that piece by a right-of-center journalist.
-
sure facebook/twitter can do what they want, but when they're such a huge "neutral" platform, it feels really icky.
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/8188/facebook-censorship-carlqvist
https://twitter.com/species8472xgn/status/738567824931622916
https://twitter.com/torbahax/status/739142844242264064
-
https://twitter.com/PunishedSage/status/742881130030850052 https://twitter.com/PunishedSage/status/742885469927538688 https://twitter.com/claudiaohmd/status/742892479297421312
why is Twitter trying to silence gay people and promote hate?
-
Twitter :curse:
-
That Milo guy got censored by Twiiter.
Study of libs loving authoritarian edicts confirmed . . . Again.
-
Shrieking, obnoxious, entitled Yale girl applied for a job at the workplace of one of my actual Canadian friends recently, they ran her name through Google and were quickly like, "lol yeah we knew you looked familiar, we're definitely not hiring you, 'best of luck'". :lol:
Late to this thread but those Yale students seem like massive dipshits.
-
Are you talking about the Yale girl that was screaming at the "master" of her dorm or whatever about how his job was specifically not to challenge the students' ideas?
The Yale thing was fascinating.
-
This girl:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IEFD_JVYd0
-
Haven't read much of the thread, but has this been mentioned? Very excited for it.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mgKCKPls5no
-
I've purposely not watched any of the videos in that vein because I thought it would make me sad and disgusted. Now I'm sad and disgusted
Edit: referring to Yale girl
-
That's who I was talking about, SKI-BE.
-
Also who I was talking about, 'lew''. LET'S JUST AGREE TO AGREE.
(Just wanted to post the video in case anyone hadn't seen it. Woof. It's so hard to watch. I just feel like cringing the second she opens her mouth to begin the flip-out.)
-
Milo banned again...and then reinstated. Going at it hard despite death threats. We have the best mommies folks. :love:
Twitter :curse:
-
I know they’re Muslims, by the way. The women wear face curtains in their Twitter profile pictures, and most of the writing was in those weird ink dribbles the Koran is written in that progressives insist on gushing over, saying it’s the most beautiful thing they’ve ever seen.
:lol:
-
Haven't read much of the thread, but has this been mentioned? Very excited for it.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mgKCKPls5no
Thanks SB! I'll be checking that out.
-
A lot of you guys would really enjoy Hannibal Burris's comedy
[youtube]https://youtu.be/feXnZZ2o5ys[/youtube]
-
Saw him last year and it was gr8.
-
originally, i enjoyed being outraged by shrieking whiny over-privileged yale girl. now i kinda feel bad for her.
-
https://twitter.com/Andrewmd5/status/756667918516097024
Wikileaks (https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2FgoEMAW.com%2Fforum%2FSmileys%2FgoEMAW%2FCurse.gif&hash=8f556655b38df0b611d71d977ecce81473ae8d5d)
-
I mean just use TOR like any normal citizen that knows that they're doing :dunno:
-
https://twitter.com/Andrewmd5/status/756667918516097024
Wikileaks (https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2FgoEMAW.com%2Fforum%2FSmileys%2FgoEMAW%2FCurse.gif&hash=8f556655b38df0b611d71d977ecce81473ae8d5d)
Huh. I could access from twitter to android on chrome.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/592
I browsed some emails and they were mostly pretty boring. This one was very heh:
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/4075
-
It's because .org is different than .com.
-
Clemson University has banned the displaying of posters of gorillas. They say they are a symbol of racism and rape. Another college banned gorilla floor decorations as being symbolic of masculinity.
-
http://reason.com/blog/2016/09/29/so-brave-this-university-of-michigan-kid
-
http://reason.com/blog/2016/10/10/uva-prof-agrees-to-leave-of-absence-afte
"I don't agree with this comment—Black Lives Matter is bringing much-needed attention to important issues like police brutality, even if I disagree with some of their more extreme tactics and views about wealth redistribution. Obviously, BLM is not a domestic terrorist organization on par with the Klu Klux Klan.
But if Muir thinks so, that's his right. The proper response is to criticize him, not censor him."
They should fire him.
-
That's not censorship. That's just the university trying to distance itself from the comment.
-
Yeah, if you're a professor at the University of Virginia saying stupid crap that's also politically charged, in a public forum, should get you fired. Employing someone as a professor, whip clearly isn't an intellectual, is bad for business.
-
Yeah, if you're a professor at the University of Virginia saying stupid crap that's also politically charged, in a public forum, should get you fired. Employing someone as a professor, whip clearly isn't an intellectual, is bad for business.
haven't read the article, but that's exactly why tenure was invented, so professors could say political stuff in public forums without getting fired. i strongly agree with tenure and the principle behind it.
-
Yeah, if you're a professor at the University of Virginia saying stupid crap that's also politically charged, in a public forum, should get you fired. Employing someone as a professor, whip clearly isn't an intellectual, is bad for business.
haven't read the article, but that's exactly why tenure was invented, so professors could say political stuff in public forums without getting fired. i strongly agree with tenure and the principle behind it.
I would doubt he had tenure, he was an "executive lecturer".
http://www.eands.virginia.edu/faculty-staff/muir/
https://www.linkedin.com/in/dmuir
-
regardless of whether or not he had tenure and academic freedom generally, it's still a case of the government punishing one of its employees based on the content of his speech. if this was a private school, this wouldn't raise my eyebrow at all. but would UVA have fired him if he came out with adamant support of BLM? if not, that seems like textbook viewpoint discrimination to me.
if I were him i'd be on the horn with the ACLU this afternoon.
-
If they fire him he should be happy to be free of the shackles that bind him.
-
regardless of whether or not he had tenure and academic freedom generally, it's still a case of the government punishing one of its employees based on the content of his speech. if this was a private school, this wouldn't raise my eyebrow at all. but would UVA have fired him if he came out with adamant support of BLM? if not, that seems like textbook viewpoint discrimination to me.
if I were him i'd be on the horn with the ACLU this afternoon.
I'm guessing its pretty easy to support BLM without alienating a large group of people like one would when comparing them to the "clan." Seems to me that they could make a pretty easy case that his airing of his viewpoint publicly would make it impossible for him to properly do his job.
-
regardless of whether or not he had tenure and academic freedom generally, it's still a case of the government punishing one of its employees based on the content of his speech. if this was a private school, this wouldn't raise my eyebrow at all. but would UVA have fired him if he came out with adamant support of BLM? if not, that seems like textbook viewpoint discrimination to me.
if I were him i'd be on the horn with the ACLU this afternoon.
I'm skeptical it could really be that black and white. The speech at issue likely had nothing to do with his job, and I would think the suspension has not so much to do with the ideas behind the speech and instead is focused on the very poor judgment shown in how he made the statement.
-
regardless of whether or not he had tenure and academic freedom generally, it's still a case of the government punishing one of its employees based on the content of his speech. if this was a private school, this wouldn't raise my eyebrow at all. but would UVA have fired him if he came out with adamant support of BLM? if not, that seems like textbook viewpoint discrimination to me.
if I were him i'd be on the horn with the ACLU this afternoon.
Even if this guy sues the school and wins, firing him is just the right thing to do.
-
Yeah. Maybe so. And after looking at some of my old notes, I may be wrong about the first amendment issue here. I still think the notion of punishing professors based on their speech re. political topics is a little dicey. That said, his comment was hyperbolic and a gross exaggeration (at best).
In any event, he technically resigned, so there's probably not really an issue here anyway.
-
Welcome to facepalm city, teachers of pc fascism
http://www.wsj.com/articles/fbis-online-anti-extremism-effort-meets-resistance-1476728750?mod=e2tw
-
http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/29757/
The future under manhaters.
-
"You can't talk legs onto a fish...we are going to go extinct and we are going to do it drinking scotch and muscle cars."
-
This seemed like the proper place for this
http://www.wsj.com/articles/harvard-suspends-mens-soccer-team-over-sexually-explicit-rankings-of-women-players-1478215057?mod=e2tw
:lol:
-
For smart kids they are pretty dumb
-
Playing soccer for Harvard is a right protected by the Constitution
-
So is being dumb
-
http://distractify.com/trending/2016/12/12/preacher-tells-kids-santa-isnt-real?utm_source=socialmob&utm_medium=paid&utm_content=1978&utm_campaign=dfy
This poor guy was "assaulted" for just speaking the truth.
-
Liberty University has the answer.
https://twitter.com/AlecMacGillis/status/809778704977186816
-
Gill is going to use that as a huge recruiting positive
-
i'll be upset if this range has targets that aren't the koran.
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lib.berkeley.edu%2FMRC%2Fsavio.jpg&hash=f98575643db2be7e4b8ab09b5064c6081ebe0bbe)
(https://i.redditmedia.com/-1h4ECJRS2lQF3Sd6y7ABMj1O6lRwe4k50NbUEbjj1M.jpg?w=1024&s=57a5dda02074f4c01b57fd804493a5cf)
-
Shouldn't he be picking tomatoes?
-
(https://i.redditmedia.com/-1h4ECJRS2lQF3Sd6y7ABMj1O6lRwe4k50NbUEbjj1M.jpg?w=1024&s=57a5dda02074f4c01b57fd804493a5cf)
That's amazing.
-
Amaze. AU continues to embarrass itself
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-fraternity-was-told-it-was-appropriating-culture-administrators-wont-say-which/2017/04/20/d57fa01a-25e1-11e7-b503-9d616bd5a305_story.html?utm_term=.884f376cffb5
-
Oreilly not being allowed to talk all hot to his coworkers (who wanted him) was beginning of end
-
This article is very well done. It aptly summarizes constitutional exceptions to free speech and contrasts them to the abhorrent behavior taking place on certain college campuses.
http://thefederalist.com/2017/04/20/sorry-college-kids-theres-no-thing-hate-speech/
-
This UC-Berkely v. Ann Coulter thing has the potential to get good.
-
More neo-fascist stuff
https://twitter.com/WSJ/status/863952123976970242
-
Dang FSD what do these epissteric guys think of the pit?
-
Buncha privileged sisgenders :shakesfist:
#psychos
-
More neo-fascist stuff
https://twitter.com/WSJ/status/863952123976970242
Yeah, that's pretty mumped up.
-
More neo-fascist stuff
https://twitter.com/WSJ/status/863952123976970242
Yeah, that's pretty mumped up.
I agree. Without having read the article, I think she raises a fair question.
-
More neo-fascist stuff
https://twitter.com/WSJ/status/863952123976970242
The WSJ quoting a single random ass twitter user to say it has been compared to violence is pretty lol-worthy "reporting."
-
More neo-fascist stuff
https://twitter.com/WSJ/status/863952123976970242
Yeah, that's pretty mumped up.
I agree. Without having read the article, I think she raises a fair question.
Article = paper
-
Instead of taking on Ms. Tuvel’s arguments, the professoriate attacked her for asking questions to begin with. More than 500 academics signed a letter denouncing the paper.
I don't think this is correct. They addressed her arguments. And I think the thrust of their issue was that her paper fell short of what should have been the journal's academic standards.
But, yeah, those people are nuts and dangerous and shouldn't have done that.
-
I was wondering about that chum. I could totally get behind attacking the quality of the paper. But the main thesis, as the article presented it, seems fair.
-
More neo-fascist stuff
https://twitter.com/WSJ/status/863952123976970242
The WSJ quoting a single random ass twitter user to say it has been compared to violence is pretty lol-worthy "reporting."
Real reporters, like wapo, nyt, buzzfeed, gawker and gizmodo, cite to anonymous sources or other news outlets citing anonymous sources. :lol:
Looking forward to more critical analysis from chicat!
-
Instead of taking on Ms. Tuvel’s arguments, the professoriate attacked her for asking questions to begin with. More than 500 academics signed a letter denouncing the paper.
I don't think this is correct. They addressed her arguments. And I think the thrust of their issue was that her paper fell short of what should have been the journal's academic standards.
But, yeah, those people are nuts and dangerous and shouldn't have done that.
I just read it, and I do not see where they addressed the substance of her arguments. I think you're right that it was mostly focused on procedure (how she sourced things, how she used different terms, etc.). What's strange is that these are the kind of criticisms you would expect in a scientific journal, but the article was philosophical in nature. The best philosophical writings transcend the era and norms in which they are written, so I don't quite get the critiques here. The authors of the letter were clearly upset that a well-respected feminist journal would publish something so counter to their expectations.
Still, not a free speech issue. Just complainers.
-
no one writes a letter to denounce a paper for being poorly done. if it's good, you read it and maybe someday cite it. if it sucks, you stop reading on the first page and move on to one of the five billion other papers published that week.
-
no one writes a letter to denounce a paper for being poorly done.
Except when they don't say what they really mean.
-
I was wondering about that chum. I could totally get behind attacking the quality of the paper. But the main thesis, as the article presented it, seems fair.
I don't think so. She reached the wrong conclusion.
-
What conclusion was that?
-
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/portland-ore-mayor-calls-for-free-speech-and-anti-sharia-rallies-to-be-canceled-after-stabbings/ar-BBBFVyn
The mayor of Portland Oregon wants to squash and prohibit pro-Trump rallies in the name of preventing violence from the militant left anarchists who have vowed to destroy Trump and America. The mayor reasons that racist hatred spewed by Trump will incite the tolerant left to go beserk if Trump cheerleaders meet. The PC is using violence and intimidation to squelch free speech and the liberties of Americans. People listen to Dax.
-
I don't like that drastic of a step but protecting those who are weaker is an important government interest
-
I don't like that drastic of a step but protecting those who are weaker is an important government interest
So make sure a lot of police are at the rallies. I agree with the ACLU -- this seems like a pretty obvious 1A violation.
-
If they don't think they are capable to protect the weak and fragile who need protection, what kind of police force are they?
-
even if the state is afraid of what people might do in response to otherwise permissible speech, prohibiting that speech has never been a constitutionally permissible option. crap can get really weird (even relative to the current status) if that starts to become a usable reason for shutting down speech.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_America_v._Village_of_Skokie (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_America_v._Village_of_Skokie)
Seems pretty on point
-
So, if you're alt-left anifa you can destroy crap and hurt people with impunity. But if you are "Trump Free Speech" Portland is off limits. How predictably and delightfully neo-fascist. Maybe the "conservatives" should wear stars so the police know who to intern to "protect the public".
I don't see any constitutional issues here, nope...
-
Agreed. They just need to get some more police to protect the weakest segments of our society, and arrest those using violence.
-
Agreed. They just need to get some more police to protect the weakest segments of our society, and arrest those using violence.
Yep. That's the solution. Call in the national guard.
-
Agreed. They just need to get some more police to protect the weakest segments of our society, and arrest those using violence.
Yep. That's the solution. Call in the national guard.
Provide a buffer between the aggressors and the weakly. It has been done before.
-
Batshit
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-campus-mob-came-for-meand-you-professor-could-be-next-1496187482?mod=e2tw
-
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-trump-has-stoked-the-campus-debate-on-speech-and-violence (http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-trump-has-stoked-the-campus-debate-on-speech-and-violence)
-
Is this where we talk about Cultural Appropriation?
I felt so bad for little Katy Perry, crying her eyes out because they gave her such a hard time about having cornrows.
Then I read a story about two ladies in Portland who were protested in closing down their burrito/taco truck because in an article about their delicious business, they talked about how they learned their methods by watching the ladies make tortilla's in Mexico.
-
I'd say the cultural appropriation stuff belongs in the liberals losing their mind thread, except it really doesn't have anything to do with Trump. Maybe it deserves its own thread. It's ridiculous enough for it.
-
I'd say the cultural appropriation stuff belongs in the liberals losing their mind thread, except it really doesn't have anything to do with Trump. Maybe it deserves its own thread. It's ridiculous enough for it.
True, need to think of a good thread title.
-
"A white hombre is a bad hombre."
-
"Please pass the queso and Don Julio as I act like a sophisticated adult"
-
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40710165
-
the most evil religion in the world has to be Islam.
It’s tempting to say all religions are bad, and I do say all religions are bad, but it’s a worse temptation to say all religions are equally bad because they’re not,” he added.
“If you look at the actual impact that different religions have on the world it’s quite apparent that at present the most evil religion in the world has to be Islam.
“It’s terribly important to modify that because of course that doesn’t mean all Muslims are evil, very far from it. Individual Muslims suffer more from Islam than anyone else.
“They suffer from the homophobia, the misogyny, the joylessness which is preached by extreme Islam, Isis and the Iranian regime.
“So it is a major evil in the world, we do have to combat it, but we don’t do what Trump did and say all Muslims should be shut out of the country. That’s draconian, that’s illiberal, inhumane and wicked. I am against Islam not least because of the unpleasant effects it has on the lives of Muslims.
-
"You conspicuously did not quote a source when accusing me of 'abusive speech'.
"Why didn't you check your facts - or at least have the common courtesy to alert me - before summarily cancelling my event?"
-
Good. Dawkins should face at least some blowback for his bombastic rhetoric. He's not as pure and innocent of it like he likes to think he is.
-
the most evil religion in the world has to be Islam.
It’s tempting to say all religions are bad, and I do say all religions are bad, but it’s a worse temptation to say all religions are equally bad because they’re not,” he added.
“If you look at the actual impact that different religions have on the world it’s quite apparent that at present the most evil religion in the world has to be Islam.
“It’s terribly important to modify that because of course that doesn’t mean all Muslims are evil, very far from it. Individual Muslims suffer more from Islam than anyone else.
“They suffer from the homophobia, the misogyny, the joylessness which is preached by extreme Islam, Isis and the Iranian regime.
“So it is a major evil in the world, we do have to combat it, but we don’t do what Trump did and say all Muslims should be shut out of the country. That’s draconian, that’s illiberal, inhumane and wicked. I am against Islam not least because of the unpleasant effects it has on the lives of Muslims.
This is pretty good
-
In July 2017, The Selfish Gene was listed as the most influential science book of all time in a poll to celebrate the 30th anniversary of the Royal Society science book prize.
-
I'm a supporter of pop science people. I hope they succeed in restraining anti science people.
-
Good. Dawkins should face at least some blowback for his bombastic rhetoric. He's not as pure and innocent of it like he likes to think he is.
As a caliphate denier, how do you measure yourself against holocaust deniers? Or are you a holocaust denier too?
-
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40710165
I guess it was organized by someone else, but this really does not reflect well on Berkeley.
-
I would like to restrict this guy's free speech.
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1646682155365530&id=124091107624650&_rdr
-
I would like to restrict this guy's free speech.
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1646682155365530&id=124091107624650&_rdr
What's crazy is when this guy posted his video, he was probably thought the interaction was a rousing victory on his part.
-
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40710165
I guess it was organized by someone else, but this really does not reflect well on Berkeley.
Berkeley as in the University of California-Berkeley school or Berkeley the town? Because the KFPA hippies are exactly what I think of when I think of Berkeley the town.
-
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40710165
I guess it was organized by someone else, but this really does not reflect well on Berkeley.
Berkeley as in the University of California-Berkeley school or Berkeley the town? Because the KFPA hippies are exactly what I think of when I think of Berkeley the town.
Well, that and Lil B and G-Eazy
-
The first time I went to Berkeley I was like 9 and saw a homeless man take a crap in the middle of the sidewalk. That's what I think of when I think of Berkeley the town
-
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40710165
I guess it was organized by someone else, but this really does not reflect well on Berkeley.
Berkeley as in the University of California-Berkeley school or Berkeley the town? Because the KFPA hippies are exactly what I think of when I think of Berkeley the town.
I always just assumed Berkeley was a college town for the university, so I never drew much of a distinction. I guess this quote from the article kind of sums up my thought:
Known as the home of the Free Speech moment [movement?] in the 1960s, Berkeley has recently left that reputation in doubt as far-left protesters have sought to silence speakers and academics with whom they disagree.
But it also reflects poorly on their diligence since they were apparently like, "Woah, this guy is against religions other than Christianity?"
-
Good. Dawkins should face at least some blowback for his bombastic rhetoric. He's not as pure and innocent of it like he likes to think he is.
He has a point. The onus is on the radio station to research the guests they invite.
In a letter to ticket-holders, the publicly funded radio station wrote: "We had booked this event based entirely on his excellent new book on science, when we didn't know he had offended and hurt - in his tweets and other comments on Islam, so many people."
someone who makes me uncomfortable central. :facepalm:
-
the most evil religion in the world has to be Islam.
It’s tempting to say all religions are bad, and I do say all religions are bad, but it’s a worse temptation to say all religions are equally bad because they’re not,” he added.
“If you look at the actual impact that different religions have on the world it’s quite apparent that at present the most evil religion in the world has to be Islam.
“It’s terribly important to modify that because of course that doesn’t mean all Muslims are evil, very far from it. Individual Muslims suffer more from Islam than anyone else.
“They suffer from the homophobia, the misogyny, the joylessness which is preached by extreme Islam, Isis and the Iranian regime.
“So it is a major evil in the world, we do have to combat it, but we don’t do what Trump did and say all Muslims should be shut out of the country. That’s draconian, that’s illiberal, inhumane and wicked. I am against Islam not least because of the unpleasant effects it has on the lives of Muslims.
Dawkins is great.
-
I mean, his comments are more right than wrong. And it is a disservice by this broadcaster to refuse to test his ideas in the competition of the market. But I suppose this probably generates more discussion than would his comments on a local radio station, so perhaps it's all the better.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
-
The left is just so lost on the free speech vs political correctness issue.
-
It’s revealing, it seems to me, that Richard Dawkins is the latest target of the authoritarian left — and why he is under attack. This week, he was disinvited from a book event hosted by a progressive radio station, KPFA, because of his criticisms of Islam. “While KPFA emphatically supports serious free speech, we do not support abusive speech,” the radio station explained. “We apologize for not having had broader knowledge of Dawkins’s views [on Islam] much earlier.” This is hilarious. As anyone with a brain and an internet connection knows, Dawkins has made a second career out of vilifying religions of all kinds.
To take one random example, here’s what he has written of Judaism: “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” Why is he Islamophobic and not also obviously anti-Semitic? Why was one disqualifying and the other not? And I won’t begin to cite his fulminations against Christianity. Perhaps his sin was a recent, not completely relativist pronouncement that “it’s tempting to say all religions are bad, and I do say all religions are bad, but it’s a worse temptation to say all religions are equally bad because they’re not. If you look at the actual impact that different religions have on the world, it’s quite apparent that at present the most evil religion in the world has to be Islam.”
Notice the qualifier: “at the present.” And with that qualifier, who, on earth, could deny this? Is there a Christian regime currently anywhere even close to ISIS’s caliphate? How many Jewish terrorists are setting off bombs at pop concerts full of young girls? History is replete with horrors of all religions when abused by fanatics. But today, it is Islam that is clearly out in front. Dawkins is not, moreover, attacking Muslims. In fact, in the same interview, he immediately followed up with this: “It’s terribly important to modify that because of course that doesn’t mean all Muslims are evil, very far from it. Individual Muslims suffer more from Islam than anyone else.” KPFA couldn’t read that far?
I fear that the truth is Islam has become an untouchable shibboleth for some on the left. What they lacerate in other religions, they refuse to mention in Islam. Sexism, homophobia, the death penalty for apostasy … all of this is to be rationalized if the alternative is Islamophobia. Why, one wonders? Is it because Muslims are a small minority? But the same could be said for Jews. My best guess is simply that, for the far left, anything that is predominantly “of color” is preferable to anything, like Judaism and Christianity, that can usually be described as “white.” That’s how “intersectionality” can be used to defend what would otherwise be indefensible. The preoccupation with race on the far left is now so deep, in other words, it’s becoming simply an inversion of that on the far right.
-
Doesn't get much better than studs talking about studs
-
Doesn't get much better than studs talking about studs
-
For instance, USA Today bemoaned the lack of women and “lead actors of color” in its glowing review of Dunkirk, and several people complained on the internet about how the whole movie was just white dudes.
I haven't seen Dunkirk yet. I sure want to see Hitler's fifth army of black transgender gay women. Stupid. We will be dang lucky to have any real history in the future.
-
If no God, what is the foundation for moral values? What is the basis for the value of human beings?
Why would we think we have a moral obligation to do anything? Who or what imposes moral duties upon us?
-
Survival
-
For instance, USA Today bemoaned the lack of women and “lead actors of color” in its glowing review of Dunkirk, and several people complained on the internet about how the whole movie was just white dudes.
I haven't seen Dunkirk yet. I sure want to see Hitler's fifth army of black transgender gay women. Stupid. We will be dang lucky to have any real history in the future.
Reno, this is a lie, you're better than that
-
If no God, what is the foundation for moral values? What is the basis for the value of human beings?
Why would we think we have a moral obligation to do anything? Who or what imposes moral duties upon us?
The Harvest Baptist church in Manhattan tried to recruit me with this type of reasoning.
-
(Note: Sourced from a non endwhackadoo self confirming pre-approved media outlet)
Note to Dave: Make fun of white conservative Christians and you won't have any problems
http://dailycaller.com/2017/08/03/chapelle-tells-yet-another-transgender-joke-the-response-is-insane/
-
Only in Berkley. The most liberal PC city in America (???). This ain't right.
http://www.foxnews.com/food-drink/2017/08/05/vegans-bully-california-butcher-shop-into-hanging-animal-rights-sign.html
-
Yesterday I was at a Berkeley Whole Foods (which has a huge meats section) and didn't see any animal rights signs. This seems unfair.
-
http://www.latimes.com//la-sp-usc-traveler-20170818-story.html
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Stupid
-
If actually named after Lee's horse they'd lose every game
-
If actually named after Lee's horse they'd lose every game
Or get into position to win the whole thing and then totally collapse.
-
http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/UC-free-speech-in-spotlight-over-super-tight-12196062.php?cmpid=email-premium
-
smdh
-
Pretty embarrassing
-
Seriously...
-
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2017/09/18/views-among-college-students-regarding-the-first-amendment-results-from-a-new-survey/
-
Free Speech week cancelled :lol:
https://twitter.com/WSJ/status/912319575076851713
No word on whether this effects the right to kneel during the national anthem.
-
https://youtu.be/adPXDTvADD0
-
Hahahahahha thanks for that Dax
-
https://youtu.be/adPXDTvADD0
Best work they’ve done in years, lol at people that that say woke, good grief
-
https://twitter.com/TAPSTRIMEDIA/status/931373624237445121
-
The sheer public spectacle of near-riots has forced some college administrators to take a stand for free expression and provide massive police protection when controversial speakers like Ben Shapiro come to campus. But when Mr. Shapiro leaves, the conditions that necessitated those extraordinary measures are still there. Administrators will keep having to choose between censoring moderate-to-conservative speakers, exposing their students to the threat of violence, and spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on every speaker. It’s an expensive treatment that provides only momentary relief from a symptom.
What then is the disease? We are now close to the end of a half-century process by which the campuses have been emptied of centrist and right-of-center voices. Many scholars have studied the political allegiances of the faculty during this time. There have been some differences of opinion about methodology, but the main outline is not in doubt. In 1969 the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education found that there were overall about twice as many left-of-center as right-of-center faculty. Various studies document the rise of that ratio to 5 to 1 at the century’s end, and to 8 to 1 a decade later, until in 2016 Mitchell Langbert, Dan Klein, and Tony Quain find it in the region of 10 to 1 and still rising.
Even these figures understate the matter. The overall campus figures include professional schools and science, technology, business and mathematics departments. In most humanities and social-science departments—especially those central to a liberal education, such as history, English and political science—the share of left-of-center faculty already approaches 100%.
The imbalance is not only a question of numbers. Well-balanced opposing views act as a corrective for each other: The weaker arguments of one side are pounced on and picked off by the other. Both remain consequently healthier and more intellectually viable. But intellectual dominance promotes stupidity. As one side becomes numerically stronger, its discipline weakens. The greater the imbalance between the two sides, the more incoherent and irrational the majority will become.
What we are now seeing on the campuses illustrates this general principle perfectly. The nearly complete exclusion of one side has led to complete irrationality on the other. With almost no intellectual opponents remaining, campus radicals have lost the ability to engage with arguments and resort instead to the lazy alternative of name-calling: Opponents are all “fascists,” “racists” or “white supremacists.”
In a state of balance between the two sides, leadership flows naturally to those better able to make the case for their side against the other. That takes knowledge and skill. But when one side has the field to itself, leadership flows instead to those who make the most uncompromising and therefore intellectually least defensible case, one that rouses followers to enthusiasm but can’t stand up to scrutiny. Extremism and demagoguery win out. Physical violence is the endpoint of this intellectual decay—the stage at which academic thought and indeed higher education have ceased to exist.
That is the condition that remains after Mr. Shapiro and the legions of police have left campus: More than half of the spectrum of political and social ideas has been banished from the classrooms, and what remains has degenerated as a result. The treatment of visiting speakers calls attention to that condition but is not itself the problem. No matter how much money is spent on security, no matter how many statements supporting free speech are released, the underlying disease continues to metastasize.
During the long period in which the campus radical left was cleansing the campuses of opposition, it insisted that wasn’t what it was doing. Those denials have suddenly been reversed. The exclusion of any last trace of contrary opinion is not only acknowledged but affirmed. Students and faculty even demand “safe spaces” where there is no danger that they will be exposed to any contrary beliefs.
It is important to understand why the radical left cleared the campuses of opposing voices. It was not to advance higher education, for that must involve learning to evaluate competing ideas, to analyze the pros and cons of rival arguments and concepts. Shutting down all but one viewpoint is done to achieve the opposite: to pre-empt analysis and understanding. Only in the absence of competing ideas can the radical sect that now controls so much of the campuses hope to thrive and increase its numbers, because it can’t survive open debate and analysis, and its adherents know it.
Given that treating only symptoms is ultimately pointless, is there any cure for the disease? The radical left won’t voluntarily give up the stranglehold on higher education that it has worked unrelentingly to gain. But that can’t be the end of the matter: The public pays huge sums, both through tuition and taxation, to educate young people, and except in STEM subjects most of that money is being wasted. Those who pay the bills have the power to stop this abuse of higher education if they organize themselves effectively.
Colleges need to be accredited; state universities answer to governing boards. Accrediting agencies and governing boards are created through a political process. What if voters were to insist that those agencies demand answers to some elementary questions? For example: How can a department of political science that excludes half the spectrum of viable political ideas be competent to offer degrees in the field? How can a history curriculum be taught competently when only one extremist attitude to social and political questions is present in a department? How can a campus humanities faculty with the same limitation teach competently? How can these extraordinary deficiencies deserve either accreditation, or support by state and federal funds?
The campus radical monopoly on political ideas amounts to the shutting down of liberal higher education as we have known it. That, not the increasingly frequent violent flare-ups, is the real crisis.
Mr. Ellis is a professor emeritus of German literature at the University of California, Santa Cruz, and chairman of the California Association of Scholars
-
Pretty good take, IMO. Universities can absolutely suffer from the same echo chamber effect as anything else.
But still, gmafb with this:
Given that treating only symptoms is ultimately pointless, is there any cure for the disease? The radical left won’t voluntarily give up the stranglehold on higher education that it has worked unrelentingly to gain.
Academia is not closed to conservatives. Put in the work and get the degrees if you want.
-
HERO
https://twitter.com/MotherJones/status/932778730656804866
-
That’s pretty good.
-
Pretty good take, IMO. Universities can absolutely suffer from the same echo chamber effect as anything else.
But still, gmafb with this:
Given that treating only symptoms is ultimately pointless, is there any cure for the disease? The radical left won’t voluntarily give up the stranglehold on higher education that it has worked unrelentingly to gain.
Academia is not closed to conservatives. Put in the work and get the degrees if you want.
I'm sure it is just a coincidence that the exponential increase in the cost of higher education is strongly correlated to the exponentially increasing disparity in ideology.
Hey, recent grads! You're libtard tenured prof who "isn't doing it for the miney" is only doing it for the money.
Libtard altruism, the greatest misnomer of them all.
-
Pretty good take, IMO. Universities can absolutely suffer from the same echo chamber effect as anything else.
But still, gmafb with this:
Given that treating only symptoms is ultimately pointless, is there any cure for the disease? The radical left won’t voluntarily give up the stranglehold on higher education that it has worked unrelentingly to gain.
Academia is not closed to conservatives. Put in the work and get the degrees if you want.
I'm sure it is just a coincidence that the exponential increase in the cost of higher education is strongly correlated to the exponentially increasing disparity in ideology.
Hey, recent grads! You're libtard tenured prof who "isn't doing it for the miney" is only doing it for the money.
Libtard altruism, the greatest misnomer of them all.
That's not why higher education costs more.
-
Probably has more to do with the fact that it’s so easy to get education loans and they’re not completely discharged in bankruptcy.
Higher Education is the new Payday Loan/2007 mortgage provider.
-
Exactly. More money is available. Unis increase the cost to get in the door.
http://reason.com/archives/2015/01/05/time-to-rein-in-college-costs
-
Pretty good take, IMO. Universities can absolutely suffer from the same echo chamber effect as anything else.
But still, gmafb with this:
Given that treating only symptoms is ultimately pointless, is there any cure for the disease? The radical left won’t voluntarily give up the stranglehold on higher education that it has worked unrelentingly to gain.
Academia is not closed to conservatives. Put in the work and get the degrees if you want.
I'm sure it is just a coincidence that the exponential increase in the cost of higher education is strongly correlated to the exponentially increasing disparity in ideology.
Hey, recent grads! You're libtard tenured prof who "isn't doing it for the miney" is only doing it for the money.
Libtard altruism, the greatest misnomer of them all.
PBS and colleges :curse:
-
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20171204/73e4e390a6e9915948e5ef871fcbaba1.jpg)
-
What is "cis-gendered"?
-
What is "cis-gendered"?
into Nazi stuff maybe?
-
https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/university-of-chicago-prof-defends-decision-to-invite-bannon-to-campus/ (https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/university-of-chicago-prof-defends-decision-to-invite-bannon-to-campus/)
-
I am legitimately shocked every time professors and students at a rough ridin' University try to stop someone from expressing their opinion (which appears to be shared by millions of people). Ever-y time.
-
http://dailysignal.com/2018/02/08/school-loses-dad-daughter-dance-because-of-gender-neutral-policies/amp/
State of NY prohibits any gender based activity that is not educational.
-
https://twitter.com/willsommer/status/969312166015832064
-
to be clear, IDGAF about youtube and twitter shutting down people
-
Yep, nothing to do with free speech
-
Dax will be pissed tho
-
Free market
-
https://twitter.com/dprk_news/status/970334937198026753?s=21
-
This is a great article on the subject:
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/03/07/opinion/were-all-fascists-now.html?smid=tw-share&referer=https://t.co/DAlpzEfIO0?amp=1
But it is also a concerted attempt to significantly redraw the bounds of acceptable thought and speech. By tossing people like Mary Beard and Christina Hoff Sommers into the slop bucket with the likes of Richard Spencer, they are attempting to place their reasonable ideas firmly outside the mainstream. They are trying to make criticism of identity politics, radical Islam and third-wave feminism, among various other subjects, verboten. For even the most minor transgressions, as in the case of Professor Beard, people are turned radioactive.
There are consequences to all this “fascism” — and not just the reputational damage to those who are smeared, though there is surely that.
The main effect is that these endless accusations of “fascism” or “misogyny” or “alt-right” dull the effects of the words themselves. As they are stripped of meaning, they strip us of our sharpness — of our ability to react forcefully to real fascists and misogynists or members of the alt-right.
-
asking a university to rescind an invitation to speak at a law school luncheon is not a violation of anyone's freedom of speech. smdh
-
also bari weiss is a complete moron
-
It amuses me that people acting like fascists are so frequently accusing others of being fascist.
-
It amuses me that people acting like fascists are so frequently accusing others of being fascist.
It's true. Also weird how often the supposedly liberal only tolerate one point of view.
-
https://twitter.com/jscros/status/971514335062306819?s=19
-
https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/971519280687742976?s=19
-
LOL, she got her start trying to get professors fired for criticizing Israel. (This is before her dumbass immigrant Olympics tweet)
https://theintercept.com/2018/03/08/the-nyts-bari-weiss-falsely-denies-her-years-of-attacks-on-the-academic-freedom-of-arab-scholars-who-criticize-israel/
-
Sounds like a pretty good choice to me. I think she's wrong about all of these things, but about half of the country think she's right, and college kids should be exposed to that.
-
Sounds like a pretty good choice to me. I think she's wrong about all of these things, but about half of the country think she's right, and college kids should be exposed to that.
Bari Weiss wrote the column, she wasn't invited to speak.
-
this is interesting.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/12/17100496/political-correctness-data
-
this is interesting.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/12/17100496/political-correctness-data
It's like terrorism/mass shooting media coverage in a way. Or maybe that's just how journalism has always been.
-
Very interesting, and kind of a nice relief.
-
I liked how they repeatedly cited the same survey by referring to it many different ways so that it would appear the article wasp well researched. And then used that falsehood to support their non-sequiter conclusion.
The problem is npt the student body at large, it is a narrow group of facsist leftists tgat are throwing a fit about any speech they disagree with and the college administrations are either giving in or supporting them.
"The squeeky wheel gets the grease". It's amazing how far these morons can miss the point.
-
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/03/the-right-is-worse-than-the-left-on-free-speech-so-what.html
-
good article.
-
this is really good. my apologies for posting part 3 (haven't read parts 1 and 2 yet), but it seems to stand autonomously.
http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/258528/microagressions
-
parts 1 and 2 are also great, if perhaps somewhat less clearly within the purview of this thread.
http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/256242/bari-weiss-mirai-nagasu
http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/257250/asian-americans-racial-quota-system
-
If we try hard enough, we can remember the permissive world we all used to inhabit in the year 2016. We all knew men who tried to seduce a lot of women and often enough succeeded. We accepted them as part of the normal order of things in a world where no one we knew disapproved of premarital sex, homosexuality, or any private activity between consenting adults. We knew people of both sexes in the art world and the publishing world who mingled their sex lives and the thing they did to earn their keep. For them, the continuous pursuit of aesthetic bliss was co-extensive with the pursuit of sexual gratification. We allowed them this privilege.
We were living, it becomes increasingly clear, in a lawless interregnum between the widespread desublimation that began in the 1960s, and whatever lies ahead of us, when new rules couched in the language of safety and respect will regulate us.
goddamn, but this guy is a fantastic writer. i'm ashamed i'd never heard of him before today.
-
I didn't think the first (third) article was very good. He didn't have a clear point and he used a bunch of strawmen.
But the one approach that definitely will not work is declaring all white people to be irremediably tainted by racism at the level of the unconscious and all nonwhite people to be fragile to the point of inanition at the touch of slights that appear banal and trivial.
Like is this an approach anyone seriously takes?
I also don't think Asians are immune to "microagressions" just because they have high incomes.
-
Oh Christ, this moron thinks Bari Weiss was ridiculed primarily because microagression and bit because she's a dumbass? Jesus.
-
If we try hard enough, we can remember the permissive world we all used to inhabit in the year 2016. We all knew men who tried to seduce a lot of women and often enough succeeded. We accepted them as part of the normal order of things in a world where no one we knew disapproved of premarital sex, homosexuality, or any private activity between consenting adults. We knew people of both sexes in the art world and the publishing world who mingled their sex lives and the thing they did to earn their keep. For them, the continuous pursuit of aesthetic bliss was co-extensive with the pursuit of sexual gratification. We allowed them this privilege.
We were living, it becomes increasingly clear, in a lawless interregnum between the widespread desublimation that began in the 1960s, and whatever lies ahead of us, when new rules couched in the language of safety and respect will regulate us.
You and I have different views on what constitutes good writing. And I don't say that disparagingly.
goddamn, but this guy is a fantastic writer. i'm ashamed i'd never heard of him before today.
-
You and I have different views on what constitutes good writing. And I don't say that disparagingly.
he's pedantic in passages, i admit.
-
Oh Christ, this moron thinks Bari Weiss was ridiculed primarily because microagression and bit because she's a dumbass? Jesus.
what do you think it was?
-
I didn't think the first (third) article was very good. He didn't have a clear point and he used a bunch of strawmen.
But the one approach that definitely will not work is declaring all white people to be irremediably tainted by racism at the level of the unconscious and all nonwhite people to be fragile to the point of inanition at the touch of slights that appear banal and trivial.
Like is this an approach anyone seriously takes?
i think you missed the point. i recommend you read this earlier piece of his which will perhaps clarify.
http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/252754/henry-louis-gates-ban-hate-speech
-
Oh Christ, this moron thinks Bari Weiss was ridiculed primarily because microagression and bit because she's a dumbass? Jesus.
what do you think it was?
She's a dumbass who didn't get her facts straight and then doubled down on her incorrect fact. While also being pretty racist
-
she's said she did know the skater wasn't an immigrant, but either way it is the exact thing that the opening vignette of the 3rd essay described as a microaggression.
-
she's said she did know the skater wasn't an immigrant, but either way it is the exact thing that the opening vignette of the 3rd essay described as a microaggression.
I don't think she knew that when she made the tweet. Even if she says she did. As a New York times editorial columnist, she deserves to be mocked on Twitter. If she really did know and still made the tweet, she probably deserves to be mocked even more.
https://twitter.com/jiatolentino/status/963182999645966338
-
i'm not arguing about whether she deserves to be mocked, i'm inquiring why you don't agree that the tweet was an example of microaggression.
-
As a well meaning white male I feel a little microaggressed in the way the author lays the bulk of microaggresions at my people's feet.
-
i'm not arguing about whether she deserves to be mocked, i'm inquiring why you don't agree that the tweet was an example of microaggression.
Ah. I guess I'd say she's factually inaccurate first, dumbass second, microaggressor third. The author painted her as a victim of microaggression outrage or whatever when that's third in the list of her problems here. Like, I don't think that tweet would have been noticed by anyone if it had been factually accurate or if she wasn't a NYT columnist.
-
yeah, that seems like it's probably true. i'd quibble maybe a bit that there is probably an interaction factor in the equation. like if she'd have tweeted like "new yorkers, they get the job done" and someone had tweeted back, "she was born in california", i don't think very many people would have cared about the factual inaccuracy.
-
And I guess I don't know where exactly kinda dumb, lazy, and out of touch end and microaggressions begin. Like if she had made a reference to a "tiger mom" or something instead of Hamilton would that have been better or worse on the microaggression scale?
-
yeah, that seems like it's probably true. i'd quibble maybe a bit that there is probably an interaction factor in the equation. like if she'd have tweeted like "new yorkers, they get the job done" and someone had tweeted back, "she was born in california", i don't think very many people would have cared about the factual inaccuracy.
Yes, good point. But would she have claimed she knew and it didn't matter at that mistake?
-
it would have made it more work for people to make fun of. "lololololololol" wouldn't have gotten the job done.
-
Anyone seriously using the word Microaggression deserves to be tarred and feathered
-
That would be a macroaggression.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
-
And I guess I don't know where exactly kinda dumb, lazy, and out of touch end and microaggressions begin. Like if she had made a reference to a "tiger mom" or something instead of Hamilton would that have been better or worse on the microaggression scale?
thinking about it a little more, if it wasn't inaccurate, it wouldn't be a microaggression. if you're an immigrant and someone comes up to you and assumes you're an immigrant and asks you where you're from, you can't really be offended that they correctly perceived you to be an immigrant.
also, i'm not sure if the rationale i've heard (can't now recall if it was in the essay or i've seen it elsewhere) for how that is offensive is accurate. the rationale being something like the microaggressor is assuming the asian person is not native born = not american = other. i think it's more like the microaggressor sees an asian, wants to know their ethnicity and thinks it socially unacceptable to ask a stranger what ethnicity they are so they try to dig out the info on the sly asking where they're from.
-
And I guess I don't know where exactly kinda dumb, lazy, and out of touch end and microaggressions begin. Like if she had made a reference to a "tiger mom" or something instead of Hamilton would that have been better or worse on the microaggression scale?
thinking about it a little more, if it wasn't inaccurate, it wouldn't be a microaggression. if you're an immigrant and someone comes up to you and assumes you're an immigrant and asks you where you're from, you can't really be offended that they correctly perceived you to be an immigrant.
also, i'm not sure if the rationale i've heard (can't now recall if it was in the essay or i've seen it elsewhere) for how that is offensive is accurate. the rationale being something like the microaggressor is assuming the asian person is not native born = not american = other. i think it's more like the microaggressor sees an asian, wants to know their ethnicity and thinks it socially unacceptable to ask a stranger what ethnicity they are so they try to dig out the info on the sly asking where they're from.
Yeah, the "where are you really from?" question is what I would clearly consider a "microaggression" category people freak out about. It can be demeaning but it can also come from genuine curiosity.
And the more I think about it, I don't really think the error/tweet/explanation falls into the "microaggression" realm because it was just too dumb to be something a normal person would say in normal conversation. Which I think is a feature of microaggressions, like they're common phrases or questions that people didn't realize could be considered offensive? I don't know, I haven't bothered to learn much about them.
Regardless, Weiss was pretty shrewd to make this about her being a victim of PC culture or whatever.
-
another good piece on media in the age of the twitter mob.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/04/a-dissent-concerning-kevin-williamson/484052/
-
another good piece on media in the age of the twitter mob.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/04/a-dissent-concerning-kevin-williamson/484052/
what about that piece do you find compelling?
-
what about that piece do you find compelling?
Word of Williamson’s hiring was greeted by some as if by mercenary opposition researchers determined to isolate the most outlying and offensive thoughts that he ever uttered, no matter how marginal to his years of journalistic work; to gleefully amplify them, sometimes in highly distorting ways, in a manner designed to stoke maximum upset and revulsion; and to frame them as if they said everything one needed to know about his character. To render him toxic was their purpose.
That mode was poison when reserved for cabinet nominees; it is poison when applied to journalistic hires; and it will be poison if, next week or year, it comes for you.
I worry that the firing was a failure of “the spirit of generosity,” a value that The Atlantic has long touted as a core value. I know that it raised thorny, unresolved questions about what exactly is verboten at the magazine. I fear it will make it harder for the publication to contribute to the sort of public sphere where the right and the left mutually benefit from fraught engagement.
I worry that the dragging and the firing were failures of tolerance.
That virtue is unfashionable these days. And I believe that those who minimize, dismiss, or reject it underestimate its value and the potential consequences of its atrophy, even as many who value tolerance have lost the words or the stomach to defend it.
I reject the assumption that social justice or civic progress are advanced, that repressive outcomes are avoided, or that vulnerable groups are best served, by partisans who focus on everyone’s most extreme, or wrongheaded, or taboo, or outlying, or shocking, or problematic view
I draw a distinction between the position that a given belief “is not something that belongs anywhere in the mainstream,” and the crucially distinct belief that a person who holds any such position should be totally excluded from mainstream institutions
and this whole passage quoted by the author:
I’ve long admired Williamson’s writing, if not his ideas, for the way he’s internalized Michael Kinsley’s warning that if you’re afraid to go too far, you won’t go far enough. Williamson almost always goes too far, taking his arguments to thought frontiers where there are no roads, no mobile phone service and sometimes barely enough air to breathe… see these National Review pieces arguing against reparations, decrying the mainstreaming of transgender rights, critiquing the “white working class” and dismissing the idea of “white supremacy.”
Since the rise of Donald Trump, Williamson has emerged as maybe the most eloquent and forceful internal critic of that part of the white working class that went for Trump. He’s a blue-collar Texan who regularly lets his fellow blue-collar white people have it for their moral failures, for their embrace of a strongman, for letting the “American values” they purport to stand for decay into a swamp of self-pity and conspiracy-mongering. He has become the center-left’s favorite righty firebrand, and it’s not hard to see why Goldberg wanted him aboard.
But once you get beyond the anti-Trumpism, he also holds a lot of social positions the center-left loathes, and he’s ferociously good at articulating them. He’s the kind of writer comfortable liberals ignore at their peril. Every Williamson article contains strong meat, which has led his detractors to dismiss him as a troll. But that’s not who he is. He’s really more of an ogre who loves to take arguments to the breaking point in hopes of shocking readers with his cold, unbound logic. Where other writers might serve 7 percent alcohol in their brew, Williamson likes to up his percentage to 20. Where other writers might stop at mean, Williamson keeps going all the way to cruel.
and finally these:
getting along despite deep differences would’ve required Williamson to tolerate beliefs that he finds highly objectionable in many whom he encountered; while many of those encountering him would find just one such person in the company. The ability to tolerate the outgroup is a vital skill at any publication that aspires to the motto, “Of no party or clique.” I hope that the deliberate work it takes for any institution to cultivate, hone, and maintain that skill is a priority for The Atlantic going forward.
Ross Douthat laments what he perceives as “the inability of contemporary liberalism to see itself from the outside, as it looks to the many people who for some reason, class or religion or historical experience, are not fully indoctrinated into its increasingly incoherent mix of orthodoxies.”
-
http://dailysignal.com/2018/02/08/school-loses-dad-daughter-dance-because-of-gender-neutral-policies/amp/
State of NY prohibits any gender based activity that is not educational.
I had no idea this was a thing outside of super conservative Christian groups.
-
I half read the whole piece earlier so I may have missed it, but does Connor ever grapple with any of the pretty terrible stuff that Williamson wrote/said/believes or does he just completely elide it? He also barely mentions that Williamson appeared to misrepresent the "hanging take" to Goldberg. Bret Stevens even went so far as to defend Williamson on these grounds only to be undercut by the fact that Williamson had apparently repeated this belief at length on a podcast (and perhaps in person to Goldberg?). People get fired quite often for misrepresenting their resume to their employers. It isn't the worst thing in the world that George O'Leary never played college ball and it may not have been the end of Williamson if he had been more forthright with Goldberg (or if Goldberg had actually done a cursory review of Williamson's bad writing to begin with).
I didn't read all of the other conservative writers he links in toward the end or read their defenses (other than Douthat's). I also have previously read a decent amount of Williamson's work and I have trouble reconciling what I have read with the amount of praise that was heaped on Williamson after the fact.
Obviously I've written a lot of stuff on here that I am not proud of and wouldn't appreciate getting thrown back in my face, but I am doing so on a message board not as a career. As for "free speech" I won't worry too much about Williamson as I'm sure he will have no problem falling right back in to a cushy career writing for a right-wing outfit that is subsidized by billionaire foundations and corporate sponsors and would never survive on the free market.
-
I half read the whole piece earlier so I may have missed it, but does Connor ever grapple with any of the pretty terrible stuff that Williamson wrote/said/believes or does he just completely elide it?
from my perspective, he kind of beat to death the point that he didn't agree with most of williamson's writings.
He also barely mentions that Williamson appeared to misrepresent the "hanging take" to Goldberg. Bret Stevens even went so far as to defend Williamson on these grounds only to be undercut by the fact that Williamson had apparently repeated this belief at length on a podcast (and perhaps in person to Goldberg?). People get fired quite often for misrepresenting their resume to their employers.
goldberg didn't make a big deal of any misrepresentation, i'd argue that friedersdorf made more of that possibility than goldberg did. i also find the notion that it's ok to tweet an opinion, but not ok to expound at greater length on the same theme in a podcast to be a rather arbitrary and foolish line in the sand.
I didn't read all of the other conservative writers he links in toward the end or read their defenses (other than Douthat's). I also have previously read a decent amount of Williamson's work and I have trouble reconciling what I have read with the amount of praise that was heaped on Williamson after the fact.
Obviously I've written a lot of stuff on here that I am not proud of and wouldn't appreciate getting thrown back in my face, but I am doing so on a message board not as a career. As for "free speech" I won't worry too much about Williamson as I'm sure he will have no problem falling right back in to a cushy career writing for a right-wing outfit that is subsidized by billionaire foundations and corporate sponsors and would never survive on the free market.
i don't particularly cotton to the idea that williamson is some martyr due to this experience. i also completely agree with the idea that the editorial board of a publication has the right (perhaps even the obligation) to curate the content they desire to represent their publication. they can exclude voices from the left or exclude voices from the right. if they wish to house a centrist view, they can publish nothing but milquetoast fencesitters or they can search out extremists from opposing camps.
to my mind it is more the jarring disconnect between goldberg's initial announcement of williamson's hiring and the rhetoric of his dismissal. if the atlantic truly wishes to house writers that espouse widely varied views and publish people that actually disagree with each other they've taken a step backwards.
-
i'll also add that i accept the idea that never trump conservatives are already overrepresented in print media and it would contribute more to viewpoint diversity to publish a few more protrump conservatives. i'm not particularly interested in reading what protrumpers might have to say, but the bias is hard to miss.
-
btw, katkid, i commend this tweet thread to you.
https://twitter.com/ebruenig/status/983003514275328000
-
Facebook killing Diamond and Silk because they speak their mind that they support Trump as independent thinking black women.
Facebook said, "Here is the reply from Facebook. Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 3:40 PM: “The Policy team has came to the conclusion that your content and your brand has been determined unsafe to the community.”
-
my problem with the Friedsdorf piece is I felt like I had to read a dozen other articles to get a feel for how everything really went down.
-
i think it's more meaningful coming from an atlantic writer, not to mention friedersdorf's own reputation.
-
i think it's more meaningful coming from an atlantic writer, not to mention friedersdorf's own reputation.
it's kind of in line with what he does most of the time.
-
btw, katkid, i commend this tweet thread to you.
https://twitter.com/ebruenig/status/983003514275328000
I read that.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
my problem with the Friedsdorf piece is I felt like I had to read a dozen other articles to get a feel for how everything really went down.
i misread your post. i thought you were saying you'd already read a dozen similar articles.
-
Look at Connor's frame, and then actually read stuff Williamson writes. Williamson is a hack that regularly just writes dumb, outrageous crap. He is NRO's Skip Bayless and Connor is acting like this is Socrates' trial.
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180409/f91e7475b6ee8f39ea2b30467ada5805.jpg)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
katkid, that doesn't seem to have been the atlantic's opinion when they hired him.
-
katkid, that doesn't seem to have been the atlantic's opinion when they hired him.
I contend they didn't read any of his crap and just talked to some beltway conservative types who recommended him.
-
Not a phrase I use regularly but I definitely have in the past and never made the connection that it might be offensive until now
http://amp.smokeroom.com/2018/04/12/brian-davis-russell-westbrook-cotton/?__twitter_impression=true
-
libtards are going crazy. between that and the lighter beer commercial thing, i swear.
-
libtards are going crazy. between that and the lighter beer commercial thing, i swear.
What's the lighter beer commercial thing
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlZ-b2heMXU
-
Also, you should have said "libtards have lost their cotton-pickin' minds"
-
Also, you should have said "libtards have lost their cotton-pickin' minds"
yesterday, i could have.
-
Not a phrase I use regularly but I definitely have in the past and never made the connection that it might be offensive until now
http://amp.smokeroom.com/2018/04/12/brian-davis-russell-westbrook-cotton/?__twitter_impression=true
you, me and probably Brian Davis had no idea of that connection when we learned that saying watching Bugs Bunny cartoons
-
Also, you should have said "libtards have lost their cotton-pickin' minds"
yesterday, i could have.
Still can
-
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/04/andrew-sullivan-a-democracy-disappears.html
the first third is hungary/trump's america, but after that it's all anti-pc stuff.
-
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/04/andrew-sullivan-a-democracy-disappears.html
the first third is hungary/trump's america, but after that it's all anti-pc stuff.
Sullivan needs to start blogging again because he is not good in this format. He was best when he shared opposing views and dissenting emails from readers. Like how can you write that about Apu and not acknowledge the documentary made by a South Asian comedian?
-
he probably assumed readers had read nymag's apugate coverage earlier this week. which speaks to your point that blogging may better suit his style.
-
he probably assumed readers had read nymag's apugate coverage earlier this week. which speaks to your point that blogging may better suit his style.
Honestly he's the only NY mag thing I've ever read. I think.
-
:dunno:
https://twitter.com/Stonekettle/status/988079616278585344
-
I don’t get it. If having “sleepy eyes” is a common Jewish trait, then isn’t he just saying Trump is probably right?
I also had no idea Chuck Todd was Jewish.
-
Well the Nazis said that......I have no idea.
-
Daisy Duck has sleepy eyes
-
you'd never have to tell europeans how to spot a jew. we've got a long ways to go.
-
https://twitter.com/max_read/status/989127109712007168
https://twitter.com/AaronBlake/status/989096154120978432
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlZ-b2heMXU
This actually does strike me as kinda bad. Maybe just throw in one non-black person in the line of people who the beer passes by on the way to the lighter-skinned person.
-
https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/989132946815766528?s=19
-
I regret spending the time to watch that.
-
https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/989132946815766528?s=19
lol wtf is wikileaks doing now :lol:
-
This actually does strike me as kinda bad. Maybe just throw in one non-black person in the line of people who the beer passes by on the way to the lighter-skinned person.
probably best just to stop casting black people altogether. it's just too open to misinterpretation.
-
This actually does strike me as kinda bad. Maybe just throw in one non-black person in the line of people who the beer passes by on the way to the lighter-skinned person.
probably best just to stop casting black people altogether. it's just too open to misinterpretation.
You could also have a black person at the end of the line who gets the beer. Really there are probably about 100 ways to make the commercial less cringeworthy.
-
maybe continue casting black people, but keep them separated into all black commercials? at least we could avoid the super risky black person-non black person interactions.
-
sys are you one of those guys that won't work with women because you're afraid of being accused of sexual assault or something
-
sys are you one of those guys that won't work with women because you're afraid of being accused of sexual assault or something
i think you're probably thinking of black people here, michigancat.
-
whoever was in charge of that commercial deserves every bit of ridicule they get. "hmm i wonder if will be perceived as racist?" is an obvious question every marketing person should ask themselves in 2018. any dufus could've looked at that commercial and said "yeah i can see how this could be perceived as racist."
-
did you think it was racist, dlew?
-
did you think it was racist, dlew?
i'd heard about it from my old black roommate before i ever saw it, so i didn't really see it "fresh."
But my old roommate thought it was hilariously and obviously racist.
-
you didn't answer my question.
-
you didn't answer my question.
Sorry. I don't know whether "racist" is the right word, but yes. I think the commercial clearly has racial undertones.
But like I said, I heard my friend cracking up about it before ever seeing it so I'm biased.
EDIT: after watching the commercial again, yeah. I think it's clear that they're saying "lighter beer (and skin! ;) ) is better."
-
I think it's clear that they're saying "lighter beer (and skin! ;) ) is better."
i'm going to abandon my planned line of interrogation to follow this up - you think it is not just plausible, not just probable, but demonstrable that a for-profit, consumer-facing company intentionally inserted a message about the preferability of certain skin colors in communication directed at their customers?
-
My take:
I think the marketing folks intentionally put a series of black people along the path before the (light) beer arrived at the (light skinned) woman. I do not think they did this to endorse racial superiority. I think they did it to subliminally reinforce the dark/light theme.
In fact, I would even believe the producers if they said they were so non-racist that it didn’t even occur to them that people might take it as some kind of statement on race. But like Dlew said, that’s not an excuse these days in marketing. “Could people view this as racist” is absolutely a box you HAVE to check before green-lighting an ad.
The other explanation is this is yet another attempt at viral marketing by creating something controversial.
-
catastrophe, how should the 5 actors that were used have been switched to avoid the possibility of a viewer interpreting their casting/role as racist?
-
I think it's clear that they're saying "lighter beer (and skin! ;) ) is better."
i'm going to abandon my planned line of interrogation to follow this up - you think it is not just plausible, not just probable, but demonstrable that a for-profit, consumer-facing company intentionally inserted a message about the preferability of certain skin colors in communication directed at their customers?
(not addressing the specifics on this ad or company)
I think many companies will insert whatever message they feel will maximize sales. If you felt that the strongest portion of your customer base would react positively to a racist/sexist/bigoted (explicit or not) message, of course you would insert it. Historically this has been the case.
-
chingon, do you think an explicit or implicit racist (anti black) message would help sell beer in 2018? afaik, the commercial was solely used in the us, but i don't actually know that for sure.
-
The advert, which aired in the USA, New Zealand and Australia, was for a Heineken Light beer which has 99 calories.
actually, not exclusively for the us.
-
chingon, do you think an explicit or implicit racist (anti black) message would help sell beer in 2018? afaik, the commercial was solely used in the us, but i don't actually know that for sure.
Yes I do, if done cleverly enough.
-
chingon, do you think an explicit or implicit racist (anti black) message would help sell beer in 2018? afaik, the commercial was solely used in the us, but i don't actually know that for sure.
Yes I do, if done cleverly enough.
you're saying a well-disguised implicit message, not saying a humorously presented explicit message, if i understand you correctly?
-
catastrophe, how should the 5 actors that were used have been switched to avoid the possibility of a viewer interpreting their casting/role as racist?
Within the framework of that commercial you’re not gonna be able to avoid any possibility, but you’d see a lot less outrage if it was (starting with bartender and ending with beer recipient): 2, 5, 1, 4, 3.
-
Within the framework of that commercial you’re not gonna be able to avoid any possibility, but you’d see a lot less outrage if it was (starting with bartender and ending with beer recipient): 2, 5, 1, 4, 3.
i'm not sure about the sexist implications of having a woman so intent on serving a man that she's using binoculars to scan for any hint that he might desire something from her. but i think we can clearly agree that any commercial that includes a black actor must feature a black actor as the principle customer to escape any racist overtones.
-
chingon, do you think an explicit or implicit racist (anti black) message would help sell beer in 2018? afaik, the commercial was solely used in the us, but i don't actually know that for sure.
Yes I do, if done cleverly enough.
you're saying a well-disguised implicit message, not saying a humorously presented explicit message, if i understand you correctly?
Could be either.
-
i strongly disagree with you regarding the latter, then. can you point out a single example of a company using such a strategy? if it were actually effective, would not someone be using it?
btw, i'm not conceding the point regarding whether an implicit anti black message might help sales - it's just much harder to argue against.
-
All you have to do is get your target group to feel like they are sticking it to/ triggering the sjws by buying your product. This has recently become an extremely successful strategy, it will be used in marketing larger commercial products as well ( I am pretty sure it's being used already by smart local companies).
-
All you have to do is get your target group to feel like they are sticking it to/ triggering the sjws by buying your product. This has recently become an extremely successful strategy,
example please.
btw, counter example - like all the companies that fled ingraham the instant hogg told them too. i'm not sure you can find someone the target group wants to stick it to more than hogg and these were already companies that had decided it was ok to be associated with ingraham and yet even those self-selected companies declined to stick it to him in droves.
-
I'm sure no one had an example campaign that worked so well before the 2016 election where Trump's strategy was successful, yet here we are.
Counter examples will of course exist, not every company will use this strategy (or effectively). I don't quite think the Hogg example really matches though.
PC, anti-PC, anti-anti-PC, anti-anti-anti-PC, are all tribes to exploit for gain.
-
Without the skin colors of the people the bottle is (1) sliding past and (2) sliding to, the phrase “sometimes lighter is better” makes no sense within the context of the commercial.
They could’ve done the same thing with the bottle sliding past a bunch of fat people and ending with a skinny girl and it would’ve been the same thing.
-
I'm sure no one had an example campaign that worked so well before the 2016 election where Trump's strategy was successful, yet here we are.
politics and commerce are different. in politics, any support over 50% is superfluous - there is no penalty to alienating 40% of the population. in commerce, any potential customer you alienate is a cost.
-
Without the skin colors of the people the bottle is (1) sliding past and (2) sliding to, the phrase “sometimes lighter is better” makes no sense within the context of the commercial.
They could’ve done the same thing with the bottle sliding past a bunch of fat people and ending with a skinny girl and it would’ve been the same thing.
of course it makes sense without skin color. good grief, have you never seen a light beer commercial before? and using fat/skinny people would be off-putting for at least some of the people they think might be a lower calorie beer.
-
you still haven't answered my question, dlew.
-
I'm sure no one had an example campaign that worked so well before the 2016 election where Trump's strategy was successful, yet here we are.
politics and commerce are different. in politics, any support over 50% is superfluous - there is no penalty to alienating 40% of the population. in commerce, any potential customer you alienate is a cost.
I don't think that's true. Determing which audience you can alienate is an essential factor in successful marketing. This is something the antiPC crowd constantly talks about.
-
I don't think that's true. Determing which audience you can alienate is an essential factor in successful marketing. This is something the antiPC crowd constantly talks about.
i don't think either of those assertations is factual.
-
https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/989132946815766528?s=19
https://twitter.com/Bernstein/status/988882390004260865?s=19
-
what's the question? whether the ad is "racist"? i already said i think the message of the commercial is "lighter beer (and skin) is better." i think it's a racist message.
i'm far from a PC warrior, but I'm not sure how the "wink wink nudge nudge" joke of the commercial could have been more overt and remained "wink wink nudge nudge."
that said, it's possible (but pretty unlikely) that the everyone involved didn't intend and all overlooked the racial subtext of the ad -- if none of them recognized or intended the racial aspect, then i don't think it's racist. but if that's the case, i think they're all lousy at their job.
-
The meltdown over Kanye is some the best 1st world probleming/storming out of the room, slamming the door and throwing oneself on the bed stuff I've seen in a while.
I hope MAGADASHKANYE continues this onslaught (to promote his upcoming multiple album releases)
-
5 "Albums" 7 Tracks each BTW. MAGADASHKANYE laid down all the beats.
Respond below if you'll buy and then deny.
-
good article.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/04/the-danger-of-a-distorted-view-of-the-right/558971/
-
The Atlantic does a fabulous job of saying something in 3000 words that could just as easily have been said in 300.
I don't know how you read that crap.
-
my new fave wesley yang on jordan peterson! an article almost perfectly designed for this thread. long but tasty.
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a19834137/jordan-peterson-interview/
-
my new fave wesley yang on jordan peterson! an article almost perfectly designed for this thread. long but tasty.
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a19834137/jordan-peterson-interview/
A fantastic cut and paste link as always sys. So, care to add any commentary as to why that's the perfect link to an article for this particular blog thread?
-
because peterson is the new anti-pc lodestar and we had a little discussion about yang in this thread a few weeks back. in this article, they converged.
-
my new fave wesley yang on jordan peterson! an article almost perfectly designed for this thread. long but tasty.
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a19834137/jordan-peterson-interview/
sys those guys are a couple of dullards. What a boring article
-
my new fave wesley yang on jordan peterson! an article almost perfectly designed for this thread. long but tasty.
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a19834137/jordan-peterson-interview/
sys those guys are a couple of dullards. What a boring article
I’m gonna have to go with cRusty. I tried, but, yawn.
-
sys those guys are a couple of dullards. What a boring article
maybe you don't like uber-pc themed discussion as much as i do.
-
It was probably just boring :dunno:
-
It was probably just boring :dunno:
it isn't.
-
It was probably just boring :dunno:
it isn't.
Obviously it was, I mean sorry man.
-
i wouldn't have recommended it if it was boring. use your head, tbt.
-
I'll be the judge here, but I'm watching a movie so maybe I'll read it in the morning
-
sys those guys are a couple of dullards. What a boring article
maybe you don't like uber-pc themed discussion as much as i do.
clearly I don't. But I still find your perspective interesting. I imagine you could write something far more interesting than that one boring dope's feature on another boring dope. Based on that article I have no idea why Peterson is a thing. (and then I realized he had the gotcha on the brit journalist and got butthurt about being called a fascist on twitter)
-
I watched the start of that Canadian news show debate and he seems like a huge idiot
-
Based on that article I have no idea why Peterson is a thing.
i thought the article illuminated exactly that point, which no other author has ever done to my satisfaction.
-
I enjoyed it, Sys. It took me a while to remember that I had actually seen Peterson before. I saw the viral clip of him out in the courtyard and arguing with his students about the merits of free speech.
I may check out his book.
After I spoke with dozens of his followers, it was clear that his was not a message addressed solely to white men, angry or otherwise, but to those of us—and I can’t think of anyone to whom this doesn’t apply—who needed to hear from a credible voice that though we are fated to die, and to suffer, and fail, and do harm to ourselves, and to others, that a pathway to a nobler life is within reach.
What's not to love about that sentiment?
-
Based on that article I have no idea why Peterson is a thing.
i thought the article illuminated exactly that point, which no other author has ever done to my satisfaction.
why, in your words, is he a thing?
I enjoyed it, Sys. It took me a while to remember that I had actually seen Peterson before. I saw the viral clip of him out in the courtyard and arguing with his students about the merits of free speech.
I may check out his book.
After I spoke with dozens of his followers, it was clear that his was not a message addressed solely to white men, angry or otherwise, but to those of us—and I can’t think of anyone to whom this doesn’t apply—who needed to hear from a credible voice that though we are fated to die, and to suffer, and fail, and do harm to ourselves, and to others, that a pathway to a nobler life is within reach.
What's not to love about that sentiment?
It's boring/obvious and has nothing to do with why he's popular? Also not sure what makes his voice "credible".
-
Nothing to do with why he's popular? The whole article says that's precisely the reason why he's popular.
-
Nothing to do with why he's popular? The whole article says that's precisely the reason why he's popular.
I disagree with the article. IMO he's popular because that sentiment is paired with alt-right friendly takes. No one gets popular solely with that sentiment, it's like the foundation of every religion and self-help yokel in history.
-
What about his message, in your view, is "alt right friendly"? Just his rejection of "PC Culture"?
-
He pretty explicitly dislikes trans people. He is pretty evasive about his beliefs about anything, but from what I can tell he is pretty clear that he thinks traditional gender norms are necessary and a positive good and that women's equality is just not possible due to our innate characteristics. Then he gets in to lobsters as some sort of proof of theory. His myth writing is really weird and incoherent too.
I just don't truly understand what is so alluring about this guy to people.
-
And you may be right, KK. I'm admittedly pretty green on him, but I did find the portrayal of him in Sys' article pretty appealing.
-
What about his message, in your view, is "alt right friendly"? Just his rejection of "PC Culture"?
I mean he came out and said "I found out how to monetize social justice warriors": https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/7u44oq/jordan_peterson_i_found_out_how_to_monetize/
And as KK mentioned he hates trans folks and his views on gender roles are very popular among men's rights activists/4chan/alt-right circles.
-
The article was pretty decent. Not a big fan of Peterson, though. There are other better voices that share a similar space.
-
why, in your words, is he a thing?
i think he provides a quasi-religious defense of traditional western/judeochristian norms and advise on how to live an ethical life rooted in those norms that is not based in religious belief. i think this appeals to a number of people, especially young men, who are not persuaded by religious belief, but feel adrift without the rigor of an explicit ethical code and prefer "traditional" western societal norms to more recent "pc" norms.
the quotations are because there is a lot packed into those terms and i think it'd take me longer than i'd like to write out an adequate definition of either than i want to devote to the topic, but i think you probably understand them as i'm using them sufficiently that such explanations aren't needed.
btw, i don't think it's fair to say he doesn't like transgender people. i think he probably has considerable personal empathy for them. i think it is fairer to say that he dislikes society catering to the delusions of individuals suffering from a diagnosible psychiatric disorder.
-
why, in your words, is he a thing?
i think he provides a quasi-religious defense of traditional western/judeochristian norms and advise on how to live an ethical life rooted in those norms that is not based in religious belief. i think this appeals to a number of people, especially young men, who are not persuaded by religious belief, but feel adrift without the rigor of an explicit ethical code and prefer "traditional" western societal norms to more recent "pc" norms.
the quotations are because there is a lot packed into those terms and i think it'd take me longer than i'd like to write out an adequate definition of either than i want to devote to the topic, but i think you probably understand them as i'm using them sufficiently that such explanations aren't needed.
Makes sense. I just didn't find anything he said in that piece particularly interesting (like I wasn't even mad at him, it was just a whole lot of nothing/stupidity)
btw, i don't think it's fair to say he doesn't like transgender people. i think he probably has considerable personal empathy for them. i think it is fairer to say that he dislikes society catering to the delusions of individuals suffering from a diagnosible psychiatric disorder.
The way you describe it sounds worse than disliking them but ok.
-
dunno if this is quite the right thread, but this is an interesting article.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/5/2/17305402/majority-minority-demographic-forecast
-
I am curious, does it make you feel anxious (the exclusive def)?
-
I am curious, does it make you feel anxious (the exclusive def)?
no. but it sometimes makes me a little mad (when others do it). sometimes makes me a little disappointed (when a survey won't let me not do it).
-
https://www.chronicle.com/interactives/state-of-conflict
long, not about a particularly important incident, but really good.
-
http://dailycaller.com/2014/07/14/eric-holder-investigates-obama-outhouse-parade-float/
Remember the farmer who put an outhouse on a trailed and pulled it in a Nebraska parade. He put a sign on it saying that outhouse was the Obama Library. Wow them swamp DC rats went ballistic. They tried to ruin the farmer, vindictive bastards
-
https://www.chronicle.com/interactives/state-of-conflict
long, not about a particularly important incident, but really good.
I've only read half of this but it is very interesting and good
-
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180507/df3369e99b98c31d6e89f35ca3318884.jpg)
-
TBT is so mumped up right now. :frown:
-
Power has changed you, Wacky :cry:
-
Being butthurt over a show you don't even watch makes you look so foolish.
-
Power has changed you, Wacky :cry:
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
-
Power has changed you, Wacky :cry:
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
https://www.aa.org/pages/en_US/find-local-aa
-
Power has changed you, Wacky :cry:
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
https://www.aa.org/pages/en_US/find-local-aa
Meltdown complete. Over a TV show, truly sad.
-
I just want you to be happy and wish your biggest relationship in life wasn't with a bottle. :frown:
-
I just want you to be happy and wish your biggest relationship in life wasn't with a bottle. :frown:
:lol: ok Wacky. When you sleep it off by the morning just know that this was all caused by a TV show.
-
Omg, how embarrassing
-
@sys
An oped you might find interesting
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/08/opinion/intellectual-dark-web.html
-
@sys
An oped you might find interesting
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/08/opinion/intellectual-dark-web.html
i don't want to use one of my free monthly nyt articles on this. let's just assume i prolly agree with it in principle but think they exaggerate the magnitude of the problem.
-
@sys
An oped you might find interesting
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/08/opinion/intellectual-dark-web.html
i don't want to use one of my free monthly nyt articles on this. let's just assume i prolly agree with it in principle but think they exaggerate the magnitude of the problem.
You get as many free monthly nyt articles as you want if you just right click the link and open it in an incognito window.
-
thanks. that's a good tip.
-
https://twitter.com/mollylambert/status/994377664898068480
-
http://theweek.com/articles/772590/white-minority-illusion
-
https://twitter.com/NellieBowles/status/997573478067793920
@dlew
-
Saw that yesterday. I don't agree with everything Peterson says, but I think that article (particularly the "forced monogamy quote) is pretty unfair.
I think his message, in general, is good.
-
i wish someone would define "forced monogamy" (maybe peterson or someone does, somewhere, but i haven't seen it defined in media coverage).
i see people acting like it's some sort of weird incel cult thing, but isn't what we have a form of forced monogamy? polygamous marriage is explicitly illegal. there are tons of legal and societal incentives to marry, cultural norms promote lifelong monogamy, etc.
-
https://jordanbpeterson.com/uncategorized/on-the-new-york-times-and-enforced-monogamy/ (https://jordanbpeterson.com/uncategorized/on-the-new-york-times-and-enforced-monogamy/)
-
so he's saying we should have the system we have. seems like that's mostly what he says.
-
he has an amazing talent for getting people riled up about nothing. here's a tweet meme for that.
https://twitter.com/jessesingal/status/997634754223792129
-
He looks like a complete jackass. Says jackass things like, "men have no rights these days." And his first google search result says he believes in witches and dragons. No thanks. I have better ways to waste my time than reading what he says.
-
He looks like a complete jackass. Says jackass things like, "men have no rights these days." And his first google search result says he believes in witches and dragons. No thanks. I have better ways to waste my time than reading what he says.
He doesn't say things like "men have no rights" and the references to witches and dragons are symbolic/allegorical.
-
He looks like a complete jackass. Says jackass things like, "men have no rights these days." And his first google search result says he believes in witches and dragons. No thanks. I have better ways to waste my time than reading what he says.
He doesn't say things like "men have no rights" and the references to witches and dragons are symbolic/allegorical.
I notice you did not address his looks.
-
He's handsome.
-
he definitely triggers more people than anyone I've seen in quite some time
-
he has an amazing talent for getting people riled up about nothing. here's a tweet meme for that.
https://twitter.com/jessesingal/status/997634754223792129
That's pretty funny
-
Saw that yesterday. I don't agree with everything Peterson says, but I think that article (particularly the "forced monogamy quote) is pretty unfair.
I think his message, in general, is good.
Isn't his whole message, in general, based on the premise that the world is supposed to be unfair?
-
http://reason.com/blog/2018/05/18/trump-political-correctness-election
-
Saw that yesterday. I don't agree with everything Peterson says, but I think that article (particularly the "forced monogamy quote) is pretty unfair.
I think his message, in general, is good.
Isn't his whole message, in general, based on the premise that the world is supposed to be unfair?
Well his main ethos is to always tell the truth -- which i think would include truthful representations of his message.
And I don't think he's ever said that the world is supposed to be "unfair." He recognizes that in a lot of instances it is unfair. But i don't think he ever advocates for unfairness or anything.
-
He's one of the few brave enough heroes to tell us the real truth. He delivers red pills left and right.
-
Saw that yesterday. I don't agree with everything Peterson says, but I think that article (particularly the "forced monogamy quote) is pretty unfair.
I think his message, in general, is good.
Isn't his whole message, in general, based on the premise that the world is supposed to be unfair?
Well his main ethos is to always tell the truth -- which i think would include truthful representations of his message.
And I don't think he's ever said that the world is supposed to be "unfair." He recognizes that in a lot of instances it is unfair. But i don't think he ever advocates for unfairness or anything.
Come on, do you really think that's his "main ethos"? I really would be curious where you got that.
I'd say he's more about preserving historical heirarchies than telling the truth, but I've only read the unfair NYT piece and the unfair piece from that writer sys likes.
-
Well his main ethos is to always tell the truth -- which i think would include truthful representations of his message.
And I don't think he's ever said that the world is supposed to be "unfair." He recognizes that in a lot of instances it is unfair. But i don't think he ever advocates for unfairness or anything.
Come on, do you really think that's his "main ethos"? I really would be curious where you got that.
I'd say he's more about preserving historical heirarchies than telling the truth, but I've only read the unfair NYT piece and the unfair piece from that writer sys likes.
That's absolutely, 100% his main ethos. Where I got that from is him repeating ad nauseum during his lectures that the most important thing you can do is to tell the truth and that it's truth that turns chaos into order and so on. It's why he talks about Solzhenitsyn and the gulag archipelago so much. His fundamental imperative is to tell the truth.
I still don't quite understand his hierarchies stuff other than that he recognizes they exist and for humans they're generally based on actual or perceived competence and that moving up the dominance/competence hierarchy is what we should all be trying to do.
-
He tells his audience the truth they want to hear. That's the totality of it.
-
Well his main ethos is to always tell the truth -- which i think would include truthful representations of his message.
And I don't think he's ever said that the world is supposed to be "unfair." He recognizes that in a lot of instances it is unfair. But i don't think he ever advocates for unfairness or anything.
Come on, do you really think that's his "main ethos"? I really would be curious where you got that.
I'd say he's more about preserving historical heirarchies than telling the truth, but I've only read the unfair NYT piece and the unfair piece from that writer sys likes.
That's absolutely, 100% his main ethos. Where I got that from is him repeating ad nauseum during his lectures that the most important thing you can do is to tell the truth and that it's truth that turns chaos into order and so on. It's why he talks about Solzhenitsyn and the gulag archipelago so much. His fundamental imperative is to tell the truth.
I still don't quite understand his hierarchies stuff other than that he recognizes they exist and for humans they're generally based on actual or perceived competence and that moving up the dominance/competence hierarchy is what we should all be trying to do.
The hierarchy stuff plays a huge role in his popularity. He's not unique enough without it.
-
You may be right -- i like how he uses it for his "get up off your ass and do something about your situation" message. Go out and accomplish something meaningful. Move up the hierarchy. I think it's pretty empowering. This is more or less a repackaging of "rugged individualism" but I think that's a fine message for personal growth.
He tells his audience the truth they want to hear. That's the totality of it.
Yes. Everyone is dying to be told that their lousy life-situation has more to do with their own bad actions rather than any circumstances beyond their control. It may be bullshit, but I don't think it's pandering.
-
He tells his audience the truth they want to hear. That's the totality of it.
audience capture is a hell of a drug. hell, i censor myself for this audience for free, imagine what 80k a month would do to your filter.
-
Where can I subscribe to uncensored sys?
-
i don't think i'm ready to let anyone see that.
-
fwiw, i think this is a pretty fair critique of peterson:
https://newrepublic.com/article/148473/jordan-petersons-tired-old-myths (https://newrepublic.com/article/148473/jordan-petersons-tired-old-myths)
-
this is the incel-whisperer that everyone is making fun of on twitter. I was wondering if there was a thread for him and here it is.
-
this is the incel-whisperer that everyone is making fun of on twitter. I was wondering if there was a thread for him and here it is.
That's him. He tells incels to get their crap together and be better men. Treacherous stuff.
-
It's Frozen's fault.
-
this is the incel-whisperer that everyone is making fun of on twitter. I was wondering if there was a thread for him and here it is.
That's him. He tells incels to get their crap together and be better men. Treacherous stuff.
LOL how could you read the post about "enforced monogamy" you shared and not think he's a weirdo who deserves to be made fun of. Truly baffling and disappointing that you look up to this clown.
-
this is the incel-whisperer that everyone is making fun of on twitter. I was wondering if there was a thread for him and here it is.
That's him. He tells incels to get their crap together and be better men. Treacherous stuff.
LOL how could you read the post about "enforced monogamy" you shared and not think he's a weirdo who deserves to be made fun of. Truly baffling and disappointing that you look up to this clown.
rusty, what do you think he means by "enforced monogamy"? do you really think he's saying that we should force women to have sex with incels? like, is that what you really think his position on this is?
-
i think michigan means that he used like 20 paragraphs when he could have just said - "i mean we should encourage marriage, just like everyone else says we should do."
-
I think the only good think about him is his colorful language. The ideas are garbage in and of themselves.
-
i think michigan means that he used like 20 paragraphs when he could have just said - "i mean we should encourage marriage, just like everyone else says we should do."
and that's fine. i've never celebrated him for his brevity. just so long as we don't think the "enforced monogamy" stuff is actually anything sinister. and that's the weird thing about all this. i don't think there's anything particularly dangerous or revolutionary about his self-help message or philosophy. like i said, it's mostly self-help rugged individualism rhetoric which apparently resonates with a lot of people.
I think his self-help stuff is okay, but listening to his lectures was my first real introduction into psychology and philosophy. His lectures on the old testament stories (as archetypes) are great.
-
this is the incel-whisperer that everyone is making fun of on twitter. I was wondering if there was a thread for him and here it is.
That's him. He tells incels to get their crap together and be better men. Treacherous stuff.
LOL how could you read the post about "enforced monogamy" you shared and not think he's a weirdo who deserves to be made fun of. Truly baffling and disappointing that you look up to this clown.
rusty, what do you think he means by "enforced monogamy"? do you really think he's saying that we should force women to have sex with incels? like, is that what you really think his position on this is?
No, I don't think that. I just think he's a goofball who deserves to be mercilessly mocked for using the term when he could have said something like "society promoted monogamy" if that's what he really meant. Chum is correct that his provocative wordy language is pretty much all that makes him interesting but it's also a big part of what makes most smart people think he's a joke.
-
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jordan_Peterson
-
Alt-Right Hubbard as I call him.
-
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jordan_Peterson
Peterson wearing a fedora, complaining that women only date bad boys[75]
(https://rationalwiki.org/w/images/3/30/JordanPetersonFedora.png)
:lol:
-
I don't know if dlew is following Jordan Peterson's rule of being honest or if Jordan Peterson has just proved inscrutable again.
Peterson's writing/speaking style is to say something very incendiary and provocative but also obtuse and then claim that he is just saying something completely mundane and uninteresting like "monogamy is good" when challenged. But he is actually says "enforced monogamy" and provides lots of context and reasoning like women having birth control is bad and that not enough men are getting female attention and that over 50% of men will never procreate. I mean all the context he provides on this and all of the other weirdos that he is associated with pretty clearly establish the premise of sex as a commodity that needs government intervention. But then when pressed on any of this, he doesn't actually offer up anything or claims that men are being victimized and "something must be done!" but without specifying anything.
If all he was claiming to be was Oprah for upper middle class fail sons, then I wouldn't be so bothered by it. But the amount of attention given to him is galling, especially considering his academic writing/lectures don't seem to have any sort of rigor to them. To take one example that I've seen (there are several others I could mention) he has a lecture where he proposes that the DNA double helix is featured in ancient societies around the world because there are lots of symbols that look kind of similar to that. It is pyramids are grain silos Ben Carson level insanity.
-
(https://rationalwiki.org/w/images/3/30/JordanPetersonFedora.png)
he's quite the clotheshorse.
-
(https://rationalwiki.org/w/images/3/30/JordanPetersonFedora.png)
somebody get this man a mountain dew immediately.
I don't know if dlew is following Jordan Peterson's rule of being honest or if Jordan Peterson has just proved inscrutable again.
Peterson's writing/speaking style is to say something very incendiary and provocative but also obtuse and then claim that he is just saying something completely mundane and uninteresting like "monogamy is good" when challenged. But he is actually says "enforced monogamy" and provides lots of context and reasoning like women having birth control is bad and that not enough men are getting female attention and that over 50% of men will never procreate. I mean all the context he provides on this and all of the other weirdos that he is associated with pretty clearly establish the premise of sex as a commodity that needs government intervention. But then when pressed on any of this, he doesn't actually offer up anything or claims that men are being victimized and "something must be done!" but without specifying anything.
If all he was claiming to be was Oprah for upper middle class fail sons, then I wouldn't be so bothered by it. But the amount of attention given to him is galling, especially considering his academic writing/lectures don't seem to have any sort of rigor to them. To take one example that I've seen (there are several others I could mention) he has a lecture where he proposes that the DNA double helix is featured in ancient societies around the world because there are lots of symbols that look kind of similar to that. It is pyramids are grain silos Ben Carson level insanity.
I don't think Peterson has ever said that the pill is "bad." He recognized that it was an incredibly important social and biological revolution. He linked it to a declining birthrate in the west (which he called a "catastrophe" from a multigenerational perspective), cited a study that said women on birth control tend to not find typically "masculine" features as attractive as women who are not on the pill and said that there is good evidence to suggest that women's general level of unhappiness has increased since the early 60s but is unsure of whether there's a causal link between the two. I don't know whether any of that's true, but i think they're interesting issues.
He doesn't say that "over 50% of men will never procreate." I've heard him talk about this particular thing before and he stated that people generally have twice as many female ancestors and male ancestors because throughout millennia 50% of men didn't procreate. I don't know whether this is true or not, but it certainly didn't imply that this remained the case today. Again, much of what he says isn't advocacy for anything at all.
to say that he thinks sex requires government intervention is absolutely, 100% absurd if you have any clue about what he actually advocates for.
i've never heard him talk about the double helix thing but i assume he was waxing about jung and adam and eve/snakes with that. Without any context, whatever he was talking about there sounds like bullshit. i think the jung/archetype stuff is fascinating - even if he goes overboard with it sometimes (like the double helix stuff).
-
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jordan_Peterson
Peterson wearing a fedora, complaining that women only date bad boys[75]
(https://rationalwiki.org/w/images/3/30/JordanPetersonFedora.png)
:lol:
It's amazing that guy even knows what a woman looks like
-
that hat and look is what the top of the sexual hierarchy looks like.
-
He doesn't say that "over 50% of men will never procreate." I've heard him talk about this particular thing before and he stated that people generally have twice as many female ancestors and male ancestors because throughout millennia 50% of men didn't procreate. I don't know whether this is true or not, but it certainly didn't imply that this remained the case today. Again, much of what he says isn't advocacy for anything at all.
i'd like to see the actual paper this is based on. i tried googling a little and didn't come up with anything that seemed like the source.
at any rate, chingon or someone more mathematically astute than i can check my assumption, but it doesn't seem to me to follow that 50% of males didn't procreate from the data that current humans have, on average, 2x as many female ancestors as male. once a male lineage dies out in any generation, it's gone, so that doesn't mean that 50% dies out in every generation. the actual difference between % of males that reproduce v % of females that reproduce in each generation would be much smaller to arrive at a cumulative difference of x v 2x in the current generation.
btw, the study this blurb is based on seems more realistic (but i haven't yet read the actual paper).
https://psmag.com/environment/17-to-1-reproductive-success
-
ok, read the paper. not terribly helpful for what i was looking for. and sufficiently dry that i'm not going to look for other papers.
-
that hat and look is what the top of the sexual hierarchy looks like.
I have no idea what this means but if you’re saying his Bacharach costume is helping with ladies I’ll help fully assure you “lol, no”
-
that hat and look is what the top of the sexual hierarchy looks like.
I have no idea what this means but if you’re saying his Bacharach costume is helping with ladies I’ll help fully assure you “lol, no”
Typical leftist propaganda
-
(https://rationalwiki.org/w/images/3/30/JordanPetersonFedora.png)
somebody get this man a mountain dew immediately.
I don't know if dlew is following Jordan Peterson's rule of being honest or if Jordan Peterson has just proved inscrutable again.
Peterson's writing/speaking style is to say something very incendiary and provocative but also obtuse and then claim that he is just saying something completely mundane and uninteresting like "monogamy is good" when challenged. But he is actually says "enforced monogamy" and provides lots of context and reasoning like women having birth control is bad and that not enough men are getting female attention and that over 50% of men will never procreate. I mean all the context he provides on this and all of the other weirdos that he is associated with pretty clearly establish the premise of sex as a commodity that needs government intervention. But then when pressed on any of this, he doesn't actually offer up anything or claims that men are being victimized and "something must be done!" but without specifying anything.
If all he was claiming to be was Oprah for upper middle class fail sons, then I wouldn't be so bothered by it. But the amount of attention given to him is galling, especially considering his academic writing/lectures don't seem to have any sort of rigor to them. To take one example that I've seen (there are several others I could mention) he has a lecture where he proposes that the DNA double helix is featured in ancient societies around the world because there are lots of symbols that look kind of similar to that. It is pyramids are grain silos Ben Carson level insanity.
I don't think Peterson has ever said that the pill is "bad." He recognized that it was an incredibly important social and biological revolution. He linked it to a declining birthrate in the west (which he called a "catastrophe" from a multigenerational perspective), cited a study that said women on birth control tend to not find typically "masculine" features as attractive as women who are not on the pill and said that there is good evidence to suggest that women's general level of unhappiness has increased since the early 60s but is unsure of whether there's a causal link between the two. I don't know whether any of that's true, but i think they're interesting issues.
He doesn't say that "over 50% of men will never procreate." I've heard him talk about this particular thing before and he stated that people generally have twice as many female ancestors and male ancestors because throughout millennia 50% of men didn't procreate. I don't know whether this is true or not, but it certainly didn't imply that this remained the case today. Again, much of what he says isn't advocacy for anything at all.
to say that he thinks sex requires government intervention is absolutely, 100% absurd if you have any clue about what he actually advocates for.
i've never heard him talk about the double helix thing but i assume he was waxing about jung and adam and eve/snakes with that. Without any context, whatever he was talking about there sounds like bullshit. i think the jung/archetype stuff is fascinating - even if he goes overboard with it sometimes (like the double helix stuff).
You said he was all about "truth" yet you acknowledge you have no idea if the bullshit he spews is true or not and you don't seem to care.
-
to be fair, you've made no effort to ascertain how true his bullshit is either but you're here calling it bullshit.
-
I only skimmed part of the layperson article and feel like I can pretty safely conclude that it is bullshit based on my previous experience with bullshit.
-
You said he was all about "truth" yet you acknowledge you have no idea if the bullshit he spews is true or not and you don't seem to care.
Right. I'm not married to him or his ideology. Some of what he says sounds like bullshit to me (i.e. the double helix stuff - but this isn't the only thing), but if I spent time investigating every single eyebrow raising statement that people I otherwise respect say, I wouldn't have much time to do anything else. Regardless, I do disagree with some of his positions (particularly his paranoia regarding "post modernism" [see his Frozen critique] and his denial of the existence of white privilege).
But I do think a lot of his self-help stuff is motivating. Which I like, and I think has helped a lot of directionless/depressed people. And I think some of the philosophy/psychology he talks about is interesting (especially the Jung archetype stuff).
He goes too far sometimes, but i think the demonizing of him over the last week or two by people who have no idea what he's actually talking about is absolutely ridiculous.
-
I only skimmed part of the layperson article and feel like I can pretty safely conclude that it is bullshit based on my previous experience with bullshit.
i think what you probably mean is that you don't like what he says.
-
to be fair, you've made no effort to ascertain how true his bullshit is either but you're here calling it bullshit.
I read your post about 50% of males not procreating
-
to be fair, you've made no effort to ascertain how true his bullshit is either but you're here calling it bullshit.
I read your post about 50% of males not procreating
man, sys didn't refute anything, nor did he claim to. fwiw: https://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/20/is-there-anything-good-about-men-and-other-tricky-questions/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=1 (https://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/20/is-there-anything-good-about-men-and-other-tricky-questions/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=1)
-
to be fair, you've made no effort to ascertain how true his bullshit is either but you're here calling it bullshit.
I read your post about 50% of males not procreating
man, sys didn't refute anything, nor did he claim to.
Uh, I didn't claim that either. Even if something like his fifty percent of men not procreating statement is true, I consider his opinions/conclusions based on this information to be too silly to be taken seriously. "Bullshit" to me is more than an untrue fact. (I didn't make that clear in my original post)
-
to be fair, you've made no effort to ascertain how true his bullshit is either but you're here calling it bullshit.
I read your post about 50% of males not procreating
the larger point about human mating dynamics - that human populations exhibit an effective sex ratio that is female biased, is widely supported.
-
Dlew, just read this. It goes directly to what I was talking about. If you think I am taking this out of context then feel free to plug more in.
Again, you are right that he is notionally vague about what he is actually saying and invariably claims people are unfairly attacking him because hey are ascribing positions to him that he never takes (this is also Sam Harris’ very annoying go-to) but what else is any of this to mean?
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180522/675700bddb756584039a2d19605009e3.jpg)
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180522/ce231d49ee62a2cf8145dcf4328d9c1e.jpg)
I don’t have the name of the George Mason Econ prof at hand, but I think you could google it and he just explicitly says that there should be govt intervention to solve the incel crisis. I view him as a fellow traveler because he uses the same framing and terminology, but again I think simply reading/listening to Peterson puts you on the path to that guy’s conclusions in a pretty straight line if you take the idea seriously.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
to be fair, you've made no effort to ascertain how true his bullshit is either but you're here calling it bullshit.
I read your post about 50% of males not procreating
man, sys didn't refute anything, nor did he claim to.
Uh, I didn't claim that either. Even if something like his fifty percent of men not procreating statement is true, I consider his opinions/conclusions based on this information to be too silly to be taken seriously. "Bullshit" to me is more than an untrue fact. (I didn't make that clear in my original post)
huh. you consider the opinion/conclusion based on this information to be taken seriously?? do you even know what he was talking about when he cited that statistic?
if you do then God bless you, because i listened to him say it on a podcast and i don't remember why he cited it.
-
I consider his opinions/conclusions based on this information to be too silly to be taken seriously.
like what? i think his verbal machinations are, at best, unnecessary. at worst, deliberately unclear. and i don't think he evidences careful scholarship. but his basic points (the ones i know about, i've only interfaced very superficially with his thought) and conclusions are accurate and/or logical.
the main quibble i'd have with his whole thing on effective sex ratios and monogamy in humans is that he appears to treat a lot of male-male competition as female choice. and it probably is fair to conflate them in current populations (or at least hard to tease them apart), but historically that is less defensible. a secondary weakness would be that he is not at all precise at distinguishing between sex and reproduction.
all told, though, it's a lot easier for me to see some attempt to grapple with fact in his thought than in the not completely strawman arguments accusing him of advocating for government issued wives.
-
KK: Yeah, I read that article. Peterson explained it on his website which I linked a few pages back.
Here's his paraphrase on the issue:
Men get frustrated when they are not competitive in the sexual marketplace (note: the fact that they DO get frustrated does not mean that they SHOULD get frustrated. Pointing out the existence of something is not the same as justifying its existence). Frustrated men tend to become dangerous, particularly if they are young. The dangerousness of frustrated young men (even if that frustration stems from their own incompetence) has to be regulated socially. The manifold social conventions tilting most societies toward monogamy constitute such regulation.
That’s all.
No recommendation of police-state assignation of woman to man (or, for that matter, man to woman).
No arbitrary dealing out of damsels to incels.
Nothing scandalous (all innuendo and suggestive editing to the contrary)
Just the plain, bare, common-sense facts: socially-enforced monogamous conventions decrease male violence. In addition (and not trivially) they also help provide mothers with comparatively reliable male partners, and increase the probability that stable, father-intact homes will exist for children.
https://jordanbpeterson.com/uncategorized/on-the-new-york-times-and-enforced-monogamy/ (https://jordanbpeterson.com/uncategorized/on-the-new-york-times-and-enforced-monogamy/)
-
I only skimmed part of the layperson article and feel like I can pretty safely conclude that it is bullshit based on my previous experience with bullshit.
i think what you probably mean is that you don't like what he says.
I don't like it only because I don't like bullshit.
-
kk, if you read the gmason dude, he was pretty obviously an extreme libertarian who was using the example of govt redistribution of sex as a metaphor for why taxation is immoral. it's kind of amazing and sad that people have ran with him in the other direction.
the stuff about human males with poor prospects for intragroup reproduction being prone to societal disruption and violence is not particularly controversial.
-
I don't like it only because I don't like bullshit.
i'd like you to explain what you think is bullshit and why.
-
to be fair, you've made no effort to ascertain how true his bullshit is either but you're here calling it bullshit.
I read your post about 50% of males not procreating
man, sys didn't refute anything, nor did he claim to.
Uh, I didn't claim that either. Even if something like his fifty percent of men not procreating statement is true, I consider his opinions/conclusions based on this information to be too silly to be taken seriously. "Bullshit" to me is more than an untrue fact. (I didn't make that clear in my original post)
huh. you consider the opinion/conclusion based on this information to be taken seriously?? do you even know what he was talking about when he cited that statistic?
if you do then God bless you, because i listened to him say it on a podcast and i don't remember why he cited it.
I was referring to the exchange in the NYT article kk posted. I mean, I'm not entirely sure what he's trying to say and I think he's intentionally both provocative and vague and that's part of why I think he's full of crap. But overall this stat and his logic seems like a step to the forced redistribution of sex nonsense along with absolving violent men of responsibility for their actions.
-
KK: Yeah, I read that article. Peterson explained it on his website which I linked a few pages back.
Here's his paraphrase on the issue:
Men get frustrated when they are not competitive in the sexual marketplace (note: the fact that they DO get frustrated does not mean that they SHOULD get frustrated. Pointing out the existence of something is not the same as justifying its existence). Frustrated men tend to become dangerous, particularly if they are young. The dangerousness of frustrated young men (even if that frustration stems from their own incompetence) has to be regulated socially. The manifold social conventions tilting most societies toward monogamy constitute such regulation.
That’s all.
No recommendation of police-state assignation of woman to man (or, for that matter, man to woman).
No arbitrary dealing out of damsels to incels.
Nothing scandalous (all innuendo and suggestive editing to the contrary)
Just the plain, bare, common-sense facts: socially-enforced monogamous conventions decrease male violence. In addition (and not trivially) they also help provide mothers with comparatively reliable male partners, and increase the probability that stable, father-intact homes will exist for children.
https://jordanbpeterson.com/uncategorized/on-the-new-york-times-and-enforced-monogamy/ (https://jordanbpeterson.com/uncategorized/on-the-new-york-times-and-enforced-monogamy/)
Well, there are tons of social policies that societies “enforce” both formally through law and informally through culture and Peterson doesn’t get in to any of them though it would be interesting to get his thoughts on them. At least Ross Douthot understands that he is a pretty big weirdo and that most people reject his preferred ideas about how society should be restructured but Peterson doesn’t even grapple with just how bad patriarchy can be for half of society. He spends an awful lot of time bemoaning the outcomes for this one segment of society but other than saying the sexual revolution was bad for women I haven’t seen an affirmative vision for how to get from reality to his ideal that doesn’t involve some pretty terrible stuff for women. I guess it is good that he rejects the argument ad absurdism of arranged marriages but that is hardly the only state intervention that would logically spring from “enforced monogamy.”
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
So is he mad that good looking guys get all the babes? Or is there more to it?
-
Well, there are tons of social policies that societies “enforce” both formally through law and informally through culture and Peterson doesn’t get in to any of them though it would be interesting to get his thoughts on them. At least Ross Douthot understands that he is a pretty big weirdo and that most people reject his preferred ideas about how society should be restructured but Peterson doesn’t even grapple with just how bad patriarchy can be for half of society. He spends an awful lot of time bemoaning the outcomes for this one segment of society but other than saying the sexual revolution was bad for women I haven’t seen an affirmative vision for how to get from reality to his ideal that doesn’t involve some pretty terrible stuff for women. I guess it is good that he rejects the argument ad absurdism of arranged marriages but that is hardly the only state intervention that would logically spring from “enforced monogamy.”
talk about being intentionally provocative and vague.
-
So is he mad that good looking guys get all the babes? Or is there more to it?
he has to come up with stuff to talk about to keep the incels raining money on him. so he fancies up some stuff about how it's better now that we live in a society where a lot of people peacefully pair off and get married and stay together for life than it was 2000 years ago when old rich dudes had 200 wives and sex slaves and young men without any money marched off to war hoping for the odd chance to rape someone before, during or after battle.
he's so good at this that michigan, kat kid and half of twitter think he's saying something disturbing.
-
Well, there are tons of social policies that societies “enforce” both formally through law and informally through culture and Peterson doesn’t get in to any of them though it would be interesting to get his thoughts on them. At least Ross Douthot understands that he is a pretty big weirdo and that most people reject his preferred ideas about how society should be restructured but Peterson doesn’t even grapple with just how bad patriarchy can be for half of society. He spends an awful lot of time bemoaning the outcomes for this one segment of society but other than saying the sexual revolution was bad for women I haven’t seen an affirmative vision for how to get from reality to his ideal that doesn’t involve some pretty terrible stuff for women. I guess it is good that he rejects the argument ad absurdism of arranged marriages but that is hardly the only state intervention that would logically spring from “enforced monogamy.”
talk about being intentionally provocative and vague.
Most people reject his ideas.— Ross Douthat would like a modern Catholic theocracy or something. He thought Rubio would win every primary. I regularly read him, I am safely in the right here.
Patriarchal societies are actually good for women is your stance here? Ok, I will debate the other side.
“Terrible stuff for women” we can use US history or look at our contemporaries, like Mexico, Saudi Arabia, or India. Let me know and I can get specific.
State intervention- women’s access to contraceptives, laws on adultery, women’s access to education, divorce laws I mean there are lots of other examples.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I don't like it only because I don't like bullshit.
i'd like you to explain what you think is bullshit and why.
My motivated critics couldn’t contain their joyful glee
Huh? Who the eff is this bad person?
It’s been a truism among anthropologists and biologically-oriented psychologists for decades that all human societies face two primary tasks: regulation of female reproduction (so the babies don’t die, you see) and male aggression
I took anthropology and psychology in college. THEY DID NOT TALK LIKE THIS. This also does not really remind me of the type of subject matter with which they were concerned.
The social enforcement of monogamy happens to be an effective means of addressing both issues
This idea is so vague and appears so half baked that it's pretty much meaningless to me. He might as well say that language happens to be an effective means of addressing both issues.
-
huh. you consider the opinion/conclusion based on this information to be taken seriously?? do you even know what he was talking about when he cited that statistic?
if you do then God bless you, because i listened to him say it on a podcast and i don't remember why he cited it.
I was referring to the exchange in the NYT article kk posted. I mean, I'm not entirely sure what he's trying to say and I think he's intentionally both provocative and vague and that's part of why I think he's full of crap. But overall this stat and his logic seems like a step to the forced redistribution of sex nonsense along with absolving violent men of responsibility for their actions.
The NYT article is a mess because it doesn't contextualize anything he's saying. It presents these quotes of his like they're just random non-sequitors. If you listen to one of his longer format lectures (which I don't expect you to do if you're not into him), you'll recognize that the picture these isolated quotes paint are not the same as the impression you'd get if you actually listened to one of his lectures (which are available on the apple podcast app if you're genuinely curious). It would be a complete radical about-face if he was preaching forced redistribution of sex.
And absolving violent men of responsibility is not his MO either. Again, his whole self-help message is taking responsibility for your spot in life. But recognizing that it's human nature for men to get frustrated when they don't have a partner isn't absolution, it's an explanation.
Well, there are tons of social policies that societies “enforce” both formally through law and informally through culture and Peterson doesn’t get in to any of them though it would be interesting to get his thoughts on them. At least Ross Douthot understands that he is a pretty big weirdo and that most people reject his preferred ideas about how society should be restructured but Peterson doesn’t even grapple with just how bad patriarchy can be for half of society. He spends an awful lot of time bemoaning the outcomes for this one segment of society but other than saying the sexual revolution was bad for women I haven’t seen an affirmative vision for how to get from reality to his ideal that doesn’t involve some pretty terrible stuff for women. I guess it is good that he rejects the argument ad absurdism of arranged marriages but that is hardly the only state intervention that would logically spring from “enforced monogamy.”
I mean, he does go into other arenas outside of the societal norms of "enforced monogamy." I think the time he devotes to recognizing and explaining the phenomenon of social hierarchies (not just sexual, mind you) speaks to this. But that (understandably) doesn't garner the clicks for Jezebel.
And he doesn't say the sexual revolution was bad for women. He points out that maybe it wasn't a great thing for all women. Of course that's waffling, but it's crazy that he can't even raise the conversation without you labeling him a misogynist.
-
Most people reject his ideas.
i can't say most, because i've made no effort to quantify it, but a lot of people rejecting his ideas show no sign that they know what his ideas are. evidence below.
— Ross Douthat would like a modern Catholic theocracy or something. He thought Rubio would win every primary. I regularly read him, I am safely in the right here.
Patriarchal societies are actually good for women is your stance here? Ok, I will debate the other side.
“Terrible stuff for women” we can use US history or look at our contemporaries, like Mexico, Saudi Arabia, or India. Let me know and I can get specific.
State intervention- women’s access to contraceptives, laws on adultery, women’s access to education, divorce laws I mean there are lots of other examples.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Most people reject his ideas.
i can't say most, because i've made no effort to quantify it, but a lot of people rejecting his ideas show no sign that they know what his ideas are. evidence below.
— Ross Douthat would like a modern Catholic theocracy or something. He thought Rubio would win every primary. I regularly read him, I am safely in the right here.
Patriarchal societies are actually good for women is your stance here? Ok, I will debate the other side.
“Terrible stuff for women” we can use US history or look at our contemporaries, like Mexico, Saudi Arabia, or India. Let me know and I can get specific.
State intervention- women’s access to contraceptives, laws on adultery, women’s access to education, divorce laws I mean there are lots of other examples.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Well, I was referring to Douthat with that statement. Stop trying to silence me! Why are you so afraid of the truth? People just don’t want to hear my truths, so they misinterpret and call me names. What are they so afraid of? My truth of course. They fear me, the truth teller.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
So is he mad that good looking guys get all the babes? Or is there more to it?
he has to come up with stuff to talk about to keep the incels raining money on him. so he fancies up some stuff about how it's better now that we live in a society where a lot of people peacefully pair off and get married and stay together for life than it was 2000 years ago when old rich dudes had 200 wives and sex slaves and young men without any money marched off to war hoping for the odd chance to rape someone before, during or after battle.
he's so good at this that michigan, kat kid and half of twitter think he's saying something disturbing.
That’s not super controversial. Saying it’s a primary issue of all societies to control woman’s reproductive care is pretty wrong
-
My motivated critics couldn’t contain their joyful glee
style
It’s been a truism among anthropologists and biologically-oriented psychologists for decades that all human societies face two primary tasks: regulation of female reproduction (so the babies don’t die, you see) and male aggression
his language is not academic. but evolutionary psychology is all about reproduction and aggression.
The social enforcement of monogamy happens to be an effective means of addressing both issues
you overstate how vague it is. "social" delimits that he's not talking about governmental or legal proscriptions. it also implies, but perhaps not as well, that he's not talking about individuals enforcing monogamy. "monogamy" delimits that he's talking about two people having an at least nominally exclusive or highly preferred sexual relationship with each other for some period of time.
"addressing both issues" is pretty vague, i agree.
-
Stop trying to silence me! Why are you so afraid of the truth? People just don’t want to hear my truths, so they misinterpret and call me names. What are they so afraid of? My truth of course. They fear me, the truth teller.
may as well link your patreon account so i can send you money.
-
That’s not super controversial. Saying it’s a primary issue of all societies to control woman’s reproductive care is pretty wrong
i mean, an evolutionary biologist would laugh at the idea that anything not related to reproduction is meaningful, much less primary.
-
huh. you consider the opinion/conclusion based on this information to be taken seriously?? do you even know what he was talking about when he cited that statistic?
if you do then God bless you, because i listened to him say it on a podcast and i don't remember why he cited it.
I was referring to the exchange in the NYT article kk posted. I mean, I'm not entirely sure what he's trying to say and I think he's intentionally both provocative and vague and that's part of why I think he's full of crap. But overall this stat and his logic seems like a step to the forced redistribution of sex nonsense along with absolving violent men of responsibility for their actions.
The NYT article is a mess because it doesn't contextualize anything he's saying. It presents these quotes of his like they're just random non-sequitors. If you listen to one of his longer format lectures (which I don't expect you to do if you're not into him), you'll recognize that the picture these isolated quotes paint are not the same as the impression you'd get if you actually listened to one of his lectures (which are available on the apple podcast app if you're genuinely curious). It would be a complete radical about-face if he was preaching forced redistribution of sex.
And absolving violent men of responsibility is not his MO either. Again, his whole self-help message is taking responsibility for your spot in life. But recognizing that it's human nature for men to get frustrated when they don't have a partner isn't absolution, it's an explanation.
I also read his blog post and don't think context makes him seem more worthy of me taking him seriously.
-
It’s been a truism among anthropologists and biologically-oriented psychologists for decades that all human societies face two primary tasks: regulation of female reproduction (so the babies don’t die, you see) and male aggression
his language is not academic. but evolutionary psychology is all about reproduction and aggression.
I may think evolutionary psychology is bullshit to begin with.
Criticism of evolutionary psychology involves questions of testability, cognitive and evolutionary assumptions (such as modular functioning of the brain, and large uncertainty about the ancestral environment), importance of non-genetic and non-adaptive explanations, as well as political and ethical issues due to interpretations of research results.
-
from what i've read, some of it may be, but a lot of it is just evolutionary biology with humans as the subject species.
-
and also, gtfo with non-adaptive explanations and political and ethical issues with results.
-
I also read his blog post and don't think context makes him seem more worthy of me taking him seriously.
That's fine. :cheers:
-
@Dlew12
https://abovethelaw.com/2018/05/this-is-one-of-the-dumbest-law-school-exams-ever-but-at-least-its-also-racist/
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
-
@Dlew12
https://abovethelaw.com/2018/05/this-is-one-of-the-dumbest-law-school-exams-ever-but-at-least-its-also-racist/
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
A. LOL at that question. Good grief, man.
B. LOL at this A white student, labeled a “social justice warrior” — which is supposedly derogatory even though those three words in that order are definitionally a good thing — raised a complaint with the exam, noting that he was “shocked and disgusted” by the question. Fair enough. A minority student responded echoing the problems with the exam as structured, but also noted for the white students that “because it is not your experience, it is not your place to take charge of the dialogue without consulting the individuals who are actually impacted.”
This is an important distinction. Yes, as discussed above, this isn’t really white struggle here. On the other hand, coming off a week where Shaun King accurately called out the inaction of white bystanders in the Schlossberg video who refused to exercise their relative privilege to do something about the tirade, this Texas student deserves credit for saying something. This is just one of those reminders that white people can and should be ready to say “that’s racist” but they can’t frame it as though they own that outrage. White people have to be comfortable with their role as the permanent sidekick of racial justice. Embrace being Robin on this one. Sometimes Batman needs help… usually Batman can handle it on his own.
-
Also, the Professor is African American. Also, see Derrick Bell's hypothetical dissent to Brown.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
-
I do not think it was a ridiculous question, fyi.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
-
Having your only essay on the conlaw exam be "defend brown v board" is bogus imo. my favorite part is the woke kid who got outwoked though.
-
https://misruleoflaw.com/2018/05/18/the-snowflakes-take-charge-at-ut-law-school-political-correctness-trumps-pedagogy-in-constitutional-law-i/
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
-
Isn't part of being a lawyer defending people who are probably guilty and making arguments that probably aren't true?
-
http://reason.com/blog/2018/05/18/trump-political-correctness-election
here's the underlying article. v. good, imo.
https://niskanencenter.org/blog/racial-attitudes-and-political-correctness-in-the-2016-presidential-election/
-
this is an idea that had never occurred to me in any form but which made intuitive sense after reading 15 seconds of it.
https://www.jefftk.com/p/parallel-status-hierarchies
-
https://twitter.com/AP/status/999343396635512832
-
Isn't part of being a lawyer defending people who are probably guilty and making arguments that probably aren't true?
I think the more important point here is that the question is not even a little bit racist. You do not have to take any stance on race or even ethics in order to argue what powers a government can and cannot constitutionally exercise.
I would be much more troubled by a question along the lines of what you suggest: "You know OJ did it. Come up with a legal defense to get him acquitted."
-
https://twitter.com/cyborg_blog/status/999359105176428544
-
https://twitter.com/tomnamako/status/1000076576954966016?s=21
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
i cannot wait to watch/listen to that.
-
i would listen to approx 1 hour every day of bon iver style alex jones covers
-
politics and commerce are different. in politics, any support over 50% is superfluous - there is no penalty to alienating 40% of the population. in commerce, any potential customer you alienate is a cost.
I don't think that's true. Determing which audience you can alienate is an essential factor in successful marketing. This is something the antiPC crowd constantly talks about.
btw, i think abc today is a nice example of how different equations govern politics and commerce.
-
politics and commerce are different. in politics, any support over 50% is superfluous - there is no penalty to alienating 40% of the population. in commerce, any potential customer you alienate is a cost.
I don't think that's true. Determing which audience you can alienate is an essential factor in successful marketing. This is something the antiPC crowd constantly talks about.
btw, i think abc today is a nice example of how different equations govern politics and commerce.
If ABC didn't drop the show (which was not a wise decision moneywise IMO) I was about to post something about someone finally trying the strategy I was talking about.
It will happen soon enough thought I think. There is to much money to be made from the millions of wacky's of the world by making them think they are owning the libs or whatever.
-
I think you both have a point. I don’t think any large or publicly-traded company could survive alienating even a solid 20-30% of their potential customer base, but I absolutely believe more niche companies can and will try to drum up some controversy to snag irrationally loyal folks like the Trump base.
-
Isn't there some nugent/baio network to pick it up?
-
(which was not a wise decision moneywise IMO).
i think it's more likely that your assumptions regarding how they can maximize revenues aren't correct.
-
if your assumptions are correct, it would only work for a much smaller, much more focused company. you can't risk any % of consumers boycotting you on 50 billion in revenue to maximize profit on one 0.1 billion venture.
-
(which was not a wise decision moneywise IMO).
i think it's more likely that your assumptions regarding how they can maximize revenues aren't correct.
Possibly. I wish they would have kept the show so we could see.
On a related note, I was recalling this ad campaign by Bud:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uJKhkwTG64
they clearly calculated that "alienating" the craft beer / beer snob community in favor of their "in group" salt-of-the-earth beer drinker customers was a good idea. Bud doesn't care about losing out on "beer hipsters", in fact they feel its better to explicitly exclude them to make their target audience feel more comfortable. I think this same concept is certainly feasible with even more strident examples of self-defensive "othering". This also works effectively with religious merchandise as well.
-
i think it's different in that most people aren't offended by characterizations about their beer preferences. i would also view that ad as about half ironic, which might actually allow both the domestic lager and craft customers to view it favorably.
but i also suspect that they believed/had data to suggest that customers of their craft brands either didn't know those brands were owned by budweiser or didn't associate the craft brand with the parent organization strongly enough to generalize the ad as a statement by the craft brand.
-
I think the old Carl's JR/Hardee's ads also worked along the same lines.
-
Ching is making a really good point itt
-
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/05/30/sports/keith-mumphery-michigan-state.html
interesting account of a title IX campus sexual misconduct case.
-
(not related to the above)
Looks like a good victory today for the Intellectual Dark Web.
-
Looks like a good victory today for the Intellectual Dark Web.
the d'souza thing?
-
Yup.
Sent from my SM-G925P using Tapatalk
-
original idw from before there was a web.
-
ogidw
Sent from my SM-G925P using Tapatalk
-
tonight's topic at the idw dinner party.
https://twitter.com/DineshDSouza/status/1002229961586077698
-
https://twitter.com/PreetBharara/status/1002233395550806017
-
The Lord giveth and he taketh away. The IDW ended up even steven today:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/anti-muslim-twitter-troll-amy-mek-mekelburg_us_5b0d9e40e4b0802d69cf0264
-
But on the plus side wacky gets another Twitter feed to follow.
-
I don't think either of those fit in at all with the group of IDW people that seem to make up the original construction (Harris, Weinstein Bros, JP, etc.)
-
chingon, there's a new candidate for chief head top idw'er!
https://twitter.com/chrislhayes/status/1002383528615665665
-
Here are some things that you will hear when you sit down to dinner with the vanguard of the Intellectual Dark Web: There are fundamental biological differences between men and women. Free speech is under siege. Why not just marry a pedophile wife and breed your own fucktoys? And we’re in a dangerous place if these ideas are considered “dark.”…It’s a pattern that has become common in our new era of That Which Cannot Be Said
-
He's revealing a deep Truth we just don't want to hear.
-
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/06/title-ix-is-too-easy-to-abuse/561650/
-
https://www.vox.com/2018/6/1/17396182/jordan-peterson-alt-right-religion-catholicism
-
https://www.vox.com/2018/6/1/17396182/jordan-peterson-alt-right-religion-catholicism
It’s just a shame we don’t have better storytellers.
may the mystic themes of traditional kstate fandom satiate our hungry nations.
https://twitter.com/StorytellerMatt
-
https://www.vox.com/2018/6/1/17396182/jordan-peterson-alt-right-religion-catholicism
Fantastic article and a generally fair criticism
-
bronze age pervert is a great follow.
(https://img.4plebs.org/boards/pol/image/1502/60/1502609912809.jpg)
-
https://www.stanforddaily.com/2018/05/31/emails-between-ferguson-scr-reveal-opposition-research-against-ocon-prompt-fergusons-resignation-from-cardinal-conversations-leadership-role/ (https://www.stanforddaily.com/2018/05/31/emails-between-ferguson-scr-reveal-opposition-research-against-ocon-prompt-fergusons-resignation-from-cardinal-conversations-leadership-role/)
Can I get a ruling from the resident campus free speech outrage brigade?
-
I’d file that under kids saying stupid things. I think the emails are overly dramatic for the sake of being dramatic, not because they actually thought they could succeed in suppressing opposing views on campus.
-
I’d file that under kids saying stupid things. I think the emails are overly dramatic for the sake of being dramatic, not because they actually thought they could succeed in suppressing opposing views on campus.
um. the world famous academic.
-
He just wanted to sound big.
-
Can I get a ruling from the resident campus free speech outrage brigade?
ferguson resigned, which seems appropriate. it's hard to know how egregious this is without further information about the speakers program and other campus groups sponsoring speakers at stanford. if it's the foremost sponsor, receives university funding or student funding and is supposed to invite a broad spectrum of speakers, then it's very bad and stanford needs to do far more than merely sidelining ferguson to ensure that the invitation process represents diverse views. if it's one of many sponsors and other sponsors are dedicated to presenting other views, then it's not really a problem.
just from the name, cardinal conversations, it sounds more like the former, but that's obviously an incredibly superficial background from which to judge.
-
damn, the right considers it a victory when they can hold an event on campus and not get physically de-platformed
-
damn, the right considers it a victory when they can hold an event on campus and not get physically de-platformed
Alt right
-
damn, the right considers it a victory when they can hold an event on campus and not get physically de-platformed
I’m glad Niall Ferguson decided to take responsibility for needing to “grow up” after his emails were leaked. Susan Rice’s son is the student ring leader behind this? I guess the next generation is ready and waiting.
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180604/2fee00770677efd621ce093900653d85.jpg)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Is oppo research the same as threatening violence and shutting down speeches of those the increasingly intolerant ProgLeft disagrees with?
We believe in open discussion and speech . . . as long as we approve.
-
as no-platforming goes, not inviting anyone you disagree with to speak is probably quite a bit more effective than acting like dumbasses anytime anyone you disagree with is speaking.
-
as no-platforming goes, not inviting anyone you disagree with to speak is probably quite a bit more effective than acting like dumbasses anytime anyone you disagree with is speaking.
A community of ideas . . . as they're ideas that we agree with.
-
as no-platforming goes, not inviting anyone you disagree with to speak is probably quite a bit more effective than acting like dumbasses anytime anyone you disagree with is speaking.
A community of ideas . . . as they're ideas that we agree with.
this is why no one will engage with you - you don't have the mental capacity to follow an argument.
-
as no-platforming goes, not inviting anyone you disagree with to speak is probably quite a bit more effective than acting like dumbasses anytime anyone you disagree with is speaking.
A community of ideas . . . as they're ideas that we agree with.
this is why no one will engage with you - you don't have the mental capacity to follow an argument.
What is the "argument" sys? Try to gurgle out something semi-coherent. Can you list a college campus of any relevance that's a no-platforming campus?
Is a no-platforming campus a good educational environment?
-
Sys, do university groups and leaders ever use no platforming as a way to quell free speech and open debate?
Thanks for getting on this one, sys.
-
https://quillette.com/2018/06/05/high-price-stale-grievances/
interesting essay.
-
https://quillette.com/2018/06/05/high-price-stale-grievances/
interesting essay.
If you have benefitted from 300 years of holding people in servitude, thinking that you did it all on your own…”Why can’t these people work harder?” Let me see…for 300 years you ain’t had no job! So the reality is for 300 years you hold people in the bands…you refuse to give them rights. Then all of a sudden, you ‘free’ them and say, “You’re now individuals.”
The fact the above quote went over the writer's head is sad.
-
https://quillette.com/2018/06/05/high-price-stale-grievances/
interesting essay.
what did you find interesting?
-
What’s the “argument” sys?
-
https://quillette.com/2018/06/05/high-price-stale-grievances/
interesting essay.
what did you find interesting?
i'll have to reread to answer. i'll do so later today or tomorrow. right now i don't have a ton of internet time and and what i have i want to allocate to election crap.
-
what did you find interesting?
so, starting from the beginning.
1. author is an undergrad and is performing on tv. he's either a fantastic writer for a musician or a fantastic musician for an undergraduate essayist.
2. photo of coates, plus later criticism of coates. echoes the article by mcwhorter. if i was going to pick out someone to personify what i find unuseful, illogical or dishonest about identity politics, coates would be about infinity -1 on my list. so it's interesting to me in a half-gossipy sort of way that two black writers went after him hard.
3. the racial/ethnic composition of performance artists. actually, i think more interesting than the author's discussion of for which ethnicities it may be allowed and for which it may not be, is the idea that it is de facto allowed for everybody if they just don't talk about it. if it becomes known that it is a deliberate artistic choice, it (may) engender controversy. which is sorta backwards, imo.
4. what i would identify as the central theme - to what extent, if any, is it ethical/logical to treat individuals differently based on group histories? i don't think this is an easy issue, and i thought the author treated it with insight and honesty (i also think coates does).
-
If you have benefitted from 300 years of holding people in servitude, thinking that you did it all on your own…”Why can’t these people work harder?” Let me see…for 300 years you ain’t had no job! So the reality is for 300 years you hold people in the bands…you refuse to give them rights. Then all of a sudden, you ‘free’ them and say, “You’re now individuals.”
The fact the above quote went over the writer's head is sad.
it self-evidently did not go over the author's head. he disagreed with the premise, which is not at all the same thing.
-
@sys
It's not that hard to find black writers who disagree with Coates (from different side of the political spectrum)
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/dec/17/ta-nehisi-coates-neoliberal-black-struggle-cornel-west
-
I found the article interesting because it's touching on the same issue we were discussing over the last couple weeks:
Though we have not consistently lived up to the principle, liberal democracies decided long ago that the individual was to be the primary unit of moral concern and responsibility. What happened to your parents, grandparents, or fellow tribe members is supposed to be left at the door when it comes time to judge your actions. We do not give Jewish writers free rein to incite hatred against German people because the former’s grandparents were murdered by the latter’s. As tempting as such temporal displacements of justice might be, we’ve learned that indulging them creates an unending cycle of retributive violations.
You can agree or disagree with that sentiment, but it's pretty on the nose as far as the discourse in this thread is concerned.
-
what did you find interesting?
so, starting from the beginning.
1. author is an undergrad and is performing on tv. he's either a fantastic writer for a musician or a fantastic musician for an undergraduate essayist.
2. photo of coates, plus later criticism of coates. echoes the article by mcwhorter. if i was going to pick out someone to personify what i find unuseful, illogical or dishonest about identity politics, coates would be about infinity -1 on my list. so it's interesting to me in a half-gossipy sort of way that two black writers went after him hard.
3. the racial/ethnic composition of performance artists. actually, i think more interesting than the author's discussion of for which ethnicities it may be allowed and for which it may not be, is the idea that it is de facto allowed for everybody if they just don't talk about it. if it becomes known that it is a deliberate artistic choice, it (may) engender controversy. which is sorta backwards, imo.
4. what i would identify as the central theme - to what extent, if any, is it ethical/logical to treat individuals differently based on group histories? i don't think this is an easy issue, and i thought the author treated it with insight and honesty (i also think coates does).
I agree that those topics are interesting but I don't think he discussed those topics in interesting ways.
I also was wondering if he still played the Rhianna show despite his objection to the racial discrimination
-
@sys
It's not that hard to find black writers who disagree with Coates (from different side of the political spectrum)
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/dec/17/ta-nehisi-coates-neoliberal-black-struggle-cornel-west
yeah, i'm aware of cornel west.
-
I found the article interesting because it's touching on the same issue we were discussing over the last couple weeks:
Though we have not consistently lived up to the principle, liberal democracies decided long ago that the individual was to be the primary unit of moral concern and responsibility. What happened to your parents, grandparents, or fellow tribe members is supposed to be left at the door when it comes time to judge your actions. We do not give Jewish writers free rein to incite hatred against German people because the former’s grandparents were murdered by the latter’s. As tempting as such temporal displacements of justice might be, we’ve learned that indulging them creates an unending cycle of retributive violations.
You can agree or disagree with that sentiment, but it's pretty on the nose as far as the discourse in this thread is concerned.
I don't think it's fair to say Coates is inciting hatred against white people.
Also is this guy claiming Jewish people aren't treated differently based on their history of persecution? Really?
-
I also was wondering if he still played the Rhianna show despite his objection to the racial discrimination
i thought it was clear that he did, but on rereading i find that he didn't explicitly state that he did.
-
I don't think it's fair to say Coates is inciting hatred against white people.
No?
"'White America' is a syndicate arrayed to protect its exclusive power to dominate and control our bodies. Sometimes this power is direct (lynching), and sometimes it is insidious (redlining)"
-
I don't think it's fair to say Coates is inciting hatred against white people.
i don't either.
Also is this guy claiming Jewish people aren't treated differently based on their history of persecution? Really?
i don't think he was claiming that, but i can understand how someone could read it that way.
-
I don't think it's fair to say Coates is inciting hatred against white people.
No?
"'White America' is a syndicate arrayed to protect its exclusive power to dominate and control our bodies. Sometimes this power is direct (lynching), and sometimes it is insidious (redlining)"
Even without context that's pretty far from "inciting hate" IMO. Maybe it's one of those "microaggression" things that I'm not picking up on.
-
I don't think it's fair to say Coates is inciting hatred against white people.
No?
"'White America' is a syndicate arrayed to protect its exclusive power to dominate and control our bodies. Sometimes this power is direct (lynching), and sometimes it is insidious (redlining)"
Even without context that's pretty far from "inciting hate" IMO. Maybe it's one of those "microaggression" things that I'm not picking up on.
Fair enough. I guess we view it differently. I'm not sure how his statement (accepted as true) could engender any response other than a hatred for "White America," but we're probably moving into a boring game of semantics involving what "inciting hate" means.
Regardless, I thought the article was great.
-
Looks like the IDW keeps on growing.
-
I don't think it's fair to say Coates is inciting hatred against white people.
No?
"'White America' is a syndicate arrayed to protect its exclusive power to dominate and control our bodies. Sometimes this power is direct (lynching), and sometimes it is insidious (redlining)"
Even without context that's pretty far from "inciting hate" IMO. Maybe it's one of those "microaggression" things that I'm not picking up on.
Fair enough. I guess we view it differently. I'm not sure how his statement (accepted as true) could engender any response other than a hatred for "White America," but we're probably moving into a boring game of semantics involving what "inciting hate" means.
Regardless, I thought the article was great.
OK
-
Lots of interest in examining the racial biases of people of color while also just asking some interesting and provocative questions about phrenology. But talking about white racism is inciting hatred.
Pretty weird.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Who are you talking to/about, KK?
-
Who are you talking to/about, KK?
i assume to you. but i should leave it to him to explain his lazy and dishonest argument.
-
Who are you talking to/about, KK?
a lot of people
-
I must have missed the phrenology discussion.
-
Comments here are a most interesting insight into the IDW/alt-right mind:
https://quillette.com/2018/03/15/alt-right-gets-wrong-jews/
(and one could say about Quillette's target audience as well, but that might not be fair)
-
yeah the comments are pretty interesting. quillette definitely gives off a "for racists who think they're intellectuals" vibe.
It is true that Hughes will be a hated pariah in academia, should he choose to pursue that path.
But, it is also true that he could be a phenomenally successful public intellectual anyway, if success is measured as one’s positive impact ameliorating the toxic social pathologies described in the article.
We are in a cultural moment. Kanye, Candace Owens et al have broken the spell of racial demagoguery for potentially millions of people, including uncounted numbers of black Americans, leaving their audience’s third eyes wincing in the blaze of a heretofore unseen sun. With his shockingly clear and humanistic reasoning style, Hughes could be the clean-up artist who pries those third eyes open for good.
Who would you rather be—a truth-teller who helps liberate a people, or a narcissistic half-wit in an endless ocean of narcissistic half-wits, eating rubber chicken at this week’s cookie-cutter academic conference on Marxist race theory?
-
Who are you talking to/about, KK?
a lot of people
dlew and i are pretty much the only ones you could possibly be referencing (in this thread, recently).
-
(and one could say about Quillette's target audience as well, but that might not be fair)
i think it's probably fair to say that quillette is targeted directly at the people that flood peterson's patreon account.
-
10 years ago I read an article by Dennis Prager that made me weep. Until that article, I did not think a Jewish person could say non leftist things. Now, mind you, my brother is married to a lovely Jewish lady and she is wonderful, caring, and voted for Jill Stein. Before that she is proud to tell me she voted for Ralph Nader. But I digress. When I read that article, a wave of relief went over me. Alas, there was a Jewish mind that was not just like me but superior to me in that it lifted and elevated my own thoughts.
Reading this, I want to hug Mr. Hughes. I want to tell him so many things. I want to celebrate his intellect and courage.
Thank for clear thinking and not buzz words or cliques or buying into victimhood. I read the article by Ekow N. Yankah and I thought the reverse, that a white person can never be a true friend with a black person because they will always loath us, they will always or eventually fall back on blaming us for whatever happens in their lives, and they will always be victims first and people last.
Now I see why I have a different and real relationships with my black conservative friends. Because they aren’t black first and never victims.
-
speaking of phrenology - https://quillette.com/2018/05/24/cant-woman-like-man/ (https://quillette.com/2018/05/24/cant-woman-like-man/)
-
speaking of phrenology - https://quillette.com/2018/05/24/cant-woman-like-man/ (https://quillette.com/2018/05/24/cant-woman-like-man/)
Women are, on average, inferior to men physically and mentally. Should we discriminate against females? Maybe not on an individual level, but on a societal level females should absolutely be discouraged from wasting their energies on higher education and careers. They have nothing really to contribute in that realm that couldn’t be done better by a man.
-
I mean I'd be pretty comfortable taking the opposite stance of quillette commenters 100% of the time, regardless of what the article was trying to convey or how its arguments were presented. I just wouldn't want to associate myself with those folks in any way.
-
You just haven't been properly red-pilled yet. Just not ready for the Dark Enlightenment (http://www.thedarkenlightenment.com/the-dark-enlightenment-by-nick-land/) yet (https://archive.is/Tysuy).
-
you guys are sure beating the crap out of those anonymous commenters to an article on the internet
-
The cost of BLM has been a subject of interest to me for about a year and a half. My interest in the gun control issue is what first led me to the crime and death statistics, starting with the FBI/DOJ tables that Mr. Hughes’s article referenced.
When you combine those numbers with the NVSR (“National Vital Statistics Reports”) final deaths data, which are contributed by the CDC (“Centers for Disease Control”); Census data to convert the numbers into rates per 100,000 and in some cases per 1,000,000; and a report by the Obama administration showing that the rise in murder since 2014 has occurred almost entirely among black people within the 10 cities with the largest concentrations of black residents, a stark picture emerges of the cost of BLM: several thousand black lives.
It is an outrageous situation. With some work — which I’ve done personally, using my arithmetic aptitude and government data — it’s possible to make a reasonable approximation of how many black folks have wound up dead because Black Lives Matter caused the effective de-policing of central cities in this country.
I can’t proceed any further than I have, because I’m not on any media speed dial lists. This is information that, while solidly factual and not an artifact of twisted data, leads to a conclusion that the media do not want to consider: that Black Lives Matter is not, and never has been, abour black lives mattering. Beyond that, I’m white, and even if I were to be quoted somewhere, my race would be used to invalidate the truth. This is highly frustrating to me, because I think there are so many honest, hard working, struggling black people who are being ignored, or worse.
I can only hope that honest and courageous black people, including Mr. Hughes, can do the same research I did, and try to highlight the results. I’m serious when I express a willingness to help anyone who wants it to crawl through the data. A newcomer might find it a bit daunting, but I can help. There are times when I feel like Diogenes, in search of an honest man. Mr. Hughes strikes me as an honest man.
If Mr. Hughes wants, I’d even go through the long division in a series of postings right here. I assure him, and anyone else, that I’m very far from some babbling nutcase with a tinfoil hat
-
you guys are sure beating the crap out of those anonymous commenters to an article on the internet
-
The cost of BLM has been a subject of interest to me for about a year and a half. My interest in the gun control issue is what first led me to the crime and death statistics, starting with the FBI/DOJ tables that Mr. Hughes’s article referenced.
When you combine those numbers with the NVSR (“National Vital Statistics Reports”) final deaths data, which are contributed by the CDC (“Centers for Disease Control”); Census data to convert the numbers into rates per 100,000 and in some cases per 1,000,000; and a report by the Obama administration showing that the rise in murder since 2014 has occurred almost entirely among black people within the 10 cities with the largest concentrations of black residents, a stark picture emerges of the cost of BLM: several thousand black lives.
It is an outrageous situation. With some work — which I’ve done personally, using my arithmetic aptitude and government data — it’s possible to make a reasonable approximation of how many black folks have wound up dead because Black Lives Matter caused the effective de-policing of central cities in this country.
I can’t proceed any further than I have, because I’m not on any media speed dial lists. This is information that, while solidly factual and not an artifact of twisted data, leads to a conclusion that the media do not want to consider: that Black Lives Matter is not, and never has been, abour black lives mattering. Beyond that, I’m white, and even if I were to be quoted somewhere, my race would be used to invalidate the truth. This is highly frustrating to me, because I think there are so many honest, hard working, struggling black people who are being ignored, or worse.
I can only hope that honest and courageous black people, including Mr. Hughes, can do the same research I did, and try to highlight the results. I’m serious when I express a willingness to help anyone who wants it to crawl through the data. A newcomer might find it a bit daunting, but I can help. There are times when I feel like Diogenes, in search of an honest man. Mr. Hughes strikes me as an honest man.
If Mr. Hughes wants, I’d even go through the long division in a series of postings right here. I assure him, and anyone else, that I’m very far from some babbling nutcase with a tinfoil hat
Good grief
-
One other pertinent historical fact should be the hundreds of thousands of white Union soldiers who died fighting the Confederacy with the end result being the official end of slavery. Does that not carry some weight in the long-term balance of blame and credit?
That comes to my mind every time I read about demands for “reparations” – instead how about expressions of some gratitude from the descendants of those freed by that ultimate sacrifice, instead of harping on the “stale grievances”, as the clear-sighted Mr. Hughes puts it ?
-
One other pertinent historical fact should be the hundreds of thousands of white Union soldiers who died fighting the Confederacy with the end result being the official end of slavery. Does that not carry some weight in the long-term balance of blame and credit?
That comes to my mind every time I read about demands for “reparations” – instead how about expressions of some gratitude from the descendants of those freed by that ultimate sacrifice, instead of harping on the “stale grievances”, as the clear-sighted Mr. Hughes puts it ?
It would be more concise to say "You're welcome"
-
So men, if you really are #WithUs and would like us to not hate you for all the millennia of woe you have produced and benefited from, start with this: Lean out so we can actually just stand up without being beaten down. Pledge to vote for feminist women only. Don’t run for office. Don’t be in charge of anything. Step away from the power. We got this. And please know that your crocodile tears won’t be wiped away by us anymore. We have every right to hate you. You have done us wrong. #BecausePatriarchy. It is long past time to play hard for Team Feminism. And win.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-cant-we-hate-men/2018/06/08/f1a3a8e0-6451-11e8-a69c-b944de66d9e7_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.47f89ae2d9cf (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-cant-we-hate-men/2018/06/08/f1a3a8e0-6451-11e8-a69c-b944de66d9e7_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.47f89ae2d9cf)
-
Ha
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
-
More like millenia of whoa
-
So men, if you really are #WithUs and would like us to not hate you for all the millennia of woe you have produced and benefited from, start with this: Lean out so we can actually just stand up without being beaten down. Pledge to vote for feminist women only. Don’t run for office. Don’t be in charge of anything. Step away from the power. We got this. And please know that your crocodile tears won’t be wiped away by us anymore. We have every right to hate you. You have done us wrong. #BecausePatriarchy. It is long past time to play hard for Team Feminism. And win.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-cant-we-hate-men/2018/06/08/f1a3a8e0-6451-11e8-a69c-b944de66d9e7_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.47f89ae2d9cf (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-cant-we-hate-men/2018/06/08/f1a3a8e0-6451-11e8-a69c-b944de66d9e7_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.47f89ae2d9cf)
the death of free speech?
-
More like millenia of whoa
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5dCopAZaq8[/youtube]
-
So men, if you really are #WithUs and would like us to not hate you for all the millennia of woe you have produced and benefited from, start with this: Lean out so we can actually just stand up without being beaten down. Pledge to vote for feminist women only. Don’t run for office. Don’t be in charge of anything. Step away from the power. We got this. And please know that your crocodile tears won’t be wiped away by us anymore. We have every right to hate you. You have done us wrong. #BecausePatriarchy. It is long past time to play hard for Team Feminism. And win.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-cant-we-hate-men/2018/06/08/f1a3a8e0-6451-11e8-a69c-b944de66d9e7_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.47f89ae2d9cf (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-cant-we-hate-men/2018/06/08/f1a3a8e0-6451-11e8-a69c-b944de66d9e7_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.47f89ae2d9cf)
the death of free speech?
Uber PC'ism
-
Saying women should hate men seems very anti-PC. She clearly triggered a bunch of dudes
-
the patriarchy thing gives me uncontrollable lulz every time I see it, I hope it never ends.
-
the patriarchy thing gives me uncontrollable lulz every time I see it.
same, although i'm pretty good at controlling lulz.
-
I suppose there are more people here who are sexist than are racist.
-
https://twitter.com/meghhan_/status/1005548742542548999?s=21
Obvious caveats that this person could be making up their punishment, but there was a protest of an IDF panel at UVA.
Campus police being called, 20 hours of community service and a 7 page paper pending approval of the dean under threat of expulsion seems to be the fallout. What do we think here?
I haven’t seen any discussion on what happens to people “no platforming” speakers here and I thought it would be interesting.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I can't believe there are adults willing to indulge this insane cry baby nonsense
-
https://twitter.com/meghhan_/status/1005548742542548999?s=21
Obvious caveats that this person could be making up their punishment, but there was a protest of an IDF panel at UVA.
Campus police being called, 20 hours of community service and a 7 page paper pending approval of the dean under threat of expulsion seems to be the fallout. What do we think here?
I haven’t seen any discussion on what happens to people “no platforming” speakers here and I thought it would be interesting.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think that punishment seems pretty fair.
-
http://dailycaller.com/2018/06/10/twitter-ceo-chick-fil-a-gay-marriage/
-
http://dailycaller.com/2018/06/10/twitter-ceo-chick-fil-a-gay-marriage/
Very misleading headline.
-
Liberal backlash is so embarrassingly weak
-
https://twitter.com/meghhan_/status/1005548742542548999?s=21
Obvious caveats that this person could be making up their punishment, but there was a protest of an IDF panel at UVA.
Campus police being called, 20 hours of community service and a 7 page paper pending approval of the dean under threat of expulsion seems to be the fallout. What do we think here?
I haven’t seen any discussion on what happens to people “no platforming” speakers here and I thought it would be interesting.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This seems like a reasonable punishment for her decision to do bad things. Partially punitive but mostly educational.
-
I think the appropriateness of the punishment depends on the activity being punished. If this was merely a protest (i.e. a non-disruptive display showing opposition) then I don't think any punishment is appropriate.
That said, if she was actually impairing the speaker's ability to speak or the listener's ability to hear, then I think some punishment would be appropriate. I don't like the idea of making an adult write an essay as a punishment (especially if the essay expects the person to espouse an idea that she may not agree with). Compelling a person to recite the underlying rationales of the First Amendment seems inherently contradictory.
Assuming some punishment was appropriate I think I would've preferred just the community service.
-
I can't believe there are adults willing to indulge this insane cry baby nonsense
This isn't the stand for the flag thread fsd.
-
https://twitter.com/meghhan_/status/1005548742542548999?s=21
Obvious caveats that this person could be making up their punishment, but there was a protest of an IDF panel at UVA.
Campus police being called, 20 hours of community service and a 7 page paper pending approval of the dean under threat of expulsion seems to be the fallout. What do we think here?
I haven’t seen any discussion on what happens to people “no platforming” speakers here and I thought it would be interesting.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If this person was "conservative" the activity would be characterized as anti-Semitic, nazi and/or kkk
-
I’ve never seen a more racial dividing presidency in my lifetime. That’s why I never voted for the guy. Obama always knew how to pour fuel on the fire when it came to racial tensions.
-
I’ve never seen a more racial dividing presidency in my lifetime. That’s why I never voted for the guy. Obama always knew how to pour fuel on the fire when it came to racial tensions.
Yet you voted for Trump? Seems odd.
-
I’ve never seen a more racial dividing presidency in my lifetime. That’s why I never voted for the guy. Obama always knew how to pour fuel on the fire when it came to racial tensions.
Care to provide some examples?
-
I’ve never seen a more racial dividing presidency in my lifetime. That’s why I never voted for the guy. Obama always knew how to pour fuel on the fire when it came to racial tensions.
Care to provide some examples?
was black + was president = racially divisive. case closed.
-
Ignored Ferguson and the #BLM movement. His own home city is the most corrupt city in the U.S. etc. but yeah, he was half black too.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Ignored Ferguson and the #BLM movement. His own home city is the most corrupt city in the U.S. etc. but yeah, he was half black too.
30 seconds on google falsifies the first two (without arguing the point of whether ignoring a racially divisive issue is racially divisive). the latter is entirely nonsensical.
-
Did you lose your memory? If those two occurrences played out like they did under Trump, we’d be in the middle of a civil war for how poorly it was managed. But Obama was Cavalier as a shitty leader, so ho hum.
-
memory is less reliable than archival evidence, inane counterfactuals aside.
-
Yes, case closed, obviously!
-
retraction accepted, thank you.
-
Ignored Ferguson and the #BLM movement. His own home city is the most corrupt city in the U.S. etc. but yeah, he was half black too.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
how do you even quantify corruption? And what does your hometown have to do with your ethics?
-
Ignored Ferguson and the #BLM movement. His own home city is the most corrupt city in the U.S. etc. but yeah, he was half black too.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
They'll never acknowledge what a fuckup obama was. Some dumbass will even argue chicago isn't corrupt or that obama "the police acted stupidly" "travon looks like my son" etc etc didn't stoke racial tensions with police.
-
If you can’t make progress in your own state, you probably shouldn’t be leading a nation, I honestly kinda feel bad for him. Just a desperate party all around.
-
If you can’t make progress in your own state, you probably shouldn’t be leading a nation, I honestly kinda feel bad for him. Just a desperate party all around.
Wait. You think a potential POTUS should have experience and success on a smaller scale before you feel they are worthy of your vote?
-
am i to understand that your argument that obama's presidency was racially divisive is that he made insufficient progress combating corruption as an illinois state senator?
-
If you can’t make progress in your own state, you probably shouldn’t be leading a nation, I honestly kinda feel bad for him. Just a desperate party all around.
Obama was elected to the Illinois Senate in 1996, succeeding Democratic State Senator Alice Palmer from Illinois's 13th District, which, at that time, spanned Chicago South Side neighborhoods from Hyde Park–Kenwood south to South Shore and west to Chicago Lawn.[114] Once elected, Obama gained bipartisan support for legislation that reformed ethics and health care laws.[115] He sponsored a law that increased tax credits for low-income workers, negotiated welfare reform, and promoted increased subsidies for childcare.[116] In 2001, as co-chairman of the bipartisan Joint Committee on Administrative Rules, Obama supported Republican Governor Ryan's payday loan regulations and predatory mortgage lending regulations aimed at averting home foreclosures.[117]
He was reelected to the Illinois Senate in 1998, defeating Republican Yesse Yehudah in the general election, and was re-elected again in 2002.[118] In 2000, he lost a Democratic primary race for Illinois's 1st congressional district in the United States House of Representatives to four-term incumbent Bobby Rush by a margin of two to one.[119]
In January 2003, Obama became chairman of the Illinois Senate's Health and Human Services Committee when Democrats, after a decade in the minority, regained a majority.[120] He sponsored and led unanimous, bipartisan passage of legislation to monitor racial profiling by requiring police to record the race of drivers they detained, and legislation making Illinois the first state to mandate videotaping of homicide interrogations.[116][121] During his 2004 general election campaign for the U.S. Senate, police representatives credited Obama for his active engagement with police organizations in enacting death penalty reforms.[122] Obama resigned from the Illinois Senate in November 2004 following his election to the U.S. Senate.[123]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama#Legislative_career (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama#Legislative_career)
didn't make anything better, huh?
-
Lol :lol:
-
i hope @Kat Kid gets this thread back on track by offering his opinion on the UVA punishment.
-
#zaps all over this bitch
-
am i to understand that your argument that obama's presidency was racially divisive is that he made insufficient progress combating corruption as an illinois state senator?
Does the City of Chicago receive any state funding?
SysBot won't answer of course.
Chicago's schools receive state funding and they are considered some of the worst public schools in the country. I'm sure Chicago likely receives state funds for things like transportation and similar.
-
i hope @Kat Kid gets this thread back on track by offering his opinion on the UVA punishment.
You hit on my point. The irony of forcing someone to write a paper on free speech and have it approved by the dean of their college because they violated free speech codes is what hit me about it.
I just legitimately never saw much consideration of the consequences of no platforming for as much criticism as it got. I think it had been implied that this was an action that had the tacit approval of the academy (or depending on your level of paranoia) that it was some key tool in the Marxist indoctrination playbook being unleashed on the nations youth by marxist revolutionary professors.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
i hope @Kat Kid gets this thread back on track by offering his opinion on the UVA punishment.
You hit on my point. The irony of forcing someone to write a paper on free speech and have it approved by the dean of their college because they violated free speech codes is what hit me about it.
I just legitimately never saw much consideration of the consequences of no platforming for as much criticism as it got. I think it had been implied that this was an action that had the tacit approval of the academy (or depending on your level of paranoia) that it was some key tool in the Marxist indoctrination playbook being unleashed on the nations youth by marxist revolutionary professors.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yeah. Definitely some incongruencies. It's not how I would've handled it.
-
as dlew also pointed out, since we don't know what she did, we have no basis for deciding if the punishment is apt. in a larger sense; however, it is completely appropriate for an educational institution to impose a punishment that is educational in nature. that's not even vaguely ironic.
-
as dlew also pointed out, since we don't know what she did, we have no basis for deciding if the punishment is apt. in a larger sense; however, it is completely appropriate for an educational institution to impose a punishment that is educational in nature. that's not even vaguely ironic.
you may be right. i would want to see what the prompt actually is - which was left pretty vague in the tweet. if it's aimed at getting the student to merely understand (as distinct from agreeing with) the underlying rationales of free speech rights or free discourse, then i don't think i'd have an issue with it. no harm in that.
i would take issue if the prompt required her to actually profess that free discourse is beneficial or important.
-
https://twitter.com/superdeluxe/status/1007333427119468544
-
i find his voice/accent combination addictive. i wish we could get a bunch of eastern canadian tenors (i guess tenor ???) to replace all of our radio and tv personalities.
-
i find his voice/accent combination addictive. i wish we could get a bunch of eastern canadian tenors (i guess tenor ???) to replace all of our radio and tv personalities.
I've noticed this too - especially how he pronounces "God." "Gwoughd"
-
Yea his voice is amaze
-
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/14/us/politics/campus-speech-protests.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/14/us/politics/campus-speech-protests.html)
Finally, we can have free speech on college campuses by expelling student protestors and by compelling campuses to be open forums for Nazis and whomever else some campus organization troll wants to invite.
Incredible, no one could have foreseen this "free speech defense" rhetoric being cynically manipulated.
“You did it for underrepresented students, do it for underrepresented points of view,” said Senator Lamar Alexander, Republican of Tennessee and the chairman of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. In his comments, which he made at a New York Times conference on higher education last month, Mr. Alexander said that if colleges did not prioritize political diversity, they risked graduating a generation of overly squeamish adults.
“We don’t want a whole generation of students who have to go to a safe room when they read an offensive tweet,” he said. “They need to learn how to deal with that in our society.”
-
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/14/us/politics/campus-speech-protests.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/14/us/politics/campus-speech-protests.html)
Finally, we can have free speech on college campuses by expelling student protestors and by compelling campuses to be open forums for Nazis and whomever else some campus organization troll wants to invite.
Incredible, no one could have foreseen this "free speech defense" rhetoric being cynically manipulated.
“You did it for underrepresented students, do it for underrepresented points of view,” said Senator Lamar Alexander, Republican of Tennessee and the chairman of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. In his comments, which he made at a New York Times conference on higher education last month, Mr. Alexander said that if colleges did not prioritize political diversity, they risked graduating a generation of overly squeamish adults.
“We don’t want a whole generation of students who have to go to a safe room when they read an offensive tweet,” he said. “They need to learn how to deal with that in our society.”
I'm not sure exactly what your vague criticism is, but I imagine we agree that there's a difference between protest and interfering with someone else's speech.
I of course have no issue with protests so long as they're non-violent and don't interfere with others' ability to listen or be heard.
-
Yeah, I’m ok with this
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/14/us/politics/campus-speech-protests.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/14/us/politics/campus-speech-protests.html)
Finally, we can have free speech on college campuses by expelling student protestors and by compelling campuses to be open forums for Nazis and whomever else some campus organization troll wants to invite.
Incredible, no one could have foreseen this "free speech defense" rhetoric being cynically manipulated.
“You did it for underrepresented students, do it for underrepresented points of view,” said Senator Lamar Alexander, Republican of Tennessee and the chairman of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. In his comments, which he made at a New York Times conference on higher education last month, Mr. Alexander said that if colleges did not prioritize political diversity, they risked graduating a generation of overly squeamish adults.
“We don’t want a whole generation of students who have to go to a safe room when they read an offensive tweet,” he said. “They need to learn how to deal with that in our society.”
I'm not sure exactly what your vague criticism is, but I imagine we agree that there's a difference between protest and interfering with someone else's speech.
I of course have no issue with protests so long as they're non-violent and don't interfere with others' ability to listen or be heard.
Do you think this legislative agenda is a bigger threat to free speech than some college students?
-
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/14/us/politics/campus-speech-protests.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/14/us/politics/campus-speech-protests.html)
Finally, we can have free speech on college campuses by expelling student protestors and by compelling campuses to be open forums for Nazis and whomever else some campus organization troll wants to invite.
Incredible, no one could have foreseen this "free speech defense" rhetoric being cynically manipulated.
“You did it for underrepresented students, do it for underrepresented points of view,” said Senator Lamar Alexander, Republican of Tennessee and the chairman of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. In his comments, which he made at a New York Times conference on higher education last month, Mr. Alexander said that if colleges did not prioritize political diversity, they risked graduating a generation of overly squeamish adults.
“We don’t want a whole generation of students who have to go to a safe room when they read an offensive tweet,” he said. “They need to learn how to deal with that in our society.”
I'm not sure exactly what your vague criticism is, but I imagine we agree that there's a difference between protest and interfering with someone else's speech.
I of course have no issue with protests so long as they're non-violent and don't interfere with others' ability to listen or be heard.
Do you think this legislative agenda is a bigger threat to free speech than some college students?
By "legislative agenda" i assume you're talking about Wisconsin's 3 strike rule. If it's applied in a content neutral manner (which it must be under the constitution), then of course not.
How exactly do you think the legislative agenda threatens speech? From what I can tell, it permits more speech, not less.
-
I mean, our president tweeted today that the free press was the worst threat to our security so I think we’ve got some bigger rough ridin' issues than this tbh.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/14/us/politics/campus-speech-protests.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/14/us/politics/campus-speech-protests.html)
Finally, we can have free speech on college campuses by expelling student protestors and by compelling campuses to be open forums for Nazis and whomever else some campus organization troll wants to invite.
Incredible, no one could have foreseen this "free speech defense" rhetoric being cynically manipulated.
“You did it for underrepresented students, do it for underrepresented points of view,” said Senator Lamar Alexander, Republican of Tennessee and the chairman of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. In his comments, which he made at a New York Times conference on higher education last month, Mr. Alexander said that if colleges did not prioritize political diversity, they risked graduating a generation of overly squeamish adults.
“We don’t want a whole generation of students who have to go to a safe room when they read an offensive tweet,” he said. “They need to learn how to deal with that in our society.”
Were UW-M to expel a student pursuant to a three-strikes policy, I think they'd have a pretty textbook 1st Amendment claim. Sounds like that hasn't happened, though.
And it has long been the law that speech in a public forum cannot be prevented based solely on the political affiliation of the speaker. So, yes, a Nazi is included in that definition. So-called "hate speech" is also protected speech, subject to a few exceptions that rarely apply. None of this is new or novel...
There are campus speech policies across the country--and across the political spectrum--that would likely be invalidated if suit were brought by a proper plaintiff. The problem is you need in injury in order to establish standing. So if these institutions never take punitive action pursuant to such policies, such policies are not subject to judicial review.
On balance, I think the political left is still more hypocritical when it comes to First Amendment issues at public universities. But time will tell.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
-
Were UW-M to expel a student pursuant to a three-strikes policy, I think they'd have a pretty textbook 1st Amendment claim. Sounds like that hasn't happened, though.
I must have a different interpretation of the three strikes policy than you. Looks content neutral to me.
-
I can't believe you are this naive dlew. You are just pretending to make this argument.
-
I can't believe you are this naive dlew. You are just pretending to make this argument.
my argument is consistent with the prevailing first amendment jurisprudence and rationale. yours is consistent with the prevailing views on tumblr.
-
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/14/us/politics/campus-speech-protests.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/14/us/politics/campus-speech-protests.html)
Finally, we can have free speech on college campuses by expelling student protestors and by compelling campuses to be open forums for Nazis and whomever else some campus organization troll wants to invite.
Incredible, no one could have foreseen this "free speech defense" rhetoric being cynically manipulated.
“You did it for underrepresented students, do it for underrepresented points of view,” said Senator Lamar Alexander, Republican of Tennessee and the chairman of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. In his comments, which he made at a New York Times conference on higher education last month, Mr. Alexander said that if colleges did not prioritize political diversity, they risked graduating a generation of overly squeamish adults.
“We don’t want a whole generation of students who have to go to a safe room when they read an offensive tweet,” he said. “They need to learn how to deal with that in our society.”
Were UW-M to expel a student pursuant to a three-strikes policy, I think they'd have a pretty textbook 1st Amendment claim. Sounds like that hasn't happened, though.
And it has long been the law that speech in a public forum cannot be prevented based solely on the political affiliation of the speaker. So, yes, a Nazi is included in that definition. So-called "hate speech" is also protected speech, subject to a few exceptions that rarely apply. None of this is new or novel...
There are campus speech policies across the country--and across the political spectrum--that would likely be invalidated if suit were brought by a proper plaintiff. The problem is you need in injury in order to establish standing. So if these institutions never take punitive action pursuant to such policies, such policies are not subject to judicial review.
On balance, I think the political left is still more hypocritical when it comes to First Amendment issues at public universities. But time will tell.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Right, not disputing that.
But this seems to deputize anyone with a campus club to invite whoever they want and then compel the University to approve the event under threat of the law and would then prevent anyone else in the campus community from protesting the event under penalty of expulsion.
What does "have been found to have twice interfered with someone’s free expression" even mean? If they silently protest are they out?
Which group is bringing the force of the state to bear to stifle free speech?
-
I can't believe you are this naive dlew. You are just pretending to make this argument.
my argument is consistent with the prevailing first amendment jurisprudence and rationale. yours is consistent with the prevailing views on tumblr.
You didn't even read the article about the law you are already defending.
-
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/14/us/politics/campus-speech-protests.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/14/us/politics/campus-speech-protests.html)
Finally, we can have free speech on college campuses by expelling student protestors and by compelling campuses to be open forums for Nazis and whomever else some campus organization troll wants to invite.
Incredible, no one could have foreseen this "free speech defense" rhetoric being cynically manipulated.
“You did it for underrepresented students, do it for underrepresented points of view,” said Senator Lamar Alexander, Republican of Tennessee and the chairman of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. In his comments, which he made at a New York Times conference on higher education last month, Mr. Alexander said that if colleges did not prioritize political diversity, they risked graduating a generation of overly squeamish adults.
“We don’t want a whole generation of students who have to go to a safe room when they read an offensive tweet,” he said. “They need to learn how to deal with that in our society.”
Were UW-M to expel a student pursuant to a three-strikes policy, I think they'd have a pretty textbook 1st Amendment claim. Sounds like that hasn't happened, though.
And it has long been the law that speech in a public forum cannot be prevented based solely on the political affiliation of the speaker. So, yes, a Nazi is included in that definition. So-called "hate speech" is also protected speech, subject to a few exceptions that rarely apply. None of this is new or novel...
There are campus speech policies across the country--and across the political spectrum--that would likely be invalidated if suit were brought by a proper plaintiff. The problem is you need in injury in order to establish standing. So if these institutions never take punitive action pursuant to such policies, such policies are not subject to judicial review.
On balance, I think the political left is still more hypocritical when it comes to First Amendment issues at public universities. But time will tell.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Right, not disputing that.
But this seems to deputize anyone with a campus club to invite whoever they want and then compel the University to approve the event under threat of the law and would then prevent anyone else in the campus community from protesting the event under penalty of expulsion.
What does "have been found to have twice interfered with someone’s free expression" even mean? If they silently protest are they out?
Which group is bringing the force of the state to bear to stifle free speech?
Exactly why I think it would be void due to vagueness, despite being content-neutral on its face (@Dlew12). The problem is it can't be tested unless it is exercised. The amount of discretion given to administrators in enforcing it is also problematic.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
-
Right, not disputing that.
But this seems to deputize anyone with a campus club to invite whoever they want and then compel the University to approve the event under threat of the law and would then prevent anyone else in the campus community from protesting the event under penalty of expulsion.
What does "have been found to have twice interfered with someone’s free expression" even mean? If they silently protest are they out?
Which group is bringing the force of the state to bear to stifle free speech?
OK, here's the disconnect.
The policy (at least as i understand it) does not prevent protests. I haven't seen the actual text so it's possible that it's impermissibly vague (@sprac). Of course I agree that if people are silently protesting (but otherwise not preventing a speaker from speaking), then they can't be expelled.
My understanding is that it's aimed at punishing students who actually disrupt a speaker e.g. by preventing a speaker or audience from entering an auditorium or effectively hijacking an auditorium by chanting or getting up on stage or whatever.
I can't believe you are this naive dlew. You are just pretending to make this argument.
my argument is consistent with the prevailing first amendment jurisprudence and rationale. yours is consistent with the prevailing views on tumblr.
You didn't even read the article about the law you are already defending.
i certainly did
-
Cops already are pretty aggressive in removing protestors, or even people that get a little long winded on the mic. I just don't think this is a problem in need of cynical legislation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bVa6jn4rpE
-
Cops already are pretty aggressive in removing protestors, or even people that get a little long winded on the mic. I just don't think this is a problem in need of cynical legislation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bVa6jn4rpE
yeah i agree that the cops who tased that guy during john kerry's presidential campaign were too aggressive.
i don't think that means we shouldn't have any laws regulating where, when and in what manner people are allowed to protest.
-
Regardless of it's merit, it's intended to send a message to "SJWs". Let's not pretend otherwise.
-
Regardless of it's merit, it's intended to send a message to "SJWs". Let's not pretend otherwise.
If that's the case, then it's because SJWs are the ones who tend to engage in the behavior this is seeking to prevent.
If the Young Republicans go and effectively block Coates' next talk at UW, then I would assume/hope the same policy would apply to them.
-
Cops already are pretty aggressive in removing protestors, or even people that get a little long winded on the mic. I just don't think this is a problem in need of cynical legislation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bVa6jn4rpE
yeah i agree that the cops who tased that guy during john kerry's presidential campaign were too aggressive.
i don't think that means we shouldn't have any laws regulating where, when and in what manner people are allowed to protest.
we already do. which brings us back to the original dispute. I think giving the state more power to define what a protest is and who has the right to protest what and in what manner is bad. I also think that the people on the scene with guns and tasers will be called in to action more if this kind of law becomes wide spread. so I think that what is lost is going to be much more than whatever harms you think are occurring (Milo getting heckled out of a bar? Charles Murray getting punched? what is the test case that proves the crisis?)
-
Regardless of it's merit, it's intended to send a message to "SJWs". Let's not pretend otherwise.
If that's the case, then it's because SJWs are the ones who tend to engage in the behavior this is seeking to prevent.
If the Young Republicans go and effectively block Coates' next talk at UW, then I would assume/hope the same policy would apply to them.
It is the case. It's called pandering for a reason.
-
Merit is not important, it's about striking back against an enemy.
You can get people to support about just anything as long as they think they're sticking it to the other side.
-
Cops already are pretty aggressive in removing protestors, or even people that get a little long winded on the mic. I just don't think this is a problem in need of cynical legislation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bVa6jn4rpE
yeah i agree that the cops who tased that guy during john kerry's presidential campaign were too aggressive.
i don't think that means we shouldn't have any laws regulating where, when and in what manner people are allowed to protest.
we already do. which brings us back to the original dispute. I think giving the state more power to define what a protest is and who has the right to protest what and in what manner is bad. I also think that the people on the scene with guns and tasers will be called in to action more if this kind of law becomes wide spread. so I think that what is lost is going to be much more than whatever harms you think are occurring (Milo getting heckled out of a bar? Charles Murray getting punched? what is the test case that proves the crisis?)
You're right, of course we already have those laws. Crimes like trespassing and disturbing the peace prohibit us from protesting wherever/whenever/however we want. I don't think the state (or this law) says anything about who is allowed to protest.
This policy just gives the university the power to expel students if they protest in an improper place/time/manner and then do it again, and then do it again. I agree with yours and spracne's concerns about the potential vagueness and discretion that this policy may (again, haven't seen the actual text) entail.
-
i trust fire to judge these issues, it's their touch, their feel, it's what they do. they have a few concerns but basically think it has promise, so i do to. if anyone finds an updated opinion, please post it.
https://www.thefire.org/new-wisconsin-regents-policy-has-problems-and-promise/
-
i trust fire to judge these issues, it's their touch, their feel, it's what they do. they have a few concerns but basically think it has promise, so i do to. if anyone finds an updated opinion, please post it.
https://www.thefire.org/new-wisconsin-regents-policy-has-problems-and-promise/
Yep. I agree with their position 100%.
-
https://apnews.com/70cffc6c7de54ef5a555a1c59df619f9
-
https://apnews.com/70cffc6c7de54ef5a555a1c59df619f9
interesting. i don't think a twitter ban implicates the first amendment at all.
-
https://twitter.com/nbcnews/status/1007832638353113089?s=21
Not trying to troll, but genuinely curious what you think of something like this dlew re: free speech.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I kinda get the twist when it’s a government account like Trump preventing people from following him, but this argument makes no sense to me. The First Amendment doesn’t say you have a right to speak your political views, it says the government doesn’t have a right to infringe them in most cases.
-
https://twitter.com/nbcnews/status/1007832638353113089?s=21
Not trying to troll, but genuinely curious what you think of something like this dlew re: free speech.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I generally have an issue with the kind of “we’ll shout louder than you so your words can’t be heard” type of protests, but I think it’s damn near impossible to infringe on the White House’s ability to speak. They have practically unlimited means of getting their message out.
-
@KK: I'm not sure there's much to discuss. I don't have a problem with anything that happened in the video. I think it's perfectly appropriate for them to be protesting/heckling Pence, but I also think a perfectly acceptable response to that is to kick them out of the room.
Do you have a problem with the hecklers being removed?
-
That should be happening any time anyone in this admin speaks to the public
-
@KK: I'm not sure there's much to discuss. I don't have a problem with anything that happened in the video. I think it's perfectly appropriate for them to be protesting/heckling Pence, but I also think a perfectly acceptable response to that is to kick them out of the room.
Do you have a problem with the hecklers being removed?
We are on the same page.
-
https://heterodoxacademy.org/political-firings-left-leaning-faculty/
-
I kinda get the twist when it’s a government account like Trump preventing people from following him, but this argument makes no sense to me. The First Amendment doesn’t say you have a right to speak your political views, it says the government doesn’t have a right to infringe them in most cases.
Yeah. The judge didn't rule that the white nationalist's first amendment rights were violated, though. The judge just didn't allow the case to be dismissed.
-
https://heterodoxacademy.org/political-firings-left-leaning-faculty/
Isn't any firing of college faculty the firing of left leaning faculty?
-
Yeah. The judge didn't rule that the white nationalist's first amendment rights were violated, though. The judge just didn't allow the case to be dismissed.
You still have to find some legal merit to the argument. I haven’t read the decision but I’m just not sure what the legal merit could be here.
-
I kinda get the twist when it’s a government account like Trump preventing people from following him, but this argument makes no sense to me. The First Amendment doesn’t say you have a right to speak your political views, it says the government doesn’t have a right to infringe them in most cases.
Yeah. The judge didn't rule that the white nationalist's first amendment rights were violated, though. The judge just didn't allow the case to be dismissed.
Right, but I can't even conceive what hypothetical facts, if proven, would entitle the plaintiffs to relief. Is Twitter a state actor? Is Twitter some sort of public forum or public channel/instrumentality?
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
-
So it appears the judge suggested that unconscionability of the user contract might be a viable theory. Also, it seems the California constitution may differ from the federal one in that there may be some positive rights given to citizens that they can raise against private businesses who open up their doors as a sort of public forum.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
-
https://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2018/06/venue_cancels_alabama_musician.html
-
https://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2018/06/venue_cancels_alabama_musician.html
not sure it belongs in this thread, but it's a fun read.
-
It 100% belongs.
"I lost my job in my band Buck Wild, roughly $3,000 [in expected future performance fees], and I've lost three solo gigs already. And that's all for voicing my opinion, and yes, it was harsh, but it was just an opinion," he said.
He added that the Facebook post "was taken out of context. I really just meant that I would protect America's border at any cost. That's what I should have said and now I'm completely screwed."
He did not, however, recant the statement entirely, instead blaming the response on people's unwillingness to listen "the truth" as he defines it.
"I'm not the person I'm being made out to be right now. I'm just an American and I believe in America first, and that's something that people don't want to hear these days," he said. "When people speak the truth, they don't want to hear it these days. And now I've found myself in a s**tstorm, so to speak."
-
i guess it falls within the spectrum of pc, if not free speech. i don't think there is a broad constituency for the notion that discussion of shooting putatively prospective immigrants is improperly censured by an overly cautious society, but then i also didn't think a third of the country wanted to torture children. i've already had to update my assumptions and may need to do so again.
-
Yeah. I don't take issue with his life/prospects being worse because of the private reactions to horrible things he says. As Sys remarked, those social/economic consequences should be expected.
-
I think claiming you would like to drive to the border and murder people falls more into morally incorrect territory than politically incorrect.
-
It's actually a pretty popular position in certain political circles
-
But that is almost the very definition of Political Correctness: running into social consequences by using language that is taboo/against societal norms.
-
Yeah. I don't take issue with his life/prospects being worse because of the private reactions to horrible things he says. As Sys remarked, those social/economic consequences should be expected.
I think claiming you would like to drive to the border and murder people falls more into morally incorrect territory than politically incorrect.
It is almost the very definition of Political Incorrectness: running into social consequences by using language that is taboo/against societal norms.
-
in my mind, the definition of politically correct includes something like this statement at the end.
In public discourse and the media, it is generally used as a pejorative, implying that these policies are excessive.
-
Yeah. I don't take issue with his life/prospects being worse because of the private reactions to horrible things he says. As Sys remarked, those social/economic consequences should be expected.
I think claiming you would like to drive to the border and murder people falls more into morally incorrect territory than politically incorrect.
It is almost the very definition of Political Incorrectness: running into social consequences by using language that is taboo/against societal norms.
:dunno:
I certainly don't have a problem with the concept of social consequences based on speech. I think some of the interesting discussions we've had ITT re. "political correctness" (under your definition) have been based on what societal norms are, what they should be, and what the appropriate consequences are for violating them.
-
In today's word, self-describing as anti-PC/anti-SJW means that you believe you are speaking truth to power, you are a parrhesiastes bravely exposing the "deep truth", the "mythical truth".
-
In today's word, self-describing as anti-PC/anti-SJW means that you believe you are speaking truth to power, you are a parrhesiastes bravely exposing the "deep truth", the "mythical truth".
err, maybe the particularly high-minded ones like Peterson. but I don't think people who identify as "anti-pc/anti-SJWs" are of the belief that there shouldn't be any social consequences for speech, which is what we're talking about.
-
Bigger threat to free speech:
people protesting speakers
OR
people creating a list of pro-Palestine activists, accusing them of 'terrorism' and reporting them to authorities?
https://theintercept.com/2018/06/24/students-for-justice-in-palestine-fbi-sjp/ (https://theintercept.com/2018/06/24/students-for-justice-in-palestine-fbi-sjp/)
-
Meh. We did that during the Cold War too and everything turned out ok.
-
Bigger threat to free speech:
people protesting speakers
OR
people creating a list of pro-Palestine activists, accusing them of 'terrorism' and reporting them to authorities?
https://theintercept.com/2018/06/24/students-for-justice-in-palestine-fbi-sjp/ (https://theintercept.com/2018/06/24/students-for-justice-in-palestine-fbi-sjp/)
1. I don't know how many times I can tell you that nobody takes issue with "protests" on college campuses.
2. Yes, I think the government conducting detention-like interviews based on pro-palistinian fb posts (that don't call for immediate/directs acts of violence) is a bad practice that likely runs afoul of the First Amendment - and definitely runs against the spirit of free speech.
-
Bigger threat to free speech:
people protesting speakers
OR
people creating a list of pro-Palestine activists, accusing them of 'terrorism' and reporting them to authorities?
https://theintercept.com/2018/06/24/students-for-justice-in-palestine-fbi-sjp/ (https://theintercept.com/2018/06/24/students-for-justice-in-palestine-fbi-sjp/)
anti-semite.
-
v good thread.
https://twitter.com/lymanstoneky/status/1011245433228812288
-
i still don't see how anyone can't be impressed with his prose.
https://twitter.com/wesyang/status/1011217816505200640
-
I looked at the data from that and the most amazing thing was the amount of legacies Harvard still lets in.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
v good thread.
https://twitter.com/lymanstoneky/status/1011245433228812288
I can’t read any of the articles he cites because I don’t have access to JSTOR. Makes me think I should go back to grad school.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
surely with your townie life, you have access to someone with a kstate library login.
-
i still don't see how anyone can't be impressed with his prose.
https://twitter.com/wesyang/status/1011217816505200640
Not convinced it belongs in this thread, but great article and awesome closing line:
Harvard’s lawyers will soon tell the highest court in the land that Casey Pedrick’s Asian students are less respected because they are less likable, less courageous, and less kind than all other applicants. The university has decided that this is necessary for the greater good. The reality is that it is a carefully considered act of slander.
-
I looked at the data from that and the most amazing thing was the amount of legacies Harvard still lets in.
perhaps sorta amazing, yes. to me, more amazing is how small their enrollment is. i'm irrationally attracted to traditions, etc, so the idea of razing cambridge to create a behemoth harvard campus filled with a bunch of horrible new buildings or worse yet having a bunch of satellite harvard campuses scattered around boston is anathema. but it's also pretty hard to justify not using that gargantuan endowment on more than a few thousand students.
-
in round (ie not fact-checked) numbers, they have 7.6 million per undergrad in the endowment! :lol:
-
checking facts reduces that to just $5.5 million/undergrad.
-
https://twitter.com/drvox/status/1010274294968958976
-
https://twitter.com/drvox/status/1010274294968958976
The author's evidence for "growing acknowledgment of whiteness" is Trump's election and a bunch of op-eds talking about "whiteness." Huh?
-
Also an increasing reference to it in pop culture. I kinda get the general idea but like, do I HAVE to acknowledge my whiteness?
-
Also an increasing reference to it in pop culture.
Sure, but in that case (and in the case of any mainstream op-ed i've come across), the "acknowledgment" is really a criticism of "whiteness" or white people in general (dear white people, get out, etc.). Which is fine, but it's not really any sort of self-promotion of "whiteness" which is what I think the article was trying to condemn -- or at least warn about.
I mean, the author acknowledged that Trump took 58% of the white vote. In 2012, Romney took 59%.
-
I looked at the data from that and the most amazing thing was the amount of legacies Harvard still lets in.
perhaps sorta amazing, yes. to me, more amazing is how small their enrollment is. i'm irrationally attracted to traditions, etc, so the idea of razing cambridge to create a behemoth harvard campus filled with a bunch of horrible new buildings or worse yet having a bunch of satellite harvard campuses scattered around boston is anathema. but it's also pretty hard to justify not using that gargantuan endowment on more than a few thousand students.
yeah, elite institutions shouldn't have to be shamed into growing with the general population. harvard has a 5.6% acceptance rate and 82% matriculation.
-
i don't think the author was trying to condemn a self-promotion of whiteness. i think she was trying to identify an incipient trend in which white americans perceive themselves to be, and act as if they are, one cohesive racial or ethnic group among many, rather than a default lack of race or ethnicity.
-
i take your point, though, that her evidence is purely anecdotal.
-
I looked at the data from that and the most amazing thing was the amount of legacies Harvard still lets in.
hilariously on-brand analysis but the thing is, intelligence is heritable.
-
I looked at the data from that and the most amazing thing was the amount of legacies Harvard still lets in.
hilariously on-brand analysis but the thing is, intelligence is heritable.
intelligence is heritable, but the legacy admits are glaringly less academically qualified than are the non-legacy admits. it's hard to beat actively selecting for intelligence, if the goal is to select intelligence.
-
I looked at the data from that and the most amazing thing was the amount of legacies Harvard still lets in.
hilariously on-brand analysis but the thing is, intelligence is heritable.
intelligence is heritable, but the legacy admits are glaringly less academically qualified than are the non-legacy admits. it's hard to beat actively selecting for intelligence, if the goal is to select intelligence.
the donations involved in taking a rich alum's kids probably have more to do than "legacy." i haven't seen the legacy numbers, mostly just wanted to offend KK.
-
i don't think the author was trying to condemn a self-promotion of whiteness. i think she was trying to identify an incipient trend in which white americans perceive themselves to be, and act as if they are, one cohesive racial or ethnic group among many, rather than a default lack of race or ethnicity.
That's a fair point. But I think that phenomenon (assuming it actually exists in any meaningful way) is an understandable reaction to the broader racial conversation.
If people (rightfully or wrongfully) complain of racial oppression at the hands of "white people" in general, then I think it's natural for someone who is ostensibly being included among the oppressors to self-identify as "white" in order join the conversation. Maybe that actually gets to the trend the author is identifying or not, but we'll never know because the author does a pretty lazy job of describing what it is she's actually talking about.
In other words, I don't see the significance of someone acknowledging they're white in light of the broad conversation regarding "whites'" role in racial oppression.
-
the donations involved in taking a rich alum's kids probably have more to do than "legacy."
most people assume that's the whole point, and it probably is a great deal of it.
-
i don't think the author was trying to condemn a self-promotion of whiteness. i think she was trying to identify an incipient trend in which white americans perceive themselves to be, and act as if they are, one cohesive racial or ethnic group among many, rather than a default lack of race or ethnicity.
Yeah and they're having difficulty dealing with other ethnic groups talking about "white people" as "white people" have generally talked about other ethnic groups. I mean dlew automatically views someone identifying "white people" as a group being synonymous with "oppressor", and the article didn't really talk much about oppression by whites on other races.
-
i don't think the author was trying to condemn a self-promotion of whiteness. i think she was trying to identify an incipient trend in which white americans perceive themselves to be, and act as if they are, one cohesive racial or ethnic group among many, rather than a default lack of race or ethnicity.
Yeah and they're having difficulty dealing with other ethnic groups talking about "white people" as "white people" have generally talked about other ethnic groups. I mean dlew automatically views someone identifying "white people" as a group being synonymous with "oppressor", and the article didn't mention oppression at all.
lol no - i was giving an explanation for why "white people" may have a completely understandable (and non-threatening) reason to acknowledge their status as "white" when the article treats it as some kind of foreboding omen.
as an aside, i do find it interesting that we're talking about white people in terms of "they" and "them" instead of "we" and "us" as if we're not including ourselves in the group of "white people" the article is describing. i wonder what that says about us.
-
as an aside, i do find it interesting that we're talking about white people in terms of "they" and "them" instead of "we" and "us" as if we're not including ourselves in the group of "white people" the article is describing. i wonder what that says about us.
I find that pretty thought provoking, and it is actually my main takeaway from the article. I am used to seeing myself as just a guy who doesn't really have much of a culture or affinity group. I'm pretty uncomfortable with the thought of being lumped in with other white people for anything really other than statistical data.
-
i don't think the author was trying to condemn a self-promotion of whiteness. i think she was trying to identify an incipient trend in which white americans perceive themselves to be, and act as if they are, one cohesive racial or ethnic group among many, rather than a default lack of race or ethnicity.
Yeah and they're having difficulty dealing with other ethnic groups talking about "white people" as "white people" have generally talked about other ethnic groups. I mean dlew automatically views someone identifying "white people" as a group being synonymous with "oppressor", and the article didn't mention oppression at all.
lol no - i was giving an explanation for why "white people" may have a completely understandable (and non-threatening) reason to acknowledge their status as "white" when the article treats it as some kind of foreboding omen.
as an aside, i do find it interesting that we're talking about white people in terms of "they" and "them" instead of "we" and "us" as if we're not including ourselves in the group of "white people" the article is describing. i wonder what that says about us.
well I think you nailed it - most of the wypipo stereotypes are pretty negative and we don't want to be associated with them.
I still think it's fair that when we discuss things like the Starbucks arrest or BBQ Becky or Permit Patty we should acknowledge what's happening and understand that even if we don't behave like those folks, "white people" have been doing things like this (and much worse) for years and really don't have the reverse happen. It's a positive that we're being called out and mocked for this type of nonsense, even if it might hurt a lot of "innocent" white feelings.
-
White is the default culture
-
https://twitter.com/rrroooiiirrr/status/1010794943240171520
-
White is the default culture
:party:
-
i don't think the author was trying to condemn a self-promotion of whiteness. i think she was trying to identify an incipient trend in which white americans perceive themselves to be, and act as if they are, one cohesive racial or ethnic group among many, rather than a default lack of race or ethnicity.
Yeah and they're having difficulty dealing with other ethnic groups talking about "white people" as "white people" have generally talked about other ethnic groups. I mean dlew automatically views someone identifying "white people" as a group being synonymous with "oppressor", and the article didn't mention oppression at all.
lol no - i was giving an explanation for why "white people" may have a completely understandable (and non-threatening) reason to acknowledge their status as "white" when the article treats it as some kind of foreboding omen.
as an aside, i do find it interesting that we're talking about white people in terms of "they" and "them" instead of "we" and "us" as if we're not including ourselves in the group of "white people" the article is describing. i wonder what that says about us.
well I think you nailed it - most of the wypipo stereotypes are pretty negative and we don't want to be associated with them.
I still think it's fair that when we discuss things like the Starbucks arrest or BBQ Becky or Permit Patty we should acknowledge what's happening and understand that even if we don't behave like those folks, "white people" have been doing things like this (and much worse) for years and really don't have the reverse happen. It's a positive that we're being called out and mocked for this type of nonsense, even if it might hurt a lot of "innocent" white feelings.
But isn't that just racial stereotyping?
-
i don't think the author was trying to condemn a self-promotion of whiteness. i think she was trying to identify an incipient trend in which white americans perceive themselves to be, and act as if they are, one cohesive racial or ethnic group among many, rather than a default lack of race or ethnicity.
Yeah and they're having difficulty dealing with other ethnic groups talking about "white people" as "white people" have generally talked about other ethnic groups. I mean dlew automatically views someone identifying "white people" as a group being synonymous with "oppressor", and the article didn't mention oppression at all.
lol no - i was giving an explanation for why "white people" may have a completely understandable (and non-threatening) reason to acknowledge their status as "white" when the article treats it as some kind of foreboding omen.
as an aside, i do find it interesting that we're talking about white people in terms of "they" and "them" instead of "we" and "us" as if we're not including ourselves in the group of "white people" the article is describing. i wonder what that says about us.
well I think you nailed it - most of the wypipo stereotypes are pretty negative and we don't want to be associated with them.
I still think it's fair that when we discuss things like the Starbucks arrest or BBQ Becky or Permit Patty we should acknowledge what's happening and understand that even if we don't behave like those folks, "white people" have been doing things like this (and much worse) for years and really don't have the reverse happen. It's a positive that we're being called out and mocked for this type of nonsense, even if it might hurt a lot of "innocent" white feelings.
But isn't that just racial stereotyping?
Not sure how you took that. Saying something like "white people have been calling the police on minorities for bullshit reasons for years" seems like it could be statistically verified. :dunno:
-
Yea, but when you say stuff like that it is either meaningless or intended to ascribe the behavior to the entire group.
If I say Mexicans have been raping for years, or black people have been murdering for years, those can also be statistically verified. But I wouldn't be saying them as facts, I would be saying them as accusations.
-
as an aside, i do find it interesting that we're talking about white people in terms of "they" and "them" instead of "we" and "us" as if we're not including ourselves in the group of "white people" the article is describing. i wonder what that says about us.
well I think you nailed it - most of the wypipo stereotypes are pretty negative and we don't want to be associated with them.
I still think it's fair that when we discuss things like the Starbucks arrest or BBQ Becky or Permit Patty we should acknowledge what's happening and understand that even if we don't behave like those folks, "white people" have been doing things like this (and much worse) for years and really don't have the reverse happen. It's a positive that we're being called out and mocked for this type of nonsense, even if it might hurt a lot of "innocent" white feelings.
But isn't that just racial stereotyping?
Not sure how you took that. Saying something like "white people have been calling the police on minorities for bullshit reasons for years" seems like it could be statistically verified. :dunno:
Well - okay maybe i should back up. what's your definition of a "racial stereotype"? mine would be "the assignment of features to a racial group based on the actions of some of that group's members."
i mean, the first part of your post acknowledged "wypipo stereotypes."
-
Rusty's argument seems to presume that there are good and bad forms of racial stereotyping, and that we can readily discern between the two.
-
You could almost say it's black and white, in his view.
-
it's not a good thing or a bad thing (or if it is, it is not apparent to me at this point in time). it's just a thing.
-
as an aside, i do find it interesting that we're talking about white people in terms of "they" and "them" instead of "we" and "us" as if we're not including ourselves in the group of "white people" the article is describing. i wonder what that says about us.
well I think you nailed it - most of the wypipo stereotypes are pretty negative and we don't want to be associated with them.
I still think it's fair that when we discuss things like the Starbucks arrest or BBQ Becky or Permit Patty we should acknowledge what's happening and understand that even if we don't behave like those folks, "white people" have been doing things like this (and much worse) for years and really don't have the reverse happen. It's a positive that we're being called out and mocked for this type of nonsense, even if it might hurt a lot of "innocent" white feelings.
But isn't that just racial stereotyping?
Not sure how you took that. Saying something like "white people have been calling the police on minorities for bullshit reasons for years" seems like it could be statistically verified. :dunno:
Well - okay maybe i should back up. what's your definition of a "racial stereotype"? mine would be "the assignment of features to a racial group based on the actions of some of that group's members."
i mean, the first part of your post acknowledged "wypipo stereotypes."
well there's a couple things going on here. "wypipo" sterotypes like being told we don't season our food or use washcloths - kinda funny, may be true, not really something we want to be associated with but probably not statistically verifiable in any way and probably has little positive or negative impact on society when called out (given white's dominant status in the US). A statement like "white people are more likely to call the police on little girls selling bottled water on a hot day" is also something we definitely don't want to be associated with but are anecdotally true and could probably be statistically verified, and calling out this "stereotype" (if that's what it is) could have real positive effects if we force white people to face them and think about them.
As sys says, it's just kind of a thing.
-
https://twitter.com/rrroooiiirrr/status/1010794943240171520
how could you make this tweet and not include paul ryan
-
https://twitter.com/rrroooiiirrr/status/1010794943240171520
how could you make this tweet and not include paul ryan
it was in the replies!
https://twitter.com/giso6150/status/1010869789521338368
-
something we [they] definitely don't want to be associated with but are anecdotally true and could probably be statistically verified, and calling out this "stereotype" (if that's what it is) could have real positive effects if we force white [insert ethnicity/race] people to face them and think about them.
-
something we [they] definitely don't want to be associated with but are anecdotally true and could probably be statistically verified, and calling out this "stereotype" (if that's what it is) could have real positive effects if we force white [insert ethnicity/race] people to face them and think about them.
try a real life example
-
something we [they] definitely don't want to be associated with but are anecdotally true and could probably be statistically verified, and calling out this "stereotype" (if that's what it is) could have real positive effects if we force white [insert ethnicity/race] people to face them and think about them.
try a real life example
i'm struggling. you first.
-
I gave a very specific example, the "racial stereotype" that whites are more likely to call the cops on a minority for something petty.
-
i wonder how the conversation would go with my best friend if i made him confront that members of his race are far more likely to murder someone than members of mine. i think it would be just about as beneficial and condescending as any other statement broadly criticizing white people or mexicans or muslims or any other group for whatever transgression some members of their group carried out.
-
i wonder how the conversation would go with my best friend if i made him confront that members of his race are far more likely to murder someone than members of mine. ostensibly it would have real positive effects if he faced that truism and thought about it.
yeah, that's a pretty good one. I think both yours and mine have a similar origin: the power and wealth discrepancy between whites and blacks in the present day caused by White America's racist past. Worthy discussion, but you might want to present it in a different way than you wrote it. :thumbs:
-
you are a master of your craft.
-
AMAZE ridic
https://chicago.cbslocal.com/2018/06/25/laura-ingalls-wilders-award/
-
i mean, rusty, you realize that your philosophy now has you excusing murder because of the vague, amorphous link to the wealth and power discrepancy in America.
don't you think it makes more sense to acknowledge the negative effects of the wealth and power discrepancy, work to change the discrepancy, and still hold individuals accountable for their own actions regardless of the color of their skin?
-
i mean, rusty, you realize that your philosophy now has you excusing murder because of the vague, amorphous link to the wealth and power discrepancy in America.
We were pretty clearly talking on a macro scale, and I presented a theory for why a black American may be statistically more likely to commit murder. An explanation for and understanding of the variance in murder rate is not the same thing as "excusing murder".
And do you really think the link from racist government policy to black poverty to black crime is "vague"? I'd again urge you again to read Color of Law and share your thoughts.
don't you think it makes more sense to acknowledge the negative effects of the wealth and power discrepancy, work to change the discrepancy, and still hold individuals accountable for their own actions regardless of the color of their skin?
I mean yeah I think that's more productive than "excusing murder" but as I mentioned that's not what I'm doing.
-
I gave a very specific example, the "racial stereotype" that whites are more likely to call the cops on a minority for something petty.
sorry, i meant another example.
i've tried to come up with an example for longer than i will admit. i just can't conjure up "real, positive effects" from negative stereotyping based on anecdotal evidence.
-
I gave a very specific example, the "racial stereotype" that whites are more likely to call the cops on a minority for something petty.
sorry, i meant another example.
i've tried to come up with an example for longer than i will admit. i just can't conjure up "real, positive effects" from negative stereotyping based on anecdotal evidence.
In general, I think it really only applies when the stereotype is something like "Group A treats Group B like crap" and Group A is like, "huh, I've never thought of it that way but yeah, folks in Group A do kind of treat Group B like crap and I should be more cognizant of that". "Racial stereotypes" don't fit into nice, neat categories.
-
I'm listening to a C-SPAN convo (https://www.c-span.org/video/?428341-1/the-color-law) between Rothstein(Color of Law) and Coates. These guys are something else.
-
heard something related to this on the radio today so it popped into my head, but how about this?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/this-stereotype-is-killing-black-children/2017/02/10/2c06fa14-e249-11e6-a547-5fb9411d332c_story.html?utm_term=.82b47ff22216
-
heard something related to this on the radio today so it popped into my head, but how about this?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/this-stereotype-is-killing-black-children/2017/02/10/2c06fa14-e249-11e6-a547-5fb9411d332c_story.html?utm_term=.82b47ff22216
yes this is an interesting one that wouldn't necessarily fit my category.
-
I'm listening to a C-SPAN convo (https://www.c-span.org/video/?428341-1/the-color-law) between Rothstein(Color of Law) and Coates. These guys are something else.
do you take issue with the content or how they speak or what? (Rothstein's definitely easier to digest on print)
-
I'm listening to a C-SPAN convo (https://www.c-span.org/video/?428341-1/the-color-law) between Rothstein(Color of Law) and Coates. These guys are something else.
do you take issue with the content or how they speak or what? (Rothstein's definitely easier to digest on print)
I thought the discussion around the 24 minute mark on how the New Deal really introduced government sponsored racism in housing because the government was not involved in housing before that and therefore couldn't have racist policies was really interesting and not touched on in the book and directly.
Also the discussion immediately after on how history books address racist housing policy was good too.
-
i mean, rusty, you realize that your philosophy now has you excusing murder because of the vague, amorphous link to the wealth and power discrepancy in America.
We were pretty clearly talking on a macro scale, and I presented a theory for why a black American may be statistically more likely to commit murder. An explanation for and understanding of the variance in murder rate is not the same thing as "excusing murder".
And do you really think the link from racist government policy to black poverty to black crime is "vague"? I'd again urge you again to read Color of Law and share your thoughts.
don't you think it makes more sense to acknowledge the negative effects of the wealth and power discrepancy, work to change the discrepancy, and still hold individuals accountable for their own actions regardless of the color of their skin?
I mean yeah I think that's more productive than "excusing murder" but as I mentioned that's not what I'm doing.
The white stereotype you listed was a criticism of White America's eagerness to call the police on black people for innocuous things. My view is that I agree -- it's bad when that happens. That shouldn't happen, and when people do that, they deserve criticism.
For the sake of the argument that racial stereotypes are bad, I brought up a stereotype of black people being violent, which you were quick to dismiss because White America is the true underlying cause of disproportionate black violence in the macro. But getting to the underlying cause of the stereotype isn't even considered when we criticize BBQ Becky. The analysis just ends with her bad act of calling the police. We don't care if she was motivated by an underlying statistically accurate perception of the demographics of violent crime. She did something bad, end of story.
And in my view, the treatment of BBQ Becky (as an individual) should end there because individuals have the agency to not unnecessarily call the police (or commit murder), notwithstanding whatever broad underlying forces that might tacitly encourage them to. And if we acknowledge that individuals have that agency, then I think the logical next step is to hold individuals responsible only for their own actions and not the actions of others.
To be clear, I also think the individuals who instituted bad policies should be held accountable for their own bad acts (of instituting the policy), and that voters should be held accountable for their own bad acts (of putting those people in office). I think the responsibility becomes more tenuous the further down the line things get from the actual bad consequence.
And I'm sorry but I'm not going to read Color of the Law. I'm fairly certain I understand the arguments and acknowledge that systemic racism and bias have disproportionately affected broad swaths of black people for generations which have all sorts of negative effects (including Black violence). I just don't hold you or I accountable for it.
We agree on quite a bit, but I'm worried we're never going to come to an agreement on this individual/group responsibility dynamic. I keep thinking the impasse has to be some semantical thing. One of these days I hope we figure it out.
-
The white stereotype you listed was a criticism of White America's eagerness to call the police on black people for innocuous things. My view is that I agree -- it's bad when that happens. That shouldn't happen, and when people do that, they deserve criticism.
For the sake of the argument that racial stereotypes are bad, I brought up a stereotype of black people being violent, which you were quick to dismiss because White America is the true underlying cause of disproportionate black violence in the macro. But getting to the underlying cause of the stereotype isn't even considered when we criticize BBQ Becky. The analysis just ends with her bad act of calling the police. We don't care if she was motivated by an underlying statistically accurate perception of the demographics of violent crime. She did something bad, end of story.
I saw quite a bit of discussion on her motivation and a lot of it had to do with the relationship whites have with the police compared with blacks. BBQ Becky wasn't afraid of violent crime, she was trying to assert power, which is probably why people didn't consider violent crime statistics in their discussions.
And in my view, the treatment of BBQ Becky (as an individual) should end there because individuals have the agency to not unnecessarily call the police (or commit murder), notwithstanding whatever broad underlying forces that might tacitly encourage them to. And if we acknowledge that individuals have that agency, then I think the logical next step is to hold individuals responsible only for their own actions and not the actions of others.
That's all fair, but it's also fair to discuss why whites are more comfortable and/or more likely to call the cops than other races. We can have that conversation without holding dlew, a white person, accountable. Just like we can discuss underlying factors that lead to more crime in black communities without letting an individual black murder off the hook.
To be clear, I also think the individuals who instituted bad policies should be held accountable for their own bad acts (of instituting the policy), and that voters should be held accountable for their own bad acts (of putting those people in office). I think the responsibility becomes more tenuous the further down the line things get from the actual bad consequence.
well yeah except for the problem you pretty clearly understand - it's impossible to hold folks like Roosevelt and Southern Democrats responsible for racist public housing policies in the New Deal. So what do we do about it (along with all the other problems our government unconstitutionally created)? Nothing?
And I'm sorry but I'm not going to read Color of the Law. I'm fairly certain I understand the arguments and acknowledge that systemic racism and bias have disproportionately affected broad swaths of black people for generations which have all sorts of negative effects (including Black violence). I just don't hold you or I accountable for it.
I mean the fact that one post ago you literally said crime had a "vague, amorphous link to the wealth and power discrepancy in America" sure made it seem like you didn't have a very good understanding. Regardless, you seem to enjoy these conversations, so I think you'd find the book enlightening and I'd like to hear your rebuttal to the points made.
And again, I don't think you or I or any single individual living today is necessarily "accountable" for the institutional racism, and that's a big part of why it's such a complex problem to address (which you also touch on earlier). It is important to acknowledge it, understand it, and simply "holding individuals accountable for their own bad acts" does little to address the issues at hand in a meaningful way.
-
... and simply "holding individuals accountable for their own bad acts" does little to address the issues at hand in a meaningful way.
Yet that seems like the only fair thing to do if we want to actually operationalize the purpose behind the 14th Amendment?
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
-
... and simply "holding individuals accountable for their own bad acts" does little to address the issues at hand in a meaningful way.
Yet that seems like the only fair thing to do if we want to actually operationalize the purpose behind the 14th Amendment?
Not sure, but it's kind of tricky when many would argue that unfair, government-supported violations of the 14th Amendment are major factors in the racial crime and wealth disparities we see.
-
... and simply "holding individuals accountable for their own bad acts" does little to address the issues at hand in a meaningful way.
Yet that seems like the only fair thing to do if we want to actually operationalize the purpose behind the 14th Amendment?
Not sure, but it's kind of tricky when many would argue that unfair, government-supported violations of the 14th Amendment are major factors in the racial crime and wealth disparities we see.
also, I think something like increasing Section 8 vouchers to allow more poor folks to move into wealthier neighborhoods could be a positive step toward reducing modern segregation, without being too unfair.
-
... and simply "holding individuals accountable for their own bad acts" does little to address the issues at hand in a meaningful way.
Yet that seems like the only fair thing to do if we want to actually operationalize the purpose behind the 14th Amendment?
Not sure, but it's kind of tricky when many would argue that unfair, government-supported violations of the 14th Amendment are major factors in the racial crime and wealth disparities we see.
Perhaps that's why the 14th Amendment has had more litigation concerning it than every other amendment combined. But change is excruciatingly slow, both in society and in the courts (but I would argue it's slower in society). It's great that you've identified power gradients that have existed in correlation with race, but come on, guy... We've been addressing that for 150 years. Self-flagellation and drum circles aren't going to solve it, and you can't reach into the minds of bigots. So we must try to shape policies to promote individual rights that act as a bulwark against institutional discrimination. But that must by necessity cut both ways.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
-
So we must try to shape policies to promote individual rights that act as a bulwark against institutional discrimination.
such as?
-
hey dlew, imagine how awful it would be if you were actually the regular discriminatory victim of racial stereotyping.
Sounds pretty bad, huh?
-
What happened to this thread?
-
https://twitter.com/lizzie_wade/status/1010178688254730244
-
hey dlew, imagine how awful it would be if you were actually the regular discriminatory victim of racial stereotyping.
Sounds pretty bad, huh?
of course.
-
https://twitter.com/lizzie_wade/status/1010178688254730244
Interesting thread
-
on housing/school admissions. an idea has been floating around to bias admissions to competitive hs and universities by median income of an area (school district or whatever the zone is). pretty neat idea, imo. would seem vulnerable to wealthy families maintaining ghost households for admissions purposes, but otherwise pretty interesting.
-
AMAZE ridic
https://chicago.cbslocal.com/2018/06/25/laura-ingalls-wilders-award/
Really? Nobody is going to chime in on this nonsense affecting our Kansas darling???
-
https://twitter.com/lizzie_wade/status/1010178688254730244
Interesting thread
i saw that thread. very lol.
-
https://twitter.com/lizzie_wade/status/1010178688254730244
Interesting thread
i saw that thread. very lol.
I don't think she's technically wrong. Human sacrifice was a understood part of life in mesoamerica. It wasn't just the triple alliance doing it.
-
I don't think she's technically wrong. Human sacrifice was a understood part of life in mesoamerica. It wasn't just the triple alliance doing it.
have you read the entire thread?
-
I did a bit, admittedly it was hard for me to follow. I saw a lot of people saying she was silly.
I don't think she's technically wrong. Human sacrifice was a understood part of life in mesoamerica. It wasn't just the triple alliance doing it.
have you read the entire thread?
-
what was lol about it?
-
what was lol about it?
romanticizing mass murder is beyond the pale
-
what was lol about it?
I guess how hard it triggered the alt right is pretty funny
-
i honestly thought it was a parody account when i first saw the thread.
-
I think you could make the same argument that in the cultural context of the time, many felt the Spanish Inquisition was justified and was truly helping people get to heaven. Colonialism and exploitation of natives probably made perfect sense to the Spanish coming to the Americas, even if now in today's context it's obvious they were pretty brutal and cruel. :dunno:
-
AMAZE ridic
https://chicago.cbslocal.com/2018/06/25/laura-ingalls-wilders-award/
Really? Nobody is going to chime in on this nonsense affecting our Kansas darling???
Confirmed, ridiculous
-
and yeah the "How I see the world, filtered through centuries of colonial oppression and destruction, is irrelevant to understanding how they saw the world" is pretty funny.
-
I guess I still don't get it. I admit to not reading everything she said super carefully, but she didn't seem to say anything super controversial to me (within the context archaeology).
-
I think you could make the same argument that in the cultural context of the time, many felt the Spanish Inquisition was justified and was truly helping people get to heaven. Colonialism and exploitation of natives probably made perfect sense to the Spanish coming to the Americas, even if now in today's context it's obvious they were pretty brutal and cruel. :dunno:
just change colonialism and exploitation of natives to human sacrifice and spanish coming to to mesoamericans living in and that's pretty much what is lol about it.
-
But I guess the idea is that she's being too PC by not stressing how evil the Mexica were.
-
This piqued my interest because I have been doing a lot of reading about pre-Cortesian Mexico.
-
I guess I still don't get it. I admit to not reading everything she said super carefully, but she didn't seem to say anything super controversial to me (within the context archaeology).
her individual points are interesting, and obviously as an archeologist you are interested in understanding, not judging - but when you introduce your twitter lesson with this:
it's time for a discussion on why this practice was not "horrific" or "loaded [with] evil," as some of you have said
and conclude it with this: don't for a second think that's the only way to see it, or the "right" way to see it.
then you are setting up your observations not as arguing that we should understand how those peoples saw themselves and the moral and ethical framework under which they operated, but instead as we should suspend our own moral and ethical framework when considering the actions of other peoples or cultures, which is stupid and funny.
-
But I guess the idea is that she's being too PC by not stressing how evil the Mexica were.
Clearly. "Is it politically incorrect to agree that all killing is wrong???"
-
I think you could make the same argument that in the cultural context of the time, many felt the Spanish Inquisition was justified and was truly helping people get to heaven. Colonialism and exploitation of natives probably made perfect sense to the Spanish coming to the Americas, even if now in today's context it's obvious they were pretty brutal and cruel. :dunno:
Of course you could make that same argument, but with the benefit of history and progress, we have the luxury of looking back and acknowledging that things like human sacrifice and the spanish inquisition (regardless of the underlying rationales) were "weird and violent and gruesome" -- which are labels she specifically disputes as being "right." Smart people rightfully label slavery as evil and horrific despite whatever moral/theological defenses southern intellectuals were putting forth during antebellum.
I think a lot of people understand that there is some implicit theological underpinning to "human sacrifice," but that shouldn't absolve the practice from being labeled "horrific."
-
it's time for a discussion on why this practice was not "horrific" or "loaded [with] evil," as some of you have said
and conclude it with this: don't for a second think that's the only way to see it, or the "right" way to see it.
then you are setting up your observations not as arguing that we should understand how those peoples saw themselves and the moral and ethical framework under which they operated, but instead as we should suspend our own moral and ethical framework when considering the actions of other peoples or cultures, which is stupid and funny.
Can you elaborate on what you mean by "we should suspend our own moral and ethical framework when considering the actions of other peoples or cultures"?
-
like, it's fine for americans to worship at the altar of jefferson and it's fine for mexicans to name every other street after cuauhtemoc, but it's stupid to say slavery or human sacrifice was fine because it was justified according to the moral and ethical frameworks of the societies that those individuals lived in.
according to our own morals and ethics, neither slavery nor human sacrifice is acceptable. we don't need to suspend that judgement in order to understand that it has not universally been so.
-
OK. I don't read her as saying its "fine" (as in let's go honor Xipe Totec tonight, it's cool), but I will concede that one could read it that way.
-
I'll admit I am probably more a moral relativist than most.
-
absolutism, in all things, chingon.
-
Most people when discussing morals do so from a universal / absolutist perspective. You can tweak your principles so that they look different when applied among different populations, but the general idea is that they apply to all people at all times.
In my own mind, I contrast that with ethics, which is more situational in application.
-
I saw someone arguing that Cortes was good because he sniffed out such an evil people. True genius logic.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
AMAZE ridic
https://chicago.cbslocal.com/2018/06/25/laura-ingalls-wilders-award/
Really? Nobody is going to chime in on this nonsense affecting our Kansas darling???
This is a fine example of the one-way street in which so-called morals are applied retrospectively.
How about we substitute guatamalens with settlors and americans with indians?
White religellies escaping persecution = violence and atrocities against indians. AMAZE
-
I saw someone arguing that Cortes was good because he sniffed out such an evil people. True genius logic.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
the scale of human sacrifice and ritual cannibalism in the americas isn't given its due in social studies classrooms. most people don't even know that aztecs were routinely eating their neighbors a mere 500 years ago. really remarkable stuff.
-
I think you could make the same argument that in the cultural context of the time, many felt the Spanish Inquisition was justified and was truly helping people get to heaven. Colonialism and exploitation of natives probably made perfect sense to the Spanish coming to the Americas, even if now in today's context it's obvious they were pretty brutal and cruel. :dunno:
Of course you could make that same argument, but with the benefit of history and progress, we have the luxury of looking back and acknowledging that things like human sacrifice and the spanish inquisition (regardless of the underlying rationales) were "weird and violent and gruesome" -- which are labels she specifically disputes as being "right." Smart people rightfully label slavery as evil and horrific despite whatever moral/theological defenses southern intellectuals were putting forth during antebellum.
I think a lot of people understand that there is some implicit theological underpinning to "human sacrifice," but that shouldn't absolve the practice from being labeled "horrific."
Yeah I still think context matters. IMO "violent and gruesome" are fair but I don't think "evil and weird and horrible" are when you attempt to look at it through the eyes of an Aztec in the 15th century, because it was the standard in the society they knew.
As for the Antebellum South, they had plenty of people all over the world telling them they were "evil" and they were explicitly trying to justify their actions. As far as I know, the Aztecs had no idea what they were doing was "evil" or "weird" which makes it difficult to apply those labels to them in context.
A sorta similar conversation could be had surrounding our culture's revulsion to eating dogs while we eat bacon like crazy without remorse. How can one be "weird" or "evil" and the other not be without considering the context of our present-day culture?
-
I think evil, weird, and horrible are perfectly fair descriptions of the human sacrifice performed by Aztecs. I think the unwillingness of some of the people sacrificed to volunteer themselves should have been their first sign.
-
I think evil, weird, and horrible are perfectly fair descriptions of the human sacrifice performed by Aztecs. I think the unwillingness of some of the people sacrificed to volunteer themselves should have been their first sign.
Pretty much every culture in history has had humans unwillingly killed in the name of some religion.
-
I think evil, weird, and horrible are perfectly fair descriptions of the human sacrifice performed by Aztecs. I think the unwillingness of some of the people sacrificed to volunteer themselves should have been their first sign.
Pretty much every culture in history has had humans unwillingly killed in the name of some religion.
So I guess I wouldn't have an issue with the labels as long as we applied them to all cultures
-
I think evil, weird, and horrible are perfectly fair descriptions of the human sacrifice performed by Aztecs. I think the unwillingness of some of the people sacrificed to volunteer themselves should have been their first sign.
Pretty much every culture in history has had humans unwillingly killed in the name of some religion.
So I guess I wouldn't have an issue with the labels as long as we applied them to all cultures
example of some culture in history killing humans for some religious purpose which we do not now condemn as wrong please.
also lol @ you for your transparent panicky grasping for any logical straw to let you escape morally denouncing a native american cultural practice.
-
I think evil, weird, and horrible are perfectly fair descriptions of the human sacrifice performed by Aztecs. I think the unwillingness of some of the people sacrificed to volunteer themselves should have been their first sign.
Pretty much every culture in history has had humans unwillingly killed in the name of some religion.
So I guess I wouldn't have an issue with the labels as long as we applied them to all cultures
you drive a hard bargain, what with your requirement for us to agree that ritualistic human sacrifice is evil and weird and horrible across time and cultures.
-
I think evil, weird, and horrible are perfectly fair descriptions of the human sacrifice performed by Aztecs. I think the unwillingness of some of the people sacrificed to volunteer themselves should have been their first sign.
Pretty much every culture in history has had humans unwillingly killed in the name of some religion.
So I guess I wouldn't have an issue with the labels as long as we applied them to all cultures
example of some culture in history killing humans for some religious purpose which we do not now condemn as wrong please.
also lol @ you for your transparent panicky grasping for any logical straw to let you escape morally denouncing a native american cultural practice.
Well, you'd have to use the term "religion" pretty broadly to apply to more than just spirits in the sky. Like, you could define something like democracy and general nationalism as religions (this isn't a new definition I've invented). And in that context pretty much any war kills people unwillingly in the name of a country, which is no more real than a sun god or something. (Others have made this argument better than me and I can't look for them right now)
-
This book goes into a lot more detail in the "government is a religion" philosophy.
https://www.amazon.com/Homo-Deus-Brief-History-Tomorrow/dp/0062464310
-
maybe you'd have a clearer argument for your democracy thing if you used the death penalty? but that's intended as a punishment for a transgression, so maybe not?
we do, very definitely, have the idea that there are just wars and unjust wars, but i suppose you could argue that those are definitions usually speciously applied.
my father actually gave me that homo deus book for christmas, but i haven't read it yet.
-
This book goes into a lot more detail in the "government is a religion" philosophy.
https://www.amazon.com/Homo-Deus-Brief-History-Tomorrow/dp/0062464310
that book is the most depressing thing ever written. i wouldn't recommend it to my worst enemy.
-
maybe you'd have a clearer argument for your democracy thing if you used the death penalty? but that's intended as a punishment for a transgression, so maybe not?
for sure. Even if it's "punishment for a transgression" it's a sacrifice to the religion of justice.
we do, very definitely, have the idea that there are just wars and unjust wars, but i suppose you could argue that those are definitions usually speciously applied.
yeah ideas of "just wars" generally require some sort of religion to justify or condemn. And someone's pretty much always unwillingly killed. (I suppose you could fight a war where everyone willingly dies, but whatevs)
This book goes into a lot more detail in the "government is a religion" philosophy.
https://www.amazon.com/Homo-Deus-Brief-History-Tomorrow/dp/0062464310
that book is the most depressing thing ever written. i wouldn't recommend it to my worst enemy.
yes it's a major downer for sure. But some interesting things to ponder (he also got into how future generations might view us raising animals for mass slaughter)
-
I saw someone arguing that Cortes was good because he sniffed out such an evil people. True genius logic.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
the scale of human sacrifice and ritual cannibalism in the americas isn't given its due in social studies classrooms. most people don't even know that aztecs were routinely eating their neighbors a mere 500 years ago. really remarkable stuff.
Pre-Colombian Mesoamerican culture is given like maybe a couple of hours total, but yeah most people don't know much about it.
I wouldn't say routinely eating, and certainly not everybody got to partake, but indeed it did happen. No one truly knows the numbers, but the carnage surrounding the re-dedication of the huei teocalli must have been staggering.
-
i think we can take it as a given than some future societies will morally condemn some of our current practices as abhorrent. but we are all blind to our own blindness. do you have any examples from the past or from current cultures sufficiently alien to our own that we do not consider ourselves to share the same culture?
-
Examples of what again?
-
i can, maybe, think of one. but it's a bit messy.
-
Examples of what again?
michigancat needs to know that there aren't any examples of cultures killing unwilling human victims for religious reasons that we don't condemn in order to not feel like a racist for saying that human sacrifice as practiced by mesoamericans is immoral.
-
yes it's a major downer for sure. But some interesting things to ponder (he also got into how future generations might view us raising animals for mass slaughter)
yeah! he goes into perfect detail on the mother-offspring bond in mammals and the whole time you know he's setting up to talk about factory farming with the same precision. most dreadful time i've spent in awhile.
-
I saw someone arguing that Cortes was good because he sniffed out such an evil people. True genius logic.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
the scale of human sacrifice and ritual cannibalism in the americas isn't given its due in social studies classrooms. most people don't even know that aztecs were routinely eating their neighbors a mere 500 years ago. really remarkable stuff.
Pre-Colombian Mesoamerican culture is given like maybe a couple of hours total, but yeah most people don't know much about it.
I wouldn't say routinely eating, and certainly not everybody got to partake, but indeed it did happen. No one truly knows the numbers, but the carnage surrounding the re-dedication of the huei teocalli must have been staggering.
i phrased it like i did because kat kid, but it really is fascinating history. some extremely intense human drama.
-
I assume "immoral" means with respect to modern Western mores.
But, yes, I doubt you will find any easy examples of sacrificial killings that are considered moral by today's standards. The most modern would be lynchings, but those are mainly frowned upon by most these days.
-
I assume "immoral" means with respect to modern Western mores.
i mean with respect to what i consider immoral. i assume most of you mostly think along similar lines as i do, but i'm certainly not going to be responsible for any of you ungodly deviants.
-
maybe you'd have a clearer argument for your democracy thing if you used the death penalty? but that's intended as a punishment for a transgression, so maybe not?
for sure. Even if it's "punishment for a transgression" it's a sacrifice to the religion of justice.
:Roll Eyes:
-
I assume "immoral" means with respect to modern Western mores.
i mean with respect to what i consider immoral. i assume most of you mostly think along similar lines as i do, but i'm certainly not going to be responsible for any of you ungodly deviants.
Well we are all Americans here.
-
maybe you'd have a clearer argument for your democracy thing if you used the death penalty? but that's intended as a punishment for a transgression, so maybe not?
for sure. Even if it's "punishment for a transgression" it's a sacrifice to the religion of justice.
:Roll Eyes:
Iraq war casualties are human sacrifices to the religions of democracy and capitalism
-
Yes, and my eating a whole pizza is a sacrifice to the religion of hedonism.
You're using the term in a way that makes it completely meaningless.
-
Yes, and my eating a whole pizza is a sacrifice to the religion of hedonism.
You're using the term in a way that makes it completely meaningless.
Well, that's not killing a human, but OK. If something like deomcracy isn't "religion" as you would like it defined, is killing in the name of a government morally acceptable, but killing in the name of religion (as you define it) morally unacceptable?
Is it the ritual aspect that makes the religious killing morally unacceptable?
-
Yes, and my eating a whole pizza is a sacrifice to the religion of hedonism.
You're using the term in a way that makes it completely meaningless.
Well, that's not killing a human, but OK. If something like deomcracy isn't "religion" as you would like it defined, is killing in the name of a government morally acceptable, but killing in the name of religion (as you define it) morally unacceptable?
Is it the ritual aspect that makes the religious killing morally unacceptable?
Well the problem is you’re now taking human sacrifice as meaning the same as killing, and then just adding ridiculous things at the end to make it sound more sacrifice-y.
Pretty much everyone today agrees that ritual sacrifice serves no purpose, which makes it clearly immoral given the cost (human life).
As far as killing for country and killing for religion, those categories are just too broad. I don’t think death is the point of any war, it’s just a byproduct of self defense / self preservation in many cases. I feel comfortable saying that the decision to get us into the Vietnam war was mostly immoral, but for a soldier who was drafted and dumped over there, I don’t think it’s necessarily immoral that he kills someone.
There may be a similar example for religion but Im too lazy to think of one right now. It seems a lot harder to have a moral religious killing, though.
-
Yes, and my eating a whole pizza is a sacrifice to the religion of hedonism.
You're using the term in a way that makes it completely meaningless.
Well, that's not killing a human, but OK. If something like deomcracy isn't "religion" as you would like it defined, is killing in the name of a government morally acceptable, but killing in the name of religion (as you define it) morally unacceptable?
Is it the ritual aspect that makes the religious killing morally unacceptable?
Well the problem is you’re now taking human sacrifice as meaning the same as killing, and then just adding ridiculous things at the end to make it sound more sacrifice-y.
Pretty much everyone today agrees that ritual sacrifice serves no purpose, which makes it clearly immoral given the cost (human life).
I'm thinking less of the morality of a soldier killing another and more of the leaders ordering the killing/sacrifice of their own people. Look at it this way:
General tells soldiers: "go charge that hill. you will die but you will have glory in the afterlife and your ancestors will be better because of it."
Montezuma tells subjects: "let us take out your still beating heart. you will die but you will have glory in the afterlife and your ancestors will be better because of it."
As far as the general knows, the hill is important to his country and will help his people. As far as Montezuma knows, he's making the gods happy and helping his people. They are both following their own truth and sacrificing humans to achieve it. In reality, the hill could be meaningless to the general's people, and we know there have been many useless sacrifices of human life in pretty much every war. I mean, the end result is someone in a position of power ordering people to die for nothing. Is it the ritualistic aspect that makes one killing less moral?
-
General tells soldiers: "go charge that hill. you will die but you will have glory in the afterlife and your ancestors will be better because of it."
Montezuma tells subjects: "let us take out your still beating heart. you will die but you will have glory in the afterlife and your ancestors will be better because of it."
As far as the general knows, the hill is important to his country and will help his people. As far as Montezuma knows, he's making the gods happy and helping his people. They are both following their own truth and sacrificing humans to achieve it. In reality, the hill could be meaningless to the general's people, and we know there have been many useless sacrifices of human life in pretty much every war. I mean, the end result is someone in a position of power ordering people to die for nothing. Is it the ritualistic aspect that makes one killing less moral?
these are good questions. i think the answer is something along the lines of: we think that sometimes it is important that soldiers be willing to kill or die to take a hill and that generals be willing to order soldiers to kill or die to take a hill and we think it can be difficult if not impossible for soldiers and generals to discriminate between when it is important and when it is not and thus we absolve them of any moral guilt for killing and ordering soldiers to kill or die when it was not needed.
-
General tells soldiers: "go charge that hill. you will die but you will have glory in the afterlife and your ancestors will be better because of it."
Montezuma tells subjects: "let us take out your still beating heart. you will die but you will have glory in the afterlife and your ancestors will be better because of it."
As far as the general knows, the hill is important to his country and will help his people. As far as Montezuma knows, he's making the gods happy and helping his people. They are both following their own truth and sacrificing humans to achieve it. In reality, the hill could be meaningless to the general's people, and we know there have been many useless sacrifices of human life in pretty much every war. I mean, the end result is someone in a position of power ordering people to die for nothing. Is it the ritualistic aspect that makes one killing less moral?
these are good questions. i think the answer is something along the lines of: we think that sometimes it is important that soldiers be willing to kill or die to take a hill and that generals be willing to order soldiers to kill or die to take a hill and we think it can be difficult if not impossible for soldiers and generals to discriminate between when it is important and when it is not and thus we absolve them of any moral guilt for killing and ordering soldiers to kill or die when it was not needed.
What if you replace "general" with "king" or "emperor" or "president"? Does anyone deserve to own moral guilt for ordering useless slaughter in the name of a country?
-
If you are killing on the battlefield in order to obtain glory in the afterlife, then yes it is morally the same as a ritualistic sacrifice. I don’t see them as equal, but I also don’t think anyone these days sees war as the same as a Roman does in 200 BC.
-
i think as you go up the ladder, you run have less impunity from judgement, but i think that even at the highest level, we absolve good faith errors (with a lot of latitude for what constitutes good faith).
-
i think as you go up the ladder, you run have less impunity from judgement, but i think that even at the highest level, we absolve good faith errors (with a lot of latitude for what constitutes good faith).
Agreed, I'm sure many Aztecs did the same for their leaders ordering ritualistic human sacrifice
-
i think we agree that, as far as we know, human sacrifice was not looked upon as immoral by the practitioners.
-
i think we agree that, as far as we know, human sacrifice was not looked upon as immoral by the practitioners.
Ah, I thought you were implying that our society forgiving good faith errors that result in unnecessary deaths made our society less evil than Aztecs.
-
yes, i am implying that. i ascribe to my own sense of morality not to some long-dead mesoamerican's sense of morality. i thought we established all this at the start of the discussion.
-
yes, i am implying that. i ascribe to my own sense of morality not to some long-dead mesoamerican's sense of morality. i thought we established all this at the start of the discussion.
So it seems your stance boils down to, "modern society is less evil because I say it's less evil". Which is fine, but it makes it difficult to take your dismissal of opposing modern viewpoints seriously.
-
yes, i am implying that. i ascribe to my own sense of morality not to some long-dead mesoamerican's sense of morality. i thought we established all this at the start of the discussion.
So it seems your stance boils down to, "modern society is less evil because I say it's less evil". Which is fine, but it makes it difficult to take your dismissal of opposing modern viewpoints seriously.
If you don't feel comfortable basing your opinions of rightness or wrongness on your own idea of moral rules (whatever they may be) then I'm not sure how you could ever comment on whether anything is ever right or wrong. I suppose you could say that something is really only "right" or "wrong" if it aligns with the actor's view of "right" or "wrong."
But giving that position half a second of thought reveals that it would have you reserving judgment on all sorts of things that sane and honest people readily identify as "wrong."
-
So it seems your stance boils down to, "modern society is less evil because I say it's less evil". Which is fine, but it makes it difficult to take your dismissal of opposing modern viewpoints seriously.
i mean, you'd have to outline an opposing modern viewpoint and try to explain why it's better. i would think that it would almost go without saying that one's own moral framework is the framework one considers most moral. what possible justification could a person have for adhering to a moral framework that they themselves consider less moral than an opposing one?
-
michigan, but serious.
https://twitter.com/dril/status/473265809079693312
-
So it seems your stance boils down to, "modern society is less evil because I say it's less evil". Which is fine, but it makes it difficult to take your dismissal of opposing modern viewpoints seriously.
i mean, you'd have to outline an opposing modern viewpoint and try to explain why it's better. i would think that it would almost go without saying that one's own moral framework is the framework one considers most moral. what possible justification could a person have for adhering to a moral framework that they themselves consider less moral than an opposing one?
I've been outlining a moral framework that implies modern society is similarly evil with the discussion on government leaders sacrificing soldiers for meaningless reasons.
Both sacrifices in war and sacrifices in rituals and are done in the name of an abstract entity, both are well meaning, both promise glory and an afterlife, both end up with humans dead, and in both cases mistakes made by the leaders are absolved by their constituents.
Assuming all of the above are agreed upon, the logical differences that have been presented are
A) The ritual aspect and
B) We say modern morals are better so needless deaths in war are better than needless deaths in a ceremony
And you went with b, but I think you could do better.
-
that's great, you have a more restrictive sense of morality than do i when it comes to killing humans in war. but, like all good humans, we agree that it was wrong for mesoamericans to practice human sacrifice. they mumped that one up, i'm sad to say.
-
but, like all good humans, we agree that it was wrong for mesoamericans to practice human sacrifice. they mumped that one up, i'm sad to say.
Yep and we all agree that we mumped up the Iraq war and Vietnam war and....
:cheers:
-
we all agree that we mumped up the Iraq war and Vietnam war and....
for sure.
-
There are some instances where war killings are immoral, and others where they are not, IMO. I see nothing wrong with dropping a bomb on an ISIS base, for instance, as ISIS is somewhat similar in their brutality to the Mesoamericans.
-
There are some instances where war killings are immoral, and others where they are not, IMO. I see nothing wrong with dropping a bomb on an ISIS base, for instance, as ISIS is somewhat similar in their brutality to the Mesoamericans.
Also clear that sending soldiers to their likely or certain deaths for the greater good can be morally good
-
There are some instances where war killings are immoral, and others where they are not, IMO. I see nothing wrong with dropping a bomb on an ISIS base, for instance, as ISIS is somewhat similar in their brutality to the Mesoamericans.
Also clear that sending soldiers to their likely or certain deaths for the greater good can be morally good
for sure, killing enemy soldiers in a religious ceremony could have also improved the greater good of Aztec society
-
There are some instances where war killings are immoral, and others where they are not, IMO. I see nothing wrong with dropping a bomb on an ISIS base, for instance, as ISIS is somewhat similar in their brutality to the Mesoamericans.
Also clear that sending soldiers to their likely or certain deaths for the greater good can be morally good
for sure, killing enemy soldiers in a religious ceremony could have also improved the greater good of Aztec society
It really couldn't have.
-
i like the mcwhorter-peterson exchange.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/06/the-jordan-peterson-tour-comes-to-aspen/563813/
-
https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1012371608667746305
-
That's an unconstitutional law. However, it would not run afoul of the Grundgesetz.
-
There are some instances where war killings are immoral, and others where they are not, IMO. I see nothing wrong with dropping a bomb on an ISIS base, for instance, as ISIS is somewhat similar in their brutality to the Mesoamericans.
Also clear that sending soldiers to their likely or certain deaths for the greater good can be morally good
for sure, killing enemy soldiers in a religious ceremony could have also improved the greater good of Aztec society
It really couldn't have.
if your enemies are trying to kill your constituents, killing them could greatly improve the lives of your constituents, regardless of method used.
-
if your enemies are trying to kill your constituents, killing them could greatly improve the lives of your constituents, regardless of method used.
i thought you were talking about improving the morale of the society or something like that. if it's just a matter of killing enemies, that's not a very good argument. it's safer for your soldiers to kill their enemies rather than to try to capture enemies unwilling to surrender while killing captives that willingly surrendered would presumably make future enemies less likely to surrender.
-
https://twitter.com/wesyang/status/1012418245826109440
-
That's not the reason at all, sys.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
-
It has to be the clickbait. Has to be (clinched angst laden white knuckles).
-
That's not the reason at all, sys.
what is the reason?
-
Probably white males feeling like they are being blamed for stuff they aren't personally responsible for, would be my guess.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
-
Probably white males feeling like they are being blamed for stuff they aren't personally responsible for, would be my guess.
that's the exact same hypothesis that yang was pushing (in the link that i linked).
-
I'm sorry, but can you specify which link you're referring to? I just read two articles that were not relevant, and that makes me slightly peeved, sir.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
-
the tweet from yang, where he says here is this guardian article saying youngish white males have shown a pretty dramatic shift from d to r over the last two years and then says i wonder if it has anything to do with articles like this one asking why we can't hate men and he includes a link to a wapo article about why we are justified in hating men.
-
https://twitter.com/JohnHMcWhorter/status/1012381505220501504
-
https://twitter.com/wesyang/status/1012418245826109440
https://twitter.com/LarrySabato/status/1013847861816184832
-
i don't think that large of a sex gap is sustainable, btw.
-
Probably white males feeling like they are being blamed for stuff they aren't personally responsible for, would be my guess.
that's the exact same hypothesis that yang was pushing (in the link that i linked).
More likely, 23% more millennial men have gotten jobs in this ridic Trump economy.
-
Probably white males feeling like they are being blamed for stuff they aren't personally responsible for, would be my guess.
that's the exact same hypothesis that yang was pushing (in the link that i linked).
More likely, 23% more millennial men have gotten jobs in this ridic Trump economy.
unemployment has gone down 0.7% since 2016, so could be part of it!
-
https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status/1013825279939104768?s=21
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status/1013825279939104768?s=21
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Conservative snl host central
-
I thought Sam Harris was libtarded but it’s hard to keep it all straight
-
Probably white males feeling like they are being blamed for stuff they aren't personally responsible for, would be my guess.
that's the exact same hypothesis that yang was pushing (in the link that i linked).
More likely, 23% more millennial men have gotten jobs in this ridic Trump economy.
But women haven't?
-
sam harris loves that camera more than life itself.
-
listened to both the jordan peterson rogan podcasts. i just don't get the controversial part of him. he desperately wants to tie everything back to leftist marxism, but he's mostly just boring.
-
I’m not a long term follower or anything so some ITT can say differently but I believe his thing is saying something reprehensible, seeing all the backlash, and preparing a defense of that thing based on “logic”. A live format isn’t going to work obv.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Weinstein and Harris are great, Rogan is decent. I can leave the rest.
-
Harris is probably as much or more controversial than Peterson but seems to be much less aggressive in seeking out publicity.
-
What's so controversial about Sam Harris? I used to listen to his podcast a lot, and aside from his views on Islam, I'm not sure what would get folks up in arms.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
-
I’m not sure if you are serious but if you are we could start here
Harris did with The Bell Curve author Charles Murray. In that interview, which first aired almost a year ago, the two argued that African Americans are, for a combination of genetic and environmental reasons, intrinsically and immutably less intelligent than white Americans,
-
I’m not sure if you are serious but if you are we could start here
Harris did with The Bell Curve author Charles Murray. In that interview, which first aired almost a year ago, the two argued that African Americans are, for a combination of genetic and environmental reasons, intrinsically and immutably less intelligent than white Americans,
You're going to have to point me to what he actually said, rather than someone else's questionable synopsis.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
-
Is this someone important ^^^^? Seems so but nobody seems to act that way. I see it a lot in my line of work, overly self confident usually means someone pretending to be someone they aren’t qualified to be.
-
Harris? He's pretty self-confident. But I've listened to a lot of his work, and if someone can show me that he said that African Americans are genetically and immutably less intelligent, then I will spin on a rough ridin' dime, and he will lose all credibility to me. I doubt he said that, though.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
-
Harris? He's pretty self-confident. But I've listened to a lot of his work, and if someone can show me that he said that African Americans are genetically and immutably less intelligent, then I will spin on a rough ridin' dime, and he will lose all credibility to me. I doubt he said that, though.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
I used to read Sam Harris. I became increasingly convinced that he really just wasn't anywhere nearly as smart as his own high self-conception.
There was a whole very online bruhaha about the Murray interview and then Sam got very mad about something Vox published and published his email correspondence with Ezra Klein (the same move he pulled with Chomsky) which made Harris look stupid in both cases. Harris subsequently had a podcast with Klein and came off very poorly again. Going toe to toe with Chomsky and looking foolish is one thing, but getting owned by Ezra freaking Klein is probably a lot to do with why he now considers the rest of the goofs at that table his peers.
-
I'll admit I haven't given him any attention in the past year. I'll look into it.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
-
I read the bell curve like 25 years ago when it came out and it is pure nazi trash
-
I’m not sure if you are serious but if you are we could start here
Harris did with The Bell Curve author Charles Murray. In that interview, which first aired almost a year ago, the two argued that African Americans are, for a combination of genetic and environmental reasons, intrinsically and immutably less intelligent than white Americans,
Yeah, if you actually listened you would find that to be about the most misleading version of a synopsis possible.
-
I’m not sure if you are serious but if you are we could start here
Harris did with The Bell Curve author Charles Murray. In that interview, which first aired almost a year ago, the two argued that African Americans are, for a combination of genetic and environmental reasons, intrinsically and immutably less intelligent than white Americans,
Yeah, if you actually listened you would find that to be about the most misleading version of a synopsis possible.
Why do these dweebs always seem to hold or lend a voice to questionable views and then argue that they don't actually support those views on a technically or a lack of context. I don't want to listen to a two hour podcast to understand why Harris doesn't really think blacks are less intelligent than whites on the technicality that he only supports the science and people have been unfairly mean to Charles Murray. (Or whatever his rationale for avoiding alignment with Murray is)
-
I’m not sure if you are serious but if you are we could start here
Harris did with The Bell Curve author Charles Murray. In that interview, which first aired almost a year ago, the two argued that African Americans are, for a combination of genetic and environmental reasons, intrinsically and immutably less intelligent than white Americans,
Yeah, if you actually listened you would find that to be about the most misleading version of a synopsis possible.
How would you articulate his viewpoints on the matter?
-
https://trib.al/mrPMHY2 (https://trib.al/mrPMHY2)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
https://twitter.com/zei_nabq/status/1016040736377196544
-
he's a weird guy for sure.
-
he's a weird guy for sure.
he just seems like he lies/makes stuff up a lot for a guy that says always be truthful.
-
https://twitter.com/jessesingal/status/1016388666061492225
-
I’m not sure if you are serious but if you are we could start here
Harris did with The Bell Curve author Charles Murray. In that interview, which first aired almost a year ago, the two argued that African Americans are, for a combination of genetic and environmental reasons, intrinsically and immutably less intelligent than white Americans,
Yeah, if you actually listened you would find that to be about the most misleading version of a synopsis possible.
How would you articulate his viewpoints on the matter?
Sorry, I missed this over the 4th, but this is part of my response from a text thread w/ a few people about the Klein/Harris spat a few months back. I think it holds reasonably well here:
On the podcast itself (which I listened to over a year ago) the main assertion agreed to by Harris was:
If intelligence is a measurable, heritable trait, we would expect there to be differences in populations of different races, as there are in other heritable traits.
Despite that, Harris says it would be immoral to judge an individual based on these population level trait differences, given the amount of overlap between populations and variance within the population.
Murray did cite research on the podcast, showing East Asians > White Americans > African-Americans in terms of measured intelligence at a population level.
I have not read the original research or Murray's book based on it. In what has been dug up about Murray since, it sounds like he may indeed be a racist piece of crap, but I don’t think you would come to that conclusion from this podcast unless you were trying to.
-
he's a weird guy for sure.
he just seems like he lies/makes stuff up a lot for a guy that says always be truthful.
There is another part of that podcast where he takes 5 minutes to tell this story of how he's walking in an LA barrio (very scary) and someone pulls up in a car and thanks him for changing their life. It's very trumpian.
-
he's a weird guy for sure.
he just seems like he lies/makes stuff up a lot for a guy that says always be truthful.
There is another part of that podcast where he takes 5 minutes to tell this story of how he's walking in an LA barrio (very scary) and someone pulls up in a car and thanks him for changing their life. It's very trumpian.
I do think his self-help stuff has helped a lot of people.
-
I think you missed my point. I have no doubt he has helped people, but this particular story was trumpian in its telling. I was expanding on the lies/makes stuff up point.
-
I think you missed my point. I have no doubt he has helped people, but this particular story was trumpian in its telling. I was expanding on the lies/makes stuff up point.
And I'm saying that it wouldn't shock me if the story was true.
People that like him tend to be pretty genuinely nuts about him. There's a reason he's selling out all of these venues and it's not just his seemingly hyperbolic political stances. His telling of the story may have been tacky/trumpian (i haven't heard the podcast so i don't know), but i definitely think it's believable that someone stopped him to shower him in praise or gratitude or whatever based on their belief that his advice improved their life in some way.
-
https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2018/07/09/nrcc-withdraws-support-new-jersey-congressional-candidate-and-right-wing-pundit-seth-grossman-over/220622
-
https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2018/07/09/nrcc-withdraws-support-new-jersey-congressional-candidate-and-right-wing-pundit-seth-grossman-over/220622
those sonsofbitches are trying to noplatform the poor dear.
-
https://twitter.com/aylonacohen/status/1016685568749719553
-
absurd. no way that would stand.
-
we have a majority on the Supreme Court that think the free speech rights of corporations are more important than those of individuals.
-
we have a majority on the Supreme Court that think the free speech rights of corporations are more important than those of individuals.
link?
-
Citizens United v. FEC
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/10/trump-supreme-court-nominee-brett-kavanaugh-net-neutrality-unlawful.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/10/trump-supreme-court-nominee-brett-kavanaugh-net-neutrality-unlawful.html)
Morse v Frederick
Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett
I mean there is lots of evidence this will continue to devolve.
-
Citizens United v. FEC
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/10/trump-supreme-court-nominee-brett-kavanaugh-net-neutrality-unlawful.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/10/trump-supreme-court-nominee-brett-kavanaugh-net-neutrality-unlawful.html)
Morse v Frederick
Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett
I mean there is lots of evidence this will continue to devolve.
protecting the right of corporations to speak does not imply that the rights of corporations are considered more important than the rights of individuals.
-
Citizens United v. FEC
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/10/trump-supreme-court-nominee-brett-kavanaugh-net-neutrality-unlawful.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/10/trump-supreme-court-nominee-brett-kavanaugh-net-neutrality-unlawful.html)
Morse v Frederick
Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett
I mean there is lots of evidence this will continue to devolve.
protecting the right of corporations to speak does not imply that the rights of corporations are considered more important than the rights of individuals.
It certainly worked out that way.
-
Citizens United v. FEC
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/10/trump-supreme-court-nominee-brett-kavanaugh-net-neutrality-unlawful.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/10/trump-supreme-court-nominee-brett-kavanaugh-net-neutrality-unlawful.html)
Morse v Frederick
Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett
I mean there is lots of evidence this will continue to devolve.
protecting the right of corporations to speak does not imply that the rights of corporations are considered more important than the rights of individuals.
how incredibly naive. like I said, they aren't finished with this project.
-
It certainly worked out that way.
no it hasn't. and from what i've read gorsuch and kavanaugh are both likely to be pretty protective of free speech rights across the board, so if anything, it is likely the court will be expanding speech freedoms.
-
how incredibly naive. like I said, they aren't finished with this project.
:rolleyes:
-
Morse v Frederick
Love the Morse v. Frederick case just because of the facts. "Bong hits 4 Jesus" is such a rebellious high schooler message.
Anyway I have no clue how you think that that case shows that the Court values corporations over individual speech. The case involved a high school punishing a student for holding a banner that said "bong hits 4 jesus" during some parade or something. I could go either way on the opinion (though I think they got it right), but i have no idea why you think that case involves corporations at all.
-
Just because the Court has in recent years expanded the scope corporations' First Amendment rights does not mean that those rights are superior to those of individuals. Data point to the contrary: Commercial speech enjoys a lower level of protection than individual speech.
-
Morse v Frederick
Love the Morse v. Frederick case just because of the facts. "Bong hits 4 Jesus" is such a rebellious high schooler message.
Anyway I have no clue how you think that that case shows that the Court values corporations over individual speech. The case involved a high school punishing a student for holding a banner that said "bong hits 4 jesus" during some parade or something. I could go either way on the opinion (though I think they got it right), but i have no idea why you think that case involves corporations at all.
I don think it involves corporations.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Just because the Court has in recent years expanded the scope corporations' First Amendment rights does not mean that those rights are superior to those of individuals. Data point to the contrary: Commercial speech enjoys a lower level of protection than individual speech.
I think Janus fits in here too as a perversion of free speech rights. It isn’t without some contrived nuance, we are talking about the Supreme Court here, but the big winners have been corporate interests at every turn. The Mcdonnel corruption case fits perfectly in here too, as the court not only views money as speech, they also view the bar to proving corruption as so high as to be almost impossible despite no one being able to look at our system and say corporate money does not play an enormous corrupting role in public policy. Trees for the forest and the bear is shitting over all of it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
https://www.kansas.com/news/state/article214705000.html
-
Morse v Frederick
Love the Morse v. Frederick case just because of the facts. "Bong hits 4 Jesus" is such a rebellious high schooler message.
Anyway I have no clue how you think that that case shows that the Court values corporations over individual speech. The case involved a high school punishing a student for holding a banner that said "bong hits 4 jesus" during some parade or something. I could go either way on the opinion (though I think they got it right), but i have no idea why you think that case involves corporations at all.
I don think it involves corporations.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Well you listed it in response to my question asking for examples of the Court valuing corporate speech over individuals' speech, so...
also, Janus didn't involve corporate speech at all. corporations indirectly benefited, but it had nothing to do with corporations' speech.
You seem mostly frustrated with the effects of Citizens' United and the amount of money in politics. That's a legitimate frustration, but i think that frustration is different than your original claim that the court values corporate speech over individual speech.
-
https://www.kansas.com/news/state/article214705000.html
“The disrespectful display of a desecrated American flag on the KU campus is absolutely unacceptable. Men and women have fought and bled for that flag and to use it in this manner is beyond disrespectful," Colyer said in a statement.
This crap right here is the kind of stuff that really puts a burr in my gruns. No one fought and bled for a piece of cloth. America is not a flag. Flag-worshiping is truly a bizarre behavior. Worse, it's a dangerous idea that can, in the aggregate, justify horrible behavior.
-
Morse v Frederick
Love the Morse v. Frederick case just because of the facts. "Bong hits 4 Jesus" is such a rebellious high schooler message.
Anyway I have no clue how you think that that case shows that the Court values corporations over individual speech. The case involved a high school punishing a student for holding a banner that said "bong hits 4 jesus" during some parade or something. I could go either way on the opinion (though I think they got it right), but i have no idea why you think that case involves corporations at all.
I don think it involves corporations.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Well you listed it in response to my question asking for examples of the Court valuing corporate speech over individuals' speech, so...
also, Janus didn't involve corporate speech at all. corporations indirectly benefited, but it had nothing to do with corporations' speech.
You seem mostly frustrated with the effects of Citizens' United and the amount of money in politics. That's a legitimate frustration, but i think that frustration is different than your original claim that the court values corporate speech over individual speech.
I listed it because it dealt with limiting individual speech.
Next, try re-reading your last paragraph and see if you can figure out how that relates.
Are you being this obtuse on purpose?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Morse v Frederick
Love the Morse v. Frederick case just because of the facts. "Bong hits 4 Jesus" is such a rebellious high schooler message.
Anyway I have no clue how you think that that case shows that the Court values corporations over individual speech. The case involved a high school punishing a student for holding a banner that said "bong hits 4 jesus" during some parade or something. I could go either way on the opinion (though I think they got it right), but i have no idea why you think that case involves corporations at all.
I don think it involves corporations.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Well you listed it in response to my question asking for examples of the Court valuing corporate speech over individuals' speech, so...
also, Janus didn't involve corporate speech at all. corporations indirectly benefited, but it had nothing to do with corporations' speech.
You seem mostly frustrated with the effects of Citizens' United and the amount of money in politics. That's a legitimate frustration, but i think that frustration is different than your original claim that the court values corporate speech over individual speech.
I listed it because it dealt with limiting individual speech. Are you being this obtuse on purpose?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No - I just don't understand how it's at all relevant. maybe i misunderstood your point. your original post made it sound like you thought recent jurisprudence was valuing corporate speech at the expense of individual speech. i was just confused as to how you thought janus fit into that zero sum game.
OTOH, if your post meant to show that (1) the court has recently placed an increased value on corporate speech; and (2) the court has treated individual speech mostly how it always has, then yeah - no argument from me on that one.
-
Morse is a bad example. If you want to hang a "Bong hits for Jesus" banner on your home, the government can't punish you (though your HOA might). That case hinges on the fact that it was in a school setting, and even though the Court says that children don't surrender their rights at the schoolhouse door, they pretty much do, to a degree. As a matter or prudence, public school children can't have carte blanche to behave however they want and then raise the First Amendment as a shield simply because it's "expressive conduct."
-
Morse v Frederick
Love the Morse v. Frederick case just because of the facts. "Bong hits 4 Jesus" is such a rebellious high schooler message.
Anyway I have no clue how you think that that case shows that the Court values corporations over individual speech. The case involved a high school punishing a student for holding a banner that said "bong hits 4 jesus" during some parade or something. I could go either way on the opinion (though I think they got it right), but i have no idea why you think that case involves corporations at all.
I don think it involves corporations.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Well you listed it in response to my question asking for examples of the Court valuing corporate speech over individuals' speech, so...
also, Janus didn't involve corporate speech at all. corporations indirectly benefited, but it had nothing to do with corporations' speech.
You seem mostly frustrated with the effects of Citizens' United and the amount of money in politics. That's a legitimate frustration, but i think that frustration is different than your original claim that the court values corporate speech over individual speech.
I listed it because it dealt with limiting individual speech. Are you being this obtuse on purpose?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No - I just don't understand how it's at all relevant. maybe i misunderstood your point. your original post made it sound like you thought recent jurisprudence was valuing corporate speech at the expense of individual speech. i was just confused as to how you thought janus fit into that zero sum game.
OTOH, if your post meant to show that (1) the court has recently placed an increased value on corporate speech; and (2) the court has treated individual speech mostly how it always has, then yeah - no argument from me on that one.
I was basically making the second point, albeit noting the discrepancy between how much they’ve exploded vs what I saw as a pretty straightforward Tinker update.
Sorry for calling you an idiot.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
https://www.thefire.org/kansas-officials-demand-university-of-kansas-remove-american-flag-artwork/
-
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2018/jul/12/kansas-governor-orders-19-extra-flags-flown-at-statehouse-after-ku-art-flap/
:lol:
-
https://www.thefire.org/kansas-officials-demand-university-of-kansas-remove-american-flag-artwork/
A good example of suppression of expression from the Right.
-
It's the left's equivalent of Kobach's giant machine gun
-
https://www.thefire.org/kansas-officials-demand-university-of-kansas-remove-american-flag-artwork/
A good example of suppression of expression from the Right.
worth noting this example features the current governor and his top Republican challenger leveraging the power of the state to suppress free speech as opposed some college kids in a campus organization leveraging their voices to interrupt a speaker.
but #bothsides
-
https://www.thefire.org/kansas-officials-demand-university-of-kansas-remove-american-flag-artwork/
A good example of suppression of expression from the Right.
worth noting this example features the current governor and his top Republican challenger leveraging the power of the state to suppress free speech as opposed some college kids in a campus organization leveraging their voices to interrupt a speaker.
but #bothsides
fwiw, I don't like this either fwiw.
-
https://www.thefire.org/kansas-officials-demand-university-of-kansas-remove-american-flag-artwork/
A good example of suppression of expression from the Right.
worth noting this example features the current governor and his top Republican challenger leveraging the power of the state to suppress free speech as opposed some college kids in a campus organization leveraging their voices to interrupt a speaker.
but #bothsides
fwiw, I don't like this either fwiw.
I think it’s all a bunch of bunk
-
https://twitter.com/jessesingal/status/1017778314386333697
-
IMO the American Flag has been desecrated ever since they added all those extra stars to it.
But I guess I shouldn't expect anyone else to be a true patriot like myself.
-
https://twitter.com/TheFIREorg/status/1018947627998572544
-
obama starting another race war. smdh.
https://twitter.com/ABC/status/1019233996943683591
-
Most divisive president oat
-
good job, obummer.
-
https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/913531363915128832
-
What does that even mean?
-
What does that even mean?
I read it as him saying that society tells women that they need to go out and be career-driven and independent but most women, by nature, have a subconscious maternal desire.
-
What does that even mean?
it's a research hypothesis to the question that has been vexing dr. peterson for some time now. why are bitches crazy?
-
What does that even mean?
it's a research hypothesis to the question that has been vexing dr. peterson for some time now. why are bitches crazy?
Dr. Peterson has never shied away from humanity's most difficult questions.
-
I think we just need a infant petting zoo. I would like to do a startup and secure $1 billion in investment which should be no problem once I do a little research on how to get Jordan Peterson's endorsement.
-
ICE is already on board to supply some infants.
-
I think we just need a infant petting zoo. I would like to do a startup and secure $1 billion in investment which should be no problem once I do a little research on how to get Jordan Peterson's endorsement.
:confused:
-
I was just riffing off the "infant contact" line. Peterson's phrasing here is, as always, bizarre.
-
I was just riffing off the "infant contact" line. Peterson's phrasing here is, as always, bizarre.
ah, yeah. your joke went over my head
-
you ever notice how women love to shop?
-
you ever notice how women love to shop?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHyeXrPUhLY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHyeXrPUhLY)
-
The IDW grows
https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/18/politics/kfile-jason-lewis/index.html
-
i didn't even know we couldn't call them sluts anymore.
-
holy crap. world's colliding here.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/turtle-scientists-award-pulled-after-bikini-shot-controversy
-
very important free speech discussion to be had around being able to put pics of topless babes in my academic turtle conference PowerPoint.
-
it's all fun and games on the internet until it comes for the herpetologists.
-
A great reminder that the kids are alright and the disdain for youth by grumpy adults is eternal.
https://twitter.com/calluna_/status/1020031158455848960
-
the clash of civilizations is a self-proclaimed rationalist trying to figure out wtf j. peterson is trying to say.
https://twitter.com/classiclib3ral/status/1020216326537842690
-
What an incredible self-own.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
These are very important people
-
So now we are chasing down comedians for offensive jokes and skits (Trevor Noah, Dan Harmon)... pathetic. :jerk:
-
So now we are chasing down comedians for offensive jokes and skits (Trevor Noah, Dan Harmon)... pathetic. :jerk:
Trumpers are chasing them down.
-
yep. it all sucks.
-
https://twitter.com/mjbsp/status/1021758400462381056
-
https://twitter.com/mjbsp/status/1021758400462381056
it's only a negative outcome if it comes at the expense of the effort to promote equality and reduce bias, otherwise it's just a fact. you can recognize that the idea of race as a social construct is complete garbage and still love your fellow man.
-
https://twitter.com/mjbsp/status/1021758400462381056
it's only a negative outcome if it comes at the expense of the effort to promote equality and reduce bias, otherwise it's just a fact. you can recognize that the idea of race as a social construct is complete garbage and still love your fellow man.
What race is Barack Obama?
-
muslim
-
I thought everyone agreed race is an immutable characteristic. Like, isn't that why racial discrimination is so bad compared to other forms of discrimination?
-
I thought everyone agreed race is an immutable characteristic. Like, isn't that why racial discrimination is so bad compared to other forms of discrimination?
I mean:
In 1890, the state of Louisiana passed the Separate Car Act, which required separate accommodations for blacks and whites on railroads, including separate railway cars.[6] Concerned, a group of prominent black, creole, and white New Orleans residents formed the Comité des Citoyens (Committee of Citizens) dedicated to repeal the law or fight its effect.[7] They persuaded Homer Plessy, a man of mixed race, to participate in an orchestrated test case. Plessy was born a free man and was an "octoroon" (of seven-eighths European descent and one-eighth African descent). However, under Louisiana law, he was classified as black, and thus required to sit in the "colored" car.[8]
-
https://twitter.com/mjbsp/status/1021758400462381056
it's only a negative outcome if it comes at the expense of the effort to promote equality and reduce bias, otherwise it's just a fact. you can recognize that the idea of race as a social construct is complete garbage and still love your fellow man.
What race is Barack Obama?
whatever his 23&me says. any more brain busters?
-
https://twitter.com/mjbsp/status/1021758400462381056
it's only a negative outcome if it comes at the expense of the effort to promote equality and reduce bias, otherwise it's just a fact. you can recognize that the idea of race as a social construct is complete garbage and still love your fellow man.
What race is Barack Obama?
whatever his 23&me says. any more brain busters?
lol, 23 and me doesn't have a "race" test you goof.
-
https://twitter.com/mjbsp/status/1021758400462381056
it's only a negative outcome if it comes at the expense of the effort to promote equality and reduce bias, otherwise it's just a fact. you can recognize that the idea of race as a social construct is complete garbage and still love your fellow man.
What race is Barack Obama?
whatever his 23&me says. any more brain busters?
lol, 23 and me doesn't have a "race" test you goof.
:dubious:
-
https://twitter.com/mjbsp/status/1021758400462381056
what does "exposed to colorblindness" mean? As in they only interact with one race?
-
multicultural and colorblindness, as used in the blurb, are defined in the blurb right above the blue part.
-
I like to quote my good buddy Michael Tait in troubling times such as these.
We're colored people, and we live in a tainted place
We're colored people, and they call us the human race
-
I’m struggling with the entire statement tbh, but I’m really struggling with the part suggesting that “decreased belief that racial equality is a problem” is apparently counter to the concept of multiculturalism.
-
https://twitter.com/willwilkinson/status/1023234925737267203
-
https://twitter.com/willwilkinson/status/1023234925737267203
I liked that article
-
https://twitter.com/glukianoff/status/1022933321448415243
-
Another thread
https://twitter.com/damonayoung/status/1023330328683790336?s=21
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
https://twitter.com/willwilkinson/status/1023234925737267203
I liked that article
Yes. Interesting article.
I think identity politics are bad because identity politics devalue individuals' agency and lead to more division based on race, which I view as arbitrary. I think the biases that encourage identity politics are bad for the same reasons (e.g. white racists). If the response to racial bias is more racial bias, I don't think that helps anything.
I also think the twitter polls at issue in the article are a little silly. I think a possible (and imo, the proper) response to demographic shits is to be neutral about them.
-
https://twitter.com/willwilkinson/status/1023234925737267203
I liked that article
Yes. Interesting article.
I think identity politics are bad because identity politics devalue individuals' agency and leads to more division based on race, which I view as arbitrary. I think the biases that encourage identity politics are bad for the same reasons. If the response to racial bias is more racial bias, I don't think that helps anything.
I also think the twitter polls at issue in the article are a little silly. I think a possible (and imo, the proper) response to demographic shits is to be neutral about them.
:eek:
-
:eek:
-
https://twitter.com/willwilkinson/status/1023234925737267203
I liked that article
Yes. Interesting article.
I think identity politics are bad because identity politics devalue individuals' agency and lead to more division based on race, which I view as arbitrary. I think the biases that encourage identity politics are bad for the same reasons (e.g. white racists). If the response to racial bias is more racial bias, I don't think that helps anything.
I also think the twitter polls at issue in the article are a little silly. I think a possible (and imo, the proper) response to demographic shits is to be neutral about them.
Yeah the polls seem pretty silly but that's kind of the point. And as the article mentioned, white males is the only group that doesn't have to engage in identity politics, so it makes sense that you wouldn't like it.
White men bridle at the notion of being part of a tribe or engaging in identity politics. (Ahem.) Alone among social groups, they are allowed the illusion that they have only their own bespoke identity, that they are pure freethinkers, citizens, unburdened and uninfluenced by collective baggage (unique and precious “snowflakes,” if you will).
No one else is allowed to think that — at least not for long, before they are reminded again that they are, in the eyes of their country, little more than their identity, their asterisk. No one else gets to pretend their politics are free of identity.
-
Yeah the polls seem pretty silly but that's kind of the point. And as the article mentioned, white males is the only group that doesn't have to engage in identity politics, so it makes sense that you wouldn't like it.
White men bridle at the notion of being part of a tribe or engaging in identity politics. (Ahem.) Alone among social groups, they are allowed the illusion that they have only their own bespoke identity, that they are pure freethinkers, citizens, unburdened and uninfluenced by collective baggage (unique and precious “snowflakes,” if you will).
No one else is allowed to think that — at least not for long, before they are reminded again that they are, in the eyes of their country, little more than their identity, their asterisk. No one else gets to pretend their politics are free of identity.
Right, I saw that in the article. And I'm not sure I understand it. A lot of white people do engage in identity politics. Richard Spencer and his ilk certainly do. The 82% who responded to his poll did. Racist cops and politicians and whoever else do. People who look sideways at a black guy who walks into a store do. You get my point.
I think what the author is implicitly getting at isn't merely "white people should be engaged in identity politics," but rather "white people should be engaged in identity politics and adopt identity political views with those of non-whites." which are two very different things that lead to two very different outcomes. from a game theory perspective, i think it's a bad idea to encourage more identity politics -- particularly from white people.
I think the more direct solution is for us to treat everyone as if they have their "own bespoke identity, that they are pure freethinkers, citizens, unburdened and uninfluenced by collective baggage." maybe that's naive, but i think it's a more realistic remedy than the one the article seems to suggest.
-
Except for women, who all want to touch babies.
-
Yeah the polls seem pretty silly but that's kind of the point. And as the article mentioned, white males is the only group that doesn't have to engage in identity politics, so it makes sense that you wouldn't like it.
White men bridle at the notion of being part of a tribe or engaging in identity politics. (Ahem.) Alone among social groups, they are allowed the illusion that they have only their own bespoke identity, that they are pure freethinkers, citizens, unburdened and uninfluenced by collective baggage (unique and precious “snowflakes,” if you will).
No one else is allowed to think that — at least not for long, before they are reminded again that they are, in the eyes of their country, little more than their identity, their asterisk. No one else gets to pretend their politics are free of identity.
Right, I saw that in the article. And I'm not sure I understand it. A lot of white people do engage in identity politics. Richard Spencer and his ilk certainly do. The 82% who responded to his poll did. Racist cops and politicians and whoever else do. People who look sideways at a black guy who walks into a store do. You get my point.
I think what the author is implicitly getting at isn't merely "white people should be engaged in identity politics," but rather "white people should be engaged in identity politics and adopt identity political views with those of non-whites." which are two very different things that lead to two very different outcomes. from a game theory perspective, i think it's a bad idea to encourage more identity politics -- particularly from white people.
I think the more direct solution is for us to treat everyone as if they have their "own bespoke identity, that they are pure freethinkers, citizens, unburdened and uninfluenced by collective baggage." maybe that's naive, but i think it's a more realistic remedy than the one the article seems to suggest.
Another way to look at it is white people have always engaged in identity politics and are only now having to recognize and "fight" for their identity as it shrinks. Declaring (starting now) that everyone has their "own bespoke identity, that they are pure freethinkers, citizens, unburdened and uninfluenced by collective baggage" is white male identity politics at its finest. (and yes I think you're naive if you think non white males are unburdened and uninfluenced by "collective baggage", regardless of how you define it)
What primes white people is simply the reminder that they are white people — that they are, and will increasingly be, one group of Americans among others, with particular interests, settling differences via democracy.
Right now, the white maleocracy is clinging to power, with disproportionate wealth and representation in Congress relative to its size. And all the while, its leaders decry identity politics. They are used to being the default setting, people with no asterisks, no baggage, and they are extremely loath to give that up.
In fact, they want their America, the America where white dominance is so ubiquitous as to be unremarkable, back. They keep saying so.
As many have pointed out and this political era has made painfully clear, to a dominant demographic, the loss of privilege feels like persecution. Being just one group among many feels like losing. After all, what good is being white in the US, especially among poor whites, if some third-generation Ugandan immigrant has just as much control over their fate as they have over hers? If a poll asks whether they’re any good for her, rather than the other way around?
For the dominant group, being judged and asked to justify itself, as so many subaltern groups are judged and asked to justify themselves, feels like an insult. If you doubt that, go read this Twitter thread.
-
Another way to look at it is white people have always engaged in identity politics and are only now having to recognize and "fight" for their identity as it shrinks. Declaring (starting now) that everyone has their "own bespoke identity, that they are pure freethinkers, citizens, unburdened and uninfluenced by collective baggage" is white male identity politics at its finest. (and yes I think you're naive if you think non white males are unburdened and uninfluenced by "collective baggage", regardless of how you define it)
Yes, I agree with the bold portion. And I think that spirit is fueling a lot of the alt-right stuff -- which i think is a bad, though predictable consequence of encouraging everyone to act based on their own racial identity.
And my position isn't that everyone is "unburdened and uninfluenced by collective baggage." I'm saying that we should treat individuals the same regardless of their race and that we shouldn't assume things about individuals (how they will act, what they believe, etc.) based on their race. I know that's a tall order.
-
You will never, never take my privilege away from me.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
-
https://twitter.com/willwilkinson/status/1023234925737267203
I liked that article
Yes. Interesting article.
I think identity politics are bad because identity politics devalue individuals' agency and leads to more division based on race, which I view as arbitrary. I think the biases that encourage identity politics are bad for the same reasons. If the response to racial bias is more racial bias, I don't think that helps anything.
I also think the twitter polls at issue in the article are a little silly. I think a possible (and imo, the proper) response to demographic shits is to be neutral about them.
:eek:
:lol:
-
:eek:
:ROFL:
-
And my position isn't that everyone is "unburdened and uninfluenced by collective baggage." I'm saying that we should treat individuals the same regardless of their race and that we shouldn't assume things about individuals (how they will act, what they believe, etc.) based on their race. I know that's a tall order.
I wonder if any "identity politics" group other than white males thinks this is realistic or practical.
-
And my position isn't that everyone is "unburdened and uninfluenced by collective baggage." I'm saying that we should treat individuals the same regardless of their race and that we shouldn't assume things about individuals (how they will act, what they believe, etc.) based on their race. I know that's a tall order.
I wonder if any "identity politics" group other than white males thinks this is realistic or practical.
this, btw, is exactly the difference btwn ordering a society along a "colorblind" ideal vs a "multicultural" ideal that the other study i posted a tweet of a while back was talking about.
-
And my position isn't that everyone is "unburdened and uninfluenced by collective baggage." I'm saying that we should treat individuals the same regardless of their race and that we shouldn't assume things about individuals (how they will act, what they believe, etc.) based on their race. I know that's a tall order.
I wonder if any "identity politics" group other than white males thinks this is realistic or practical.
this, btw, is exactly the difference btwn ordering a society along a "colorblind" ideal vs a "multicultural" ideal that the other study i posted a tweet of a while back was talking about.
I wonder where the colorblind societies were.
-
france is usually used as the best example. us and uk as multicultural examples.
-
oh, you meant in the study. it'd probably help if you opened it up and read the paper instead of just the tweet.
-
oh, you meant in the study. it'd probably help if you opened it up and read the paper instead of just the tweet.
Good idea but behind a paywall. I honestly didn't realize France and the UK had significantly different views when it came to multiculturalist and colorblindness. Sounds interesting, I'll look into it.
-
oh, you meant in the study. it'd probably help if you opened it up and read the paper instead of just the tweet.
Good idea but behind a paywall. I honestly didn't realize France and the UK had significantly different views when it came to multiculturalist and colorblindness. Sounds interesting, I'll look into it.
This is a good read:
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/race-policy-in-france/
Political leaders are nonetheless aware that race and ethnicity matter. To counter problems of ethnic disadvantage, they have constructed policies aimed at geographical areas or at social classes that disproportionately contain large number of minorities. The Educational Priority Zones (ZEP) initiative, for example, funnels supplemental money to disadvantaged school districts, many of which contain elevated numbers of immigrant ethnic minorities and their children. However, politicians and policymakers have insisted that the goals of such policies are to better the lives of localities or of all people in need, and have avoided highlighting the racial and ethnic implications of their initiatives. So far, this has been relatively successful, in that there have been few outcries among whites against such policies, even though the far right National Front party (led by Jean-Marie Le Pen) has won many votes based on relatively widespread anti-immigrant sentiment.
French leaders have also dealt with the challenges of racial and ethnic pluralism through anti-racist laws and policies. The law of 1972 continues to form the foundation of France’s national institutions. I contains four principal elements. First, it bans hate speech, making racial defamation and provocation to racial hatred or violence punishable by criminal law. Second, it outlaws discrimination in employment and in provision of goods and services by public or private actors, also making these criminal offences. Third, it establishes provisions that allow the state to ban groups that seek to promote racism. Fourth, it institutionalized the legal role of non-governmental anti-racist associations as partners in fighting racism, permitting them to instigate and to take part in court cases of racism as “civil parties”—an official status that confers rights on associations-even when they have not been directly harmed.
-
America's newspaper of record standing up for free speech (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sarah-jeong-new-york-times-tweets_us_5b633c12e4b0b15abaa0e80e)
(https://i.imgur.com/TMfT3Gv.png)
what the new york times lady actually only said:
(https://www.redstate.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/jeong-tweets1.jpg)
-
(https://scontent-sjc3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/38152723_656969694688365_6175001749930115072_n.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=1f42c092ef184300bade45b2b83a7135&oe=5C0F7882)
-
America's newspaper of record standing up for free speech (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sarah-jeong-new-york-times-tweets_us_5b633c12e4b0b15abaa0e80e)
I'm not sure I understand. Is it not already well understood that "white people" are pretty much fair game for "racial" jokes, or do people just think that is a problem?
-
i think the nyt response was appropriate. same w. re. to the milwaukee brewers and their player. and i thought it was inappropriate when the atlantic fired that one anti-abortion writer guy.
otoh, the crowd that standing o'd the baseball player and the dudes that were out saying the tweets were not just non-fireable but were actually good are dumbasses.
-
(https://scontent-sjc3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/38152723_656969694688365_6175001749930115072_n.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=1f42c092ef184300bade45b2b83a7135&oe=5C0F7882)
Ha! Wrong thread!
-
i think the nyt response was appropriate. same w. re. to the milwaukee brewers and their player. and i thought it was inappropriate when the atlantic fired that one anti-abortion writer guy.
otoh, the crowd that standing o'd the baseball player and the dudes that were out saying the tweets were not just non-fireable but were actually good are dumbasses.
#CancelWhitePeople made me laugh
-
https://twitter.com/FBillMcMorris/status/1025090561424977920
-
https://twitter.com/FBillMcMorris/status/1025090561424977920
That made me laugh too!
-
One other point of irony is she went after/celebrated Matt Bruenig getting fired for a tweet.
-
One other point of irony is she went after/celebrated Matt Bruenig getting fired for a tweet.
she did that aids joke flight woman too.
people that know her all seem to like her tho. afaik, i've never read anything she's written.
-
A take
https://amp.slate.com/culture/2018/08/the-ny-times-response-to-sarah-jeongs-controversial-tweets-blames-bigotry-on-many-sides.html?__twitter_impression=true
-
the "she was joking, you dumbfucks" defenses are good. the "even if she wasn't joking, the tweets are fine" defenses are bad.
-
One other point of irony is she went after/celebrated Matt Bruenig getting fired for a tweet.
she did that aids joke flight woman too.
people that know her all seem to like her tho. afaik, i've never read anything she's written.
yeah I am agnostic to her in general and as the "victim" of her tweets I think I am able to assert my own right to not be offended.
-
sys what about her cop tweets
https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1025409145418252288?s=19
-
sys what about her cop tweets
good and valuable social commentary.
-
The cop ones seem much more sarcastic :th_twocents:
-
There truly is a striking contrast here.
https://twitter.com/MikeIsaac/status/1025402158223568898
-
the "she was joking, you dumbfucks" defenses are good. the "even if she wasn't joking, the tweets are fine" defenses are bad.
I keep seeing that the tweets were jokes and are being taken out of context, but I haven't seen anyone describe the humor in the jokes or try to contextualize them.
Is she just doing race related troll stuff?
EDIT: Found it. The explanation appears to be that whites are proper punching bags:
Making jokes about white people isn’t the same as making racist jokes about black people, or Asian people, or Jews, or gay people, or any other historically oppressed minority. This is a very simple principle, but one that many aggrieved whites find difficult to accept. You can’t say, “Well, imagine if you replaced ‘white’ with ‘black’ in those tweets,” because those two things are not equally replaceable. As much as you might find it desperately oppressive to not be able to use the n-word when you sing along to rap songs, there has never been a government-endorsed legal or societal campaign of oppression against whites. White people can be oppressed by other means, such as through gender or economics, but whites in the U.S. have never been systematically oppressed on the basis of their race alone.
https://splinternews.com/the-new-york-times-really-mumped-this-one-up-1828061129 (https://splinternews.com/the-new-york-times-really-mumped-this-one-up-1828061129)
That article is linked to by Rusty's article in which the writer said the tweets were jokes.
-
I keep seeing that the tweets were jokes and are being taken out of context, but I haven't seen anyone describe the humor in the jokes or try to contextualize them.
i dunno if it's possible to recover the context into which she tweeted her tweets. one of the ways good old fashioned message boards are superior to twitter.
but if you read a bit of her recent (precontroversy) tweets, you get a sense of her personality and thinking. when you do so, it becomes pretty apparent that she must have been joking.
-
Do people really need the difference between Sarah Jeong and Richard Spencer explained to them? I know I don't have the energy to deal with that level of willful ignorance.
-
I keep seeing that the tweets were jokes and are being taken out of context, but I haven't seen anyone describe the humor in the jokes or try to contextualize them.
i dunno if it's possible to recover the context into which she tweeted her tweets. one of the ways good old fashioned message boards are superior to twitter.
but if you read a bit of her recent (precontroversy) tweets, you get a sense of her personality and thinking. when you do so, it becomes pretty apparent that she must have been joking.
And I concede that she may have been joking and may not really harbor any feelings of hatred or dislike of white people generally. But somehow, I don't think the "I was kidding!" excuse would fly if the butt of her jokes were any race other than white people.
We've hashed this out ITT before, but i think the double standard is pretty indefensible.
-
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/8/3/17644180/political-correctness-free-speech-liberal-data-georgetown?utm_campaign=vox&utm_content=chorus&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/8/3/17644180/political-correctness-free-speech-liberal-data-georgetown?utm_campaign=vox&utm_content=chorus&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter)
-
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/8/3/17644180/political-correctness-free-speech-liberal-data-georgetown?utm_campaign=vox&utm_content=chorus&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/8/3/17644180/political-correctness-free-speech-liberal-data-georgetown?utm_campaign=vox&utm_content=chorus&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter)
good evidence for how stupid the narrative that the first amendment is a tool of the right is.
-
I think the vox article overstates the significance of the data analysis. The Vox author keeps coming back to the relatively small number of incidents analyzed by the data analysis in light of the thousands of colleges across the country. But the data analysis clearly states "Some disclaimers are warranted here: The selection of incidents documented on the Free Speech Tracker is by no means comprehensive and never will be. The results thus far are anecdotal, and despite efforts to avoid it, there could be a selection bias in the incidents chosen. And the classification of people whose expression is compromised as being on the “right” or the “left” may well be subjective and arbitrary."
In other words, I think it's wrong to look at the raw number of "speech incidents" included in the data analysis as if it's anything other than a representative sample. Whether or not it's actually "representative" is also not clear given the author's qualifier re. selection bias.
That said, I do think it's important to note that people on the left are also having their rights threatened and violated. Hopefully that wakes the left up to realize that protection of speech rights is a bipartisan issue.
-
This is their idea of payback for having their favorite TV show cancelled.
-
Do people really need the difference between Sarah Jeong and Richard Spencer explained to them? I know I don't have the energy to deal with that level of willful ignorance.
Yes, they do. (Or rather, they dlew) :cool:
-
I understand the difference between Spencer and Jeong. A better question would be the difference between Jeong and Rosanne -- other than one's an actual comedian and the other is on the editorial board of the New York Times.
-
I understand the difference between Spencer and Jeong. A better question would be the difference between Jeong and Rosanne -- other than one's an actual comedian and the other is on the editorial board of the New York Times.
Could you explain what the difference is between Jeong and Spencer?
Could you explain the difference between Roseanne and Spencer?
-
former almost presidential candidate d french had a nice article that articulated the difference between different examples of racism without engaging in the sophistry that lesser examples are benign. can't recall if he also mentioned the joking aspect of the jeong tweets, but if he didn't, i would also add that in as important.
-
I understand the difference between Spencer and Jeong. A better question would be the difference between Jeong and Rosanne -- other than one's an actual comedian and the other is on the editorial board of the New York Times.
Could you explain what the difference is between Jeong and Spencer?
Could you explain the difference between Roseanne and Spencer?
Spencer is militant and doesn't profess to be kidding about his racist remarks. He couches his statements in a warped sociological philosophy.
Jeong and Roseanne aren't militant and both professed to be kidding about their remarks. I think the differences between Jeong and Roseanne are more subtle (to the extent they exist at all), which is why I brought Roseanne up.
I'm certainly not here to defend Roseanne. I don't give a crap about her and I think she's probably does hold some ugly views about black people regardless of whether she gave the "just kidding!" defense afterward. The thing is, I think the same thing about Jeong with regard to white people. I don't care that Roseanne got fired, and I don't care about the NYT response. Those entities can navigate their brands how they see fit.
I just can't reconcile how someone could call for Roseanne's head but go to bat for Jeong.
-
former almost presidential candidate d french had a nice article that articulated the difference between different examples of racism without engaging in the sophistry that lesser examples are benign. can't recall if he also mentioned the joking aspect of the jeong tweets, but if he didn't, i would also add that in as important.
Not innocent in virtue of being a lesser example. Innocent in virtue of appearing so without need for further articulation. Like I said, if it appears otherwise to someone else, I'm not interested in hearing about it. I'm similarly not interested in hearing about why the sky is actually green.
-
https://twitter.com/harrythop/status/1025526444472979456?s=21
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
https://twitter.com/harrythop/status/1025526444472979456?s=21
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
LOL
-
I understand the difference between Spencer and Jeong. A better question would be the difference between Jeong and Rosanne -- other than one's an actual comedian and the other is on the editorial board of the New York Times.
Could you explain what the difference is between Jeong and Spencer?
Could you explain the difference between Roseanne and Spencer?
Spencer is militant and doesn't profess to be kidding about his racist remarks. He couches his statements in a warped sociological philosophy.
Jeong and Roseanne aren't militant and both professed to be kidding about their remarks. I think the differences between Jeong and Roseanne are more subtle (to the extent they exist at all), which is why I brought Roseanne up.
I'm certainly not here to defend Roseanne. I don't give a crap about her and I think she's probably does hold some ugly views about black people regardless of whether she gave the "just kidding!" defense afterward. The thing is, I think the same thing about Jeong with regard to white people. I don't care that Roseanne got fired, and I don't care about the NYT response. Those entities can navigate their brands how they see fit.
I just can't reconcile how someone could call for Roseanne's head but go to bat for Jeong.
Because one is clearly worse. Like, it's not even close.
Roseanne also had a higher profile when the tweets were sent, which is relevant. As awful as it can be, the Times Editorial board wouldn't stand for Jeong making those tweets today .
-
https://twitter.com/harrythop/status/1025526444472979456?s=21
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
i don't think he said that but there's some science that does?
-
LOL
i didn't figure out the connection based on sd's cartoons, for some reason. i had to look elsewhere on twitter. if anyone else was similarly slow, someone figured out the context of one of the 2014 tweets - it was making fun of sullivan. 4 years later, hilarity ensued.
-
Is bubz a race realist?
-
I understand the difference between Spencer and Jeong. A better question would be the difference between Jeong and Rosanne -- other than one's an actual comedian and the other is on the editorial board of the New York Times.
Could you explain what the difference is between Jeong and Spencer?
Could you explain the difference between Roseanne and Spencer?
Spencer is militant and doesn't profess to be kidding about his racist remarks. He couches his statements in a warped sociological philosophy.
Jeong and Roseanne aren't militant and both professed to be kidding about their remarks. I think the differences between Jeong and Roseanne are more subtle (to the extent they exist at all), which is why I brought Roseanne up.
I'm certainly not here to defend Roseanne. I don't give a crap about her and I think she's probably does hold some ugly views about black people regardless of whether she gave the "just kidding!" defense afterward. The thing is, I think the same thing about Jeong with regard to white people. I don't care that Roseanne got fired, and I don't care about the NYT response. Those entities can navigate their brands how they see fit.
I just can't reconcile how someone could call for Roseanne's head but go to bat for Jeong.
Because one is clearly worse. Like, it's not even close.
Roseanne also had a higher profile when the tweets were sent, which is relevant. As awful as it can be, the Times Editorial board wouldn't stand for Jeong making those tweets today .
Fair point about the timing. I disagree that one of the "jokes" was worse than the other. And, as sys was talking about above, even if Jeong's joke were a lesser example, would you agree that her jokes are still "bad" in a broad sense?
-
I understand the difference between Spencer and Jeong. A better question would be the difference between Jeong and Rosanne -- other than one's an actual comedian and the other is on the editorial board of the New York Times.
Could you explain what the difference is between Jeong and Spencer?
Could you explain the difference between Roseanne and Spencer?
Spencer is militant and doesn't profess to be kidding about his racist remarks. He couches his statements in a warped sociological philosophy.
Jeong and Roseanne aren't militant and both professed to be kidding about their remarks. I think the differences between Jeong and Roseanne are more subtle (to the extent they exist at all), which is why I brought Roseanne up.
I'm certainly not here to defend Roseanne. I don't give a crap about her and I think she's probably does hold some ugly views about black people regardless of whether she gave the "just kidding!" defense afterward. The thing is, I think the same thing about Jeong with regard to white people. I don't care that Roseanne got fired, and I don't care about the NYT response. Those entities can navigate their brands how they see fit.
I just can't reconcile how someone could call for Roseanne's head but go to bat for Jeong.
Because one is clearly worse. Like, it's not even close.
Roseanne also had a higher profile when the tweets were sent, which is relevant. As awful as it can be, the Times Editorial board wouldn't stand for Jeong making those tweets today .
Fair point about the timing. I disagree that one of the "jokes" was worse than the other. And, as sys was talking about above, even if Jeong's joke were a lesser example, would you agree that her jokes are still "bad" in a broad sense?
First of all, I'd hesitate to call either "jokes". I admit I know little about the full context of Jeong's tweets, but she seemed to be creating a somewhat flamboyant online persona that at times commented on "white people" as the group in power.
The only tweet that could be construed as truly "racist" and not commenting on white people as a group of people in power was the "goblin" tweet sys referred to. Given more context, it's not bad at all and is definitely much more funny as it's a direct shot at Sullivan and talk of "let's hear both sides" of racist nonsense.
https://twitter.com/studentactivism/status/1025446539987169281?s=19
So no, I don't think that particular tweet is"bad" for a mostly anonymous tech writer. But I think it's probably "bad" for someone writing at the New York Times or a senator or president or something, though.
Roseanne, meanwhile, wrote pure racist trash whole starring in the highest rated show on tv, comparing a black woman to an ape. It was completely unfunny, and probably even more inexcusable BECAUSE she's a comedian.
-
So it’s not racist when someone says “cancel white people” because the writer doesn’t actually mean “white people,” but rather means “those in power” of any race.
That’s a pretty charitable interpretation.
-
The dead giveaway that Sarah Jeong is a racist is how she wants all white people to be put to death.
-
So it’s not racist when someone says “cancel white people” because the writer doesn’t actually mean “white people,” but rather means “those in power” of any race.
That’s a pretty charitable interpretation.
I think I understand you general point, and this may be going in circles, but serious question: As a white person, have you ever been legitimately offended by a joke about white people? If so, what was the joke?
-
i'm posting this to make fun of michigancat, just to be clear.
https://twitter.com/ohyeah_mamaman/status/1025547366257119239
-
So it’s not racist when someone says “cancel white people” because the writer doesn’t actually mean “white people,” but rather means “those in power” of any race.
That’s a pretty charitable interpretation.
I think I understand you general point, and this may be going in circles, but serious question: As a white person, have you ever been legitimately offended by a joke about white people? If so, what was the joke?
Me personally? No, I don’t think so.
-
So it’s not racist when someone says “cancel white people” because the writer doesn’t actually mean “white people,” but rather means “those in power” of any race.
That’s a pretty charitable interpretation.
That's a sloppy interpretation but pretty much right. It's hard to be a racist when you're not attacking someone with less power than you.
This is an ok read (imperfect but I ain't got time to research the meaning of racism all day!":
http://affinitymagazine.us/2017/02/19/dear-white-people-your-dictionary-definition-of-racism-is-wrong/
But with your specific quote, I'd suggest reading the thread and tell see if you really think it's the equivalent of Roseanne calling Valarie Jarrett an ape.
https://twitter.com/sarahjeong/status/534822442079109121?s=19
(I still fully understand context, but it seems to be in response to the reaction to this article: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/juliacarriew/the-problem-with-serial-and-the-model-minority-myth)
-
i'm posting this to make fun of michigancat, just to be clear.
https://twitter.com/ohyeah_mamaman/status/1025547366257119239
Did she say that? I only saw the quote about Battlestar Galactica and Breaking Bad bring about white men being angry. I've never seen Battlestar Galactica- is it not very "white" and that's why it's funny?
Breaking Bad really is about white men being angry and it was mildly funny.
-
So it’s not racist when someone says “cancel white people” because the writer doesn’t actually mean “white people,” but rather means “those in power” of any race.
That’s a pretty charitable interpretation.
I think I understand you general point, and this may be going in circles, but serious question: As a white person, have you ever been legitimately offended by a joke about white people? If so, what was the joke?
Me personally? No, I don’t think so.
Do you personally know any other white people that have? I only ask because I don’t, and I feel like that is worth taking into account when drawing comparisons between jokes about whites vs other races.
-
So it’s not racist when someone says “cancel white people” because the writer doesn’t actually mean “white people,” but rather means “those in power” of any race.
That’s a pretty charitable interpretation.
I think I understand you general point, and this may be going in circles, but serious question: As a white person, have you ever been legitimately offended by a joke about white people? If so, what was the joke?
Me personally? No, I don’t think so.
Do you personally know any other white people that have? I only ask because I don’t, and I feel like that is worth taking into account when drawing comparisons between jokes about whites vs other races.
The struggles of white people in a country consumed by apartheid and discrimination.
-
https://twitter.com/TheAtlantic/status/1026505134690447360
-
So this was supposedly banned from Facebook as "hate speech"
https://youtu.be/GUJXqJ4f_to
Pretty fascist-y move
-
https://twitter.com/TheAtlantic/status/1026505134690447360
that article, and this thread discussing it, are much smarter than the it's fine because power something something dumb takes from last week.
https://twitter.com/Noahpinion/status/1026594049749204993
-
Wait. Are you telling me this article more eloquently describes the relevance of white power imbalance in racial jokes than the gE pit? :Wha:
-
https://twitter.com/TheAtlantic/status/1026505134690447360
That article makes a lot of sense re. people's true motivations. I've heard it described this way before, but I thought the author did a pretty good job of describing the phenomenon:
It is almost as though we’re living through a strange sort of ethnogenesis, in which those who see themselves as (for lack of a better term) upper-whites are doing everything they can to disaffiliate themselves from those they’ve deemed lower-whites. Note that to be “upper” or “lower” isn’t just about class status, though of course that’s always hovering in the background. Rather, it is about the supposed nobility that flows from racial self-flagellation.
I'm not sure that making (to borrow the author's phrase) "pointed missives" about other racial groups in an effort to fit in is a healthy thing. More to the point, it's a shame such remarks are a helpful tool in the first place.
Wait. Are you telling me this article more eloquently describes the relevance of white power imbalance in racial jokes than the gE pit? :Wha:
Ha. No. Nobody here put forth the idea that minorities were making anti-white comments because white-elites made the comments fashionable.
-
You guys have cracked the case!
-
No, no one made that argument, which is an interesting spin. I personally don't find it particularly satisfying because it simply presumes without much explanation that it is ok for white people to make white racial jokes and therefore non-whites can be forgiven because they are trying to mimic behaviors of those in the most influential circles. The reasoning of the article could also be used to justify a white person trying to make waves in the gangster rap genre by throwing around the n-word.
-
So this was supposedly banned from Facebook as "hate speech"
https://youtu.be/GUJXqJ4f_to
Pretty fascist-y move
That's ridiculous, but FB can run its business as it chooses.
-
People don't have to be offended by your joke for it to be racist. I think it's kind of a joke that the New York Times hired her.
-
No, no one made that argument, which is an interesting spin. I personally don't find it particularly satisfying because it simply presumes without much explanation that it is ok for white people to make white racial jokes and therefore non-whites can be forgiven because they are trying to mimic behaviors of those in the most influential circles. The reasoning of the article could also be used to justify a white person trying to make waves in the gangster rap genre by throwing around the n-word.
I agree.
-
So this was supposedly banned from Facebook as "hate speech"
https://youtu.be/GUJXqJ4f_to
Pretty fascist-y move
That's ridiculous, but FB can run its business as it chooses.
I'm sure Mark Z. wishes that were true.
-
Bigotry is okay, so long as it serves a purpose.
- The Atlantic
:flush:
-
So this was supposedly banned from Facebook as "hate speech"
https://youtu.be/GUJXqJ4f_to
Pretty fascist-y move
That's ridiculous, but FB can run its business as it chooses.
I'm sure Mark Z. wishes that were true.
I didn't say Mark Z can run FB as he chooses, sport
-
I'm sure FSD’s office is tolerant enough to let any crazy trumper spew their lies and conspiracy theories on its' property unharrased.
-
They have terms and conditions and can make a business decision about who they wish to enforce it against. They will simply have to be prepared for the huge Infowars boycott which is coming. The well heeled supporters of AJ will obviously speak with their pocket book. I would not be the least bit surprised if this were the start of a MAGA competitor for facebook the same way Live from Omaha smashed SNL
-
What will these juicy fruits deem to be hateful next?
Religious posts? goEMAW? Drudge, Brietbart, Fox news?
Seems lime since the public square, the Internet, was built with public money, then freedom of expression should triumph over business.
-
They have terms and conditions and can make a business decision about who they wish to enforce it against. They will simply have to be prepared for the huge Infowars boycott which is coming. The well heeled supporters of AJ will obviously speak with their pocket book. I would not be the least bit surprised if this were the start of a MAGA competitor for facebook the same way Live from Omaha smashed SNL
Trumpbook will be great.
-
Renobook, apparently
-
the weeds podcast on the jeong stuff is good.
https://www.vox.com/the-weeds
-
this is much worse than student no-platforming.
https://twitter.com/jessesingal/status/1034423546582380544
-
counterpoint.
https://twitter.com/thomasjwood/status/1034262782332551170
-
Lol at this outrage.
https://www.snopes.com/ap/2018/08/29/florida-gop-candidate-fire-monkey-comment/
-
If the comment was purposeful, it was designed to do exactly what it is now accomplishing, which is to fire up the outrage-over-outrage conservative machine.
-
If the comment was purposeful, it was designed to do exactly what it is now accomplishing, which is to fire up the outrage-over-outrage conservative machine.
For sure, and if so eff that guy. It just came off as overblown to me at first glance, but if the intent is there then yeah, eff him. Posts in the other similar thread lead me to believe it's more likely to have been calculated.
-
If the comment was purposeful, it was designed to do exactly what it is now accomplishing, which is to fire up the outrage-over-outrage conservative machine.
For sure, and if so eff that guy. It just came off as overblown to me at first glance, but if the intent is there then yeah, eff him. Posts in the other similar thread lead me to believe it's more likely to have been calculated.
He followed it with a comment that Gillum is articulate.
-
If the comment was purposeful, it was designed to do exactly what it is now accomplishing, which is to fire up the outrage-over-outrage conservative machine.
For sure, and if so eff that guy. It just came off as overblown to me at first glance, but if the intent is there then yeah, eff him. Posts in the other similar thread lead me to believe it's more likely to have been calculated.
He followed it with a comment that Gillum is articulate.
Which is more suspect imo. Coupled with the FB group dude is a moderator of and the current state of politics, I'd lean toward him probably being a racist pos.
-
I think a more likely explanation is that he’s not racist but wants all racists to turn out and vote for him.
-
I think a more likely explanation is that he’s not racist but wants all racists to turn out and vote for him.
Lots of racists probably don't think they're racist
-
Thou shalt not pierce the echo chamber
Chelsea Clinton, tweeted that the event would be giving Bannon another platform for his ideas.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-yorker-festival-drops-steve-bannon-david-remnick-announcement-today-2018-09-03/
:ROFL:
-
When I think Socialism, I think Chelsea Clinton.
-
http://reason.com/volokh/2018/09/07/discipline-of-med-student-for-expressing (http://reason.com/volokh/2018/09/07/discipline-of-med-student-for-expressing)
Great stuff from Prof. Volokh. Completely absurd policing of speech from a public university.
-
http://reason.com/volokh/2018/09/07/discipline-of-med-student-for-expressing (http://reason.com/volokh/2018/09/07/discipline-of-med-student-for-expressing)
Great stuff from Prof. Volokh. Completely absurd policing of speech from a public university.
agree
-
http://reason.com/volokh/2018/09/07/discipline-of-med-student-for-expressing (http://reason.com/volokh/2018/09/07/discipline-of-med-student-for-expressing)
Great stuff from Prof. Volokh. Completely absurd policing of speech from a public university.
agree
:Wha:
Monumental breakthrough for us, Mr. KK.
-
(https://cdn.mysmelly.com/image:/sitefs/perm/pi/b/q/r/c/401.500.0_f2.jpg)
-
I would have thought that it was clearly constitutionally protected
Of course, it is.
and that a public university had no power to punish such speech.
Good God, why? Because it's constitutionally protected? That's just dumb.
-
I would have thought that it was clearly constitutionally protected
Of course, it is.
and that a public university had no power to punish such speech.
Good God, why? Because it's constitutionally protected? That's just dumb.
What do you think the speech is protected against if not punishment by a government institution?
-
I would have thought that it was clearly constitutionally protected
Of course, it is.
and that a public university had no power to punish such speech.
Good God, why? Because it's constitutionally protected? That's just dumb.
What do you think the speech is protected against if not government punishment?
I mean, the dude lost his case, right? That alone is an indication that the issue isn't as clear cut as the author thinks it should be.
-
I would have thought that it was clearly constitutionally protected
Of course, it is.
and that a public university had no power to punish such speech.
Good God, why? Because it's constitutionally protected? That's just dumb.
What do you think the speech is protected against if not government punishment?
I mean, the dude lost his case, right? That alone is an indication that the issue isn't as clear cut as the author thinks it should be.
Right, on qualified immunity grounds because there hasn't been a case which squares on all fours of this particular one. Based on the precedent that is out there and fairly analogous to this case (despite not being squarely on point), I think the Court would have been fine (and correct) to say "this is an established right that the university violated."
It's a very conservative move by the court -- too conservative in my view, but I'm an admitted mark for civil liberties and probably biased. The court essentially said that universities can punish students for online speech it deems "unprofessional" -- that's a worryingly vague standard in my eyes.
-
Hunt was ordered to go through a "professional enhancement prescription," which required "mentorship by a faculty member who would 'assign readings and supervise a reflective writing assignment on patient autonomy and tolerance," producing a "reflective writing assignment on the public expression of political beliefs by physicians," writing "an apology letter, which Hunt could present to anyone of his choice, or no one at all," going through "ongoing meetings with [a faculty member] over a one-year period," and "rewriting the Facebook post in a passionate, yet professionally appropriate way."
Oh, the horror.
-
It's like if a K-State admin read the Pit and didn't like something Greg (or another student) said and made him issue an apology in the pit and rewrite it (twice). It's small potatoes in the grand scheme of things, but it's bullshit for a university to come in and censor/compel speech.
-
I view it more like the university trying to tell the kid that he is going to be basically unemployable if he can't figure out what is and is not appropriate to say on social media.
-
I view it as an infringement on that student’s first amendment rights by a government entity. It doesn’t matter how minor the punishment is, it is illegal.
-
The court just ruled that it was legal.
-
The court just ruled that it was legal.
Incorrectly, IMO. The courts have ruled that a lot of things that should be illegal under the constitution are legal though.
-
It's sort of a tough case, imo. The school didn't make the kid change what he said. They just made him change how he said it, which is more along the lines of what a school should be doing with assignments they issue. It's murky because the kid said it on social media and not on a school assignment, but I really don't see it as damaging at all to the kid. He's getting a better overall learning experience from the "punishment" than he would be without it, at no cost to him.
-
IMO it would have been a better case if the student said "no, I'm not going to change it, what are you going to do about it"? Cause what is unclear from that summary is what the student was actually threatened with as punishment. If you take away stuff like suspension, expulsion, or withholding grades, then yeah it does just look like faculty trying to teach a real-world lesson.
Still, it would be a terrible precedent to set, and will be interesting to see what happens at the next level.
-
It's sort of a tough case, imo. The school didn't make the kid change what he said. They just made him change how he said it, which is more along the lines of what a school should be doing with assignments they issue. It's murky because the kid said it on social media and not on a school assignment, but I really don't see it as damaging at all to the kid. He's getting a better overall learning experience from the "punishment" than he would be without it, at no cost to him.
They absolutely made him change what he said.
Saying "eff NAZIS" is different than saying "I disagree with Nazis." The same is true with "eff ABORTION PROPONENTS" and "I disagree with those who favor abortion." You and me and the school admins are free to think one message is more professional, or more civil, or more effective using any vague standard we choose, but government/schools usually can't punish that kind of speech.
The distinction here is that it was a grad school. Again, I don't see any relevant distinction between a public grad school and a public university or high school.
-
The school did the kid a favor. It was more of a reward than a punishment.
The guy getting punished is the poor faculty member who got assigned to "mentor" some kid who thinks people who want less government in their life are worse than Nazis.
-
It's sort of a tough case, imo. The school didn't make the kid change what he said. They just made him change how he said it, which is more along the lines of what a school should be doing with assignments they issue. It's murky because the kid said it on social media and not on a school assignment, but I really don't see it as damaging at all to the kid. He's getting a better overall learning experience from the "punishment" than he would be without it, at no cost to him.
They absolutely made him change what he said.
Saying "eff NAZIS" is different than saying "I disagree with Nazis." The same is true with "eff ABORTION PROPONENTS" and "I disagree with those who favor abortion." You and me and the school admins are free to think one message is more professional, or more civil, or more effective using any vague standard we choose, but government/schools usually can't punish that kind of speech.
The distinction here is that it was a grad school. Again, I don't see any relevant distinction between a public grad school and a public university or high school.
The school did the kid a favor. It was more of a reward than a punishment.
The guy getting punished is the poor faculty member who got assigned to "mentor" some kid who thinks people who want less government in their life are worse than Nazis.
Bullshit. The school violated his fundamental right to free speech. It doesn't make a bit of difference whether it is harmful or beneficial to the kid in the long term. This favor / punishment value judgement is not one they are free to decide on.
-
It's sort of a tough case, imo. The school didn't make the kid change what he said. They just made him change how he said it, which is more along the lines of what a school should be doing with assignments they issue. It's murky because the kid said it on social media and not on a school assignment, but I really don't see it as damaging at all to the kid. He's getting a better overall learning experience from the "punishment" than he would be without it, at no cost to him.
They absolutely made him change what he said.
Saying "eff NAZIS" is different than saying "I disagree with Nazis." The same is true with "eff ABORTION PROPONENTS" and "I disagree with those who favor abortion." You and me and the school admins are free to think one message is more professional, or more civil, or more effective using any vague standard we choose, but government/schools usually can't punish that kind of speech.
The distinction here is that it was a grad school. Again, I don't see any relevant distinction between a public grad school and a public university or high school.
High Schools have pretty wide latitude to censor students.
-
It's sort of a tough case, imo. The school didn't make the kid change what he said. They just made him change how he said it, which is more along the lines of what a school should be doing with assignments they issue. It's murky because the kid said it on social media and not on a school assignment, but I really don't see it as damaging at all to the kid. He's getting a better overall learning experience from the "punishment" than he would be without it, at no cost to him.
They absolutely made him change what he said.
Saying "eff NAZIS" is different than saying "I disagree with Nazis." The same is true with "eff ABORTION PROPONENTS" and "I disagree with those who favor abortion." You and me and the school admins are free to think one message is more professional, or more civil, or more effective using any vague standard we choose, but government/schools usually can't punish that kind of speech.
The distinction here is that it was a grad school. Again, I don't see any relevant distinction between a public grad school and a public university or high school.
There is a difference, in that if you say "I disagree with those who favor abortion," potential employers won't view you as a psychotic nut job, and if you say "eff abortion proponents," nobody in their right mind would hire you to be a doctor.
-
It's sort of a tough case, imo. The school didn't make the kid change what he said. They just made him change how he said it, which is more along the lines of what a school should be doing with assignments they issue. It's murky because the kid said it on social media and not on a school assignment, but I really don't see it as damaging at all to the kid. He's getting a better overall learning experience from the "punishment" than he would be without it, at no cost to him.
They absolutely made him change what he said.
Saying "eff NAZIS" is different than saying "I disagree with Nazis." The same is true with "eff ABORTION PROPONENTS" and "I disagree with those who favor abortion." You and me and the school admins are free to think one message is more professional, or more civil, or more effective using any vague standard we choose, but government/schools usually can't punish that kind of speech.
The distinction here is that it was a grad school. Again, I don't see any relevant distinction between a public grad school and a public university or high school.
The school did the kid a favor. It was more of a reward than a punishment.
The guy getting punished is the poor faculty member who got assigned to "mentor" some kid who thinks people who want less government in their life are worse than Nazis.
Bullshit. The school violated his fundamental right to free speech. It doesn't make a bit of difference whether it is harmful or beneficial to the kid in the long term. This favor / punishment value judgement is not one they are free to decide on.
I think the school would be better off if it had said "not our business" and I agree with you in principle. That said, a court did rule in their favor so you and dlew just asserting that this is an obvious 1st amendment violation seems to be pretty severely undermined by this fact. Don't agree with a court's interpretation/ruling? Welcome to the club! But I think you should at least deal with the decision without dismissing it out of hand.
-
It's sort of a tough case, imo. The school didn't make the kid change what he said. They just made him change how he said it, which is more along the lines of what a school should be doing with assignments they issue. It's murky because the kid said it on social media and not on a school assignment, but I really don't see it as damaging at all to the kid. He's getting a better overall learning experience from the "punishment" than he would be without it, at no cost to him.
They absolutely made him change what he said.
Saying "eff NAZIS" is different than saying "I disagree with Nazis." The same is true with "eff ABORTION PROPONENTS" and "I disagree with those who favor abortion." You and me and the school admins are free to think one message is more professional, or more civil, or more effective using any vague standard we choose, but government/schools usually can't punish that kind of speech.
The distinction here is that it was a grad school. Again, I don't see any relevant distinction between a public grad school and a public university or high school.
The school did the kid a favor. It was more of a reward than a punishment.
The guy getting punished is the poor faculty member who got assigned to "mentor" some kid who thinks people who want less government in their life are worse than Nazis.
Bullshit. The school violated his fundamental right to free speech. It doesn't make a bit of difference whether it is harmful or beneficial to the kid in the long term. This favor / punishment value judgement is not one they are free to decide on.
I think the school would be better off if it had said "not our business" and I agree with you in principle. That said, a court did rule in their favor so you and dlew just asserting that this is an obvious 1st amendment violation seems to be pretty severely undermined by this fact. Don't agree with a court's interpretation/ruling? Welcome to the club! But I think you should at least deal with the decision without dismissing it out of hand.
Haven't researched it but based on what's been reported in this thread the judge hasn't ruled on the merits of the claim.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
The school really should have tried to convince the kid that dropping out is in his best interest. They might have done that, but if they did, they didn't try hard enough.
-
Spracne--
I guess. Practically speaking the court said the University can continue to do this and didn't strike down the policy, so what is the practical difference? I do take your point that dlew/8man couldn't really draw much more out of the court case, but it would be worth at least defining what their own interpretation is and how maximal it is vs. just nitpicking the actions of the university.
-
It's sort of a tough case, imo. The school didn't make the kid change what he said. They just made him change how he said it, which is more along the lines of what a school should be doing with assignments they issue. It's murky because the kid said it on social media and not on a school assignment, but I really don't see it as damaging at all to the kid. He's getting a better overall learning experience from the "punishment" than he would be without it, at no cost to him.
They absolutely made him change what he said.
Saying "eff NAZIS" is different than saying "I disagree with Nazis." The same is true with "eff ABORTION PROPONENTS" and "I disagree with those who favor abortion." You and me and the school admins are free to think one message is more professional, or more civil, or more effective using any vague standard we choose, but government/schools usually can't punish that kind of speech.
The distinction here is that it was a grad school. Again, I don't see any relevant distinction between a public grad school and a public university or high school.
High Schools have pretty wide latitude to censor students.
I'm not sure they can be content based though (for otherwise protected speech) except for Morse ("bong hits for jesus") situations where a student is advocating for illegal drug use on a field trip. This situation isn't in the same ballpark imo as Morse.
-
Spracne--
I guess. Practically speaking the court said the University can continue to do this and didn't strike down the policy, so what is the practical difference? I do take your point that dlew/8man couldn't really draw much more out of the court case, but it would be worth at least defining what their own interpretation is and how maximal it is vs. just nitpicking the actions of the university.
The immunity stuff is weird and the rationale seems dumb (at least as applied in this case).
-
It's sort of a tough case, imo. The school didn't make the kid change what he said. They just made him change how he said it, which is more along the lines of what a school should be doing with assignments they issue. It's murky because the kid said it on social media and not on a school assignment, but I really don't see it as damaging at all to the kid. He's getting a better overall learning experience from the "punishment" than he would be without it, at no cost to him.
They absolutely made him change what he said.
Saying "eff NAZIS" is different than saying "I disagree with Nazis." The same is true with "eff ABORTION PROPONENTS" and "I disagree with those who favor abortion." You and me and the school admins are free to think one message is more professional, or more civil, or more effective using any vague standard we choose, but government/schools usually can't punish that kind of speech.
The distinction here is that it was a grad school. Again, I don't see any relevant distinction between a public grad school and a public university or high school.
High Schools have pretty wide latitude to censor students.
I'm not sure they can be content based though (for otherwise protected speech) except for Morse ("bong hits for jesus") situations where a student is advocating for illegal drug use on a field trip. This situation isn't in the same ballpark imo as Morse.
I guess it depends a bit on where the speech occurred, but they get pretty wide latitude. In loco parents is still a concept that is established and schools can make some pretty wide claims to be acting in the best interests of students.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Spracne--
I guess. Practically speaking the court said the University can continue to do this and didn't strike down the policy, so what is the practical difference? I do take your point that dlew/8man couldn't really draw much more out of the court case, but it would be worth at least defining what their own interpretation is and how maximal it is vs. just nitpicking the actions of the university.
I mean, my interpretation is 100% maximal. If he got to a point where his speech threatens violent action, the police should get involved, but nothing until then.
In the case of lower schools vs (adult) universities, if I understand correctly, the schools have latitude to violate virtually all rights under the umbrella of acting in lieu of parents. In loco parentis is what our creepy 7th grade civics teacher taught us. I don't know any of the legal nuance, but I think that those schools should have the same (zero) ability to intervene in activities that don't occur at school events or on school property.
-
To me, this is only really debatable because the statement was made outside of a school setting, albeit in public. I don't see what the school did as censorship, and as far as punishments go, the punishment was very light. I don't see any damages to the kid who did what appears to me about 5 minutes worth of editing and had to write a brief apology to nobody.
-
I'm with dlew on this. Based on everything I know about free speech jurisprudence, this is a valid claim. And we shouldn't act like a single district court judge always gets it right. If this goes to SCOTUS, I'm pretty sure the plaintiff prevails. Free speech is one thing that unites conservative and liberal justices alike, and these are particularly good facts given the current (future) makeup of the Court. The only potential problem I see is establishing injury, though that standing requirement is quite relaxed in cases involving pure speech.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
It's sort of a tough case, imo. The school didn't make the kid change what he said. They just made him change how he said it, which is more along the lines of what a school should be doing with assignments they issue. It's murky because the kid said it on social media and not on a school assignment, but I really don't see it as damaging at all to the kid. He's getting a better overall learning experience from the "punishment" than he would be without it, at no cost to him.
They absolutely made him change what he said.
Saying "eff NAZIS" is different than saying "I disagree with Nazis." The same is true with "eff ABORTION PROPONENTS" and "I disagree with those who favor abortion." You and me and the school admins are free to think one message is more professional, or more civil, or more effective using any vague standard we choose, but government/schools usually can't punish that kind of speech.
The distinction here is that it was a grad school. Again, I don't see any relevant distinction between a public grad school and a public university or high school.
High Schools have pretty wide latitude to censor students.
I'm not sure they can be content based though (for otherwise protected speech) except for Morse ("bong hits for jesus") situations where a student is advocating for illegal drug use on a field trip. This situation isn't in the same ballpark imo as Morse.
I guess it depends a bit on where the speech occurred, but they get pretty wide latitude. In loco parents is still a concept that is established and schools can make some pretty wide claims to be acting in the best interests of students.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I agree. "Where the speech occurred" is the central issue IMO. If this kid gets up in his class and shouts "eff ABORTION," obviously that's disruptive and the school could rightfully punish him for that statement in that setting.
I can't think of any precedent that gives the school the right to punish a student for protected speech whose content and time/place/manner are wholly unrelated to the school.
If the distinction is "undergrads/highschools, etc. can't act this way, but graduate schools can because [graduate schools have a greater interest in the professional conduct of its students or something]" I can live with that. It would be a weird distinction and one I would disagree with, but that's the only distinction that makes any sense.
-
To me, this is only really debatable because the statement was made outside of a school setting, albeit in public. I don't see what the school did as censorship, and as far as punishments go, the punishment was very light. I don't see any damages to the kid who did what appears to me about 5 minutes worth of editing and had to write a brief apology to nobody.
Why does the severity of the punishment seem to matter so much to you? Just curious since you continue to bring it up.
-
To me, this is only really debatable because the statement was made outside of a school setting, albeit in public. I don't see what the school did as censorship, and as far as punishments go, the punishment was very light. I don't see any damages to the kid who did what appears to me about 5 minutes worth of editing and had to write a brief apology to nobody.
Why does the severity of the punishment seem to matter so much to you? Just curious since you continue to bring it up.
Right. I agree with Rage that the punishment on its face isn't all that burdensome, but the issue is whether the school/government can legally carry out any punishment (whether its imprisonment, expulsion or just censure or censorship) in this situation.
These little "proxy war" cases set important policy precedents.
-
To me, this is only really debatable because the statement was made outside of a school setting, albeit in public. I don't see what the school did as censorship, and as far as punishments go, the punishment was very light. I don't see any damages to the kid who did what appears to me about 5 minutes worth of editing and had to write a brief apology to nobody.
Why does the severity of the punishment seem to matter so much to you? Just curious since you continue to bring it up.
The severity of the punishment is pretty critical to how damaged the student is by his rights being violated. If the court were to rule in the student's favor, how else would you grant the award? As far as I can tell, the student wasn't censored, suspended, expelled, or damaged in any way financially. If he were compensated for the time it took him to write an apology (an apology he wasn't required to even give to anyone), the damages would come out to what? Maybe $10?
If the school made him delete his post, that is a different issue, and he should absolutely be allowed to put the original back up. I might have missed that. A school giving a kid a writing assignment is not worth going to court over, though.
-
To me, this is only really debatable because the statement was made outside of a school setting, albeit in public. I don't see what the school did as censorship, and as far as punishments go, the punishment was very light. I don't see any damages to the kid who did what appears to me about 5 minutes worth of editing and had to write a brief apology to nobody.
Why does the severity of the punishment seem to matter so much to you? Just curious since you continue to bring it up.
The severity of the punishment is pretty critical to how damaged the student is by his rights being violated. If the court were to rule in the student's favor, how else would you grant the award? As far as I can tell, the student wasn't censored, suspended, expelled, or damaged in any way financially. If he were compensated for the time it took him to write an apology (an apology he wasn't required to even give to anyone), the damages would come out to what? Maybe $10?
If the school made him delete his post, that is a different issue, and he should absolutely be allowed to put the original back up. I might have missed that. A school giving a kid a writing assignment is not worth going to court over, though.
His damages aren't limited to money damages. The more important relief would be an injunction.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
To me, this is only really debatable because the statement was made outside of a school setting, albeit in public. I don't see what the school did as censorship, and as far as punishments go, the punishment was very light. I don't see any damages to the kid who did what appears to me about 5 minutes worth of editing and had to write a brief apology to nobody.
Why does the severity of the punishment seem to matter so much to you? Just curious since you continue to bring it up.
The severity of the punishment is pretty critical to how damaged the student is by his rights being violated. If the court were to rule in the student's favor, how else would you grant the award? As far as I can tell, the student wasn't censored, suspended, expelled, or damaged in any way financially. If he were compensated for the time it took him to write an apology (an apology he wasn't required to even give to anyone), the damages would come out to what? Maybe $10?
If the school made him delete his post, that is a different issue, and he should absolutely be allowed to put the original back up. I might have missed that. A school giving a kid a writing assignment is not worth going to court over, though.
His damages aren't limited to money damages. The more important relief would be an injunction.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
What would the injunction accomplish and what would it relieve? It appears he has already fully served the punishment.
-
To me, this is only really debatable because the statement was made outside of a school setting, albeit in public. I don't see what the school did as censorship, and as far as punishments go, the punishment was very light. I don't see any damages to the kid who did what appears to me about 5 minutes worth of editing and had to write a brief apology to nobody.
Why does the severity of the punishment seem to matter so much to you? Just curious since you continue to bring it up.
The severity of the punishment is pretty critical to how damaged the student is by his rights being violated. If the court were to rule in the student's favor, how else would you grant the award? As far as I can tell, the student wasn't censored, suspended, expelled, or damaged in any way financially. If he were compensated for the time it took him to write an apology (an apology he wasn't required to even give to anyone), the damages would come out to what? Maybe $10?
If the school made him delete his post, that is a different issue, and he should absolutely be allowed to put the original back up. I might have missed that. A school giving a kid a writing assignment is not worth going to court over, though.
His damages aren't limited to money damages. The more important relief would be an injunction.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
What would the injunction accomplish and what would it relieve? It appears he has already fully served the punishment.
Prevent future harm to him and others?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
I think the future harm from all of this is unpreventable at this point. Anyone typing his name into google is going to see that post. The school did their best to help him out of that situation, but this lawsuit basically reversed all of that.
-
I think the future harm from all of this is unpreventable at this point. Anyone typing his name into google is going to see that post. The school did their best to help him out of that situation, but this lawsuit basically reversed all of that.
Are you merely being argumentative? This case is about whether a campus speech code is unconstitutional either on its face or as applied. He's either courageous or foolhardy for bringing suit, but we need these speech codes to undergo constitutional scrutiny, because they've long been suspect.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
I would rather see a case get constitutional scrutiny where the punishment was clearly punishment. I'm honestly not sure this qualifies.
-
I would rather see a case get constitutional scrutiny where the punishment was clearly punishment. I'm honestly not sure this qualifies.
But in cases like this the act of suppressing or compelling speech is itself the harm, in terms of legal standing. Honestly, who cares about the severity of the punishment? I'm just glad to have cases like this working their way up the ladder.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
It's sort of a tough case, imo. The school didn't make the kid change what he said. They just made him change how he said it, which is more along the lines of what a school should be doing with assignments they issue. It's murky because the kid said it on social media and not on a school assignment, but I really don't see it as damaging at all to the kid. He's getting a better overall learning experience from the "punishment" than he would be without it, at no cost to him.
They absolutely made him change what he said.
Saying "eff NAZIS" is different than saying "I disagree with Nazis." The same is true with "eff ABORTION PROPONENTS" and "I disagree with those who favor abortion." You and me and the school admins are free to think one message is more professional, or more civil, or more effective using any vague standard we choose, but government/schools usually can't punish that kind of speech.
The distinction here is that it was a grad school. Again, I don't see any relevant distinction between a public grad school and a public university or high school.
High Schools have pretty wide latitude to censor students.
I'm not sure they can be content based though (for otherwise protected speech) except for Morse ("bong hits for jesus") situations where a student is advocating for illegal drug use on a field trip. This situation isn't in the same ballpark imo as Morse.
I guess it depends a bit on where the speech occurred, but they get pretty wide latitude. In loco parents is still a concept that is established and schools can make some pretty wide claims to be acting in the best interests of students.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I agree. "Where the speech occurred" is the central issue IMO. If this kid gets up in his class and shouts "eff ABORTION," obviously that's disruptive and the school could rightfully punish him for that statement in that setting.
I can't think of any precedent that gives the school the right to punish a student for protected speech whose content and time/place/manner are wholly unrelated to the school.
If the distinction is "undergrads/highschools, etc. can't act this way, but graduate schools can because [graduate schools have a greater interest in the professional conduct of its students or something]" I can live with that. It would be a weird distinction and one I would disagree with, but that's the only distinction that makes any sense.
I think you would be surprised how much schools get involved with stuff "wholly unrelated to the school" as a practical matter and I am not even talking about just mandatory reporter stuff. Like schools, for instance, can administer drug tests of students in any extra-curricular activity. This includes co-curricular activities such as debate, band, orchestra, clubs etc. It is an incredibly broad authority. I could pretty easily imagine that a school policy governing social media posts (especially for a team sport or an extra curricular or something) would be upheld. I know schools often involve themselves in "cyber bullying" but they often have taken to just involving the police to absolve themselves of the headache. As for pure speech outside of school, I could imagine some examples but haven't seen anything personally that would apply I don't think. Which again, I think is what makes this example so egregious. Then again, I haven't seen whether or not the school had the "in" with this being posted using a school's internet/computer (from the library?) or whatever, which is how a lot of incidents of inappropriate use of tech or whatever that take place off school grounds end up involving school punishments if students are using school tablets.
-
I would rather see a case get constitutional scrutiny where the punishment was clearly punishment. I'm honestly not sure this qualifies.
But in cases like this the act of suppressing or compelling speech is itself the harm, in terms of legal standing. Honestly, who cares about the severity of the punishment? I'm just glad to have cases like this working their way up the ladder.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I’m not sure if they forced him to delete the original post, but I’m guessing they didn’t. If they let him keep it, I don’t think they suppressed his speech. It’s also hard to claim they compelled speech, given they gave him the option to not give the apology to anyone.
Given that the original post basically made a “Nazis weren’t so bad” sort of claim, and that this guy shares a college campus with Jewish students, the school would be remiss to not at the very least inform the student of how incredibly stupid his post was and suggest better ways to express his opinion.
-
I would rather see a case get constitutional scrutiny where the punishment was clearly punishment. I'm honestly not sure this qualifies.
But in cases like this the act of suppressing or compelling speech is itself the harm, in terms of legal standing. Honestly, who cares about the severity of the punishment? I'm just glad to have cases like this working their way up the ladder.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I’m not sure if they forced him to delete the original post, but I’m guessing they didn’t. If they let him keep it, I don’t think they suppressed his speech. It’s also hard to claim they compelled speech, given they gave him the option to not give the apology to anyone.
Given that the original post basically made a “Nazis weren’t so bad” sort of claim, and that this guy shares a college campus with Jewish students, the school would be remiss to not at the very least inform the student of how incredibly stupid his post was and suggest better ways to express his opinion.
It won't take you long to read pro-life people before you come across the Holocaust analogy bud, it wasn't like this guy thought it up by himself.
-
The school was remiss to have said anything, that’s the whole point.
-
I agree. "Where the speech occurred" is the central issue IMO. If this kid gets up in his class and shouts "eff ABORTION," obviously that's disruptive and the school could rightfully punish him for that statement in that setting.
I can't think of any precedent that gives the school the right to punish a student for protected speech whose content and time/place/manner are wholly unrelated to the school.
Eh I think it's pretty different with social media - "where the speech occurred" is really "everywhere" when you post crap online. Fellow students saw it, so it was like yelling "eff ABORTIONS" within clear earshot of everyone in his school. Which, even if it wasn't directed at anyone in particular, could arguably be disruptive to class. And there was precedence in the case where a nursing student was expelled for
Also, I think this could be considered a pretty significant "injury":
Next, the letter
informed Hunt that the professionalism violation would be noted in the recommendation letter
the Dean would provide to residency training programs, but that in the future Hunt could petition
CSPE to remove the notation.
:dunno:
If the distinction is "undergrads/highschools, etc. can't act this way, but graduate schools can because [graduate schools have a greater interest in the professional conduct of its students or something]" I can live with that. It would be a weird distinction and one I would disagree with, but that's the only distinction that makes any sense.
It was pretty clearly cited in the ruling:
The Eighth Circuit rejected Keefe’s First Amendment claim. It noted that “many courts
have upheld enforcement of academy requirements of professionalism and fitness, particularly
for a program training licensed medical professionals. Fitness to practice as a health care
professional goes beyond satisfactory performance of academic course work.” Id. at 530. Thus,
given the strong state interest in regulating the health professions, the Eight Circuit held that
“teaching and enforcing viewpoint-neutral professional codes of ethics are a legitimate part of a
professional school’s curriculum that do not, at least on their face, run afoul of the First
Amendment.”
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nmd.340322/gov.uscourts.nmd.340322.24.0.pdf
-
I would rather see a case get constitutional scrutiny where the punishment was clearly punishment. I'm honestly not sure this qualifies.
But in cases like this the act of suppressing or compelling speech is itself the harm, in terms of legal standing. Honestly, who cares about the severity of the punishment? I'm just glad to have cases like this working their way up the ladder.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I’m not sure if they forced him to delete the original post, but I’m guessing they didn’t. If they let him keep it, I don’t think they suppressed his speech. It’s also hard to claim they compelled speech, given they gave him the option to not give the apology to anyone.
Given that the original post basically made a “Nazis weren’t so bad” sort of claim, and that this guy shares a college campus with Jewish students, the school would be remiss to not at the very least inform the student of how incredibly stupid his post was and suggest better ways to express his opinion.
Yes, but the speech wasn't directed at any specific person, so it's still protected speech.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
I agree. "Where the speech occurred" is the central issue IMO. If this kid gets up in his class and shouts "eff ABORTION," obviously that's disruptive and the school could rightfully punish him for that statement in that setting.
I can't think of any precedent that gives the school the right to punish a student for protected speech whose content and time/place/manner are wholly unrelated to the school.
Eh I think it's pretty different with social media - "where the speech occurred" is really "everywhere" when you post crap online. Fellow students saw it, so it was like yelling "eff ABORTIONS" within clear earshot of everyone in his school. Which, even if it wasn't directed at anyone in particular, could arguably be disruptive to class. And there was precedence in the case where a nursing student was expelled for
Also, I think this could be considered a pretty significant "injury":
Next, the letter
informed Hunt that the professionalism violation would be noted in the recommendation letter
the Dean would provide to residency training programs, but that in the future Hunt could petition
CSPE to remove the notation.
:dunno:
If the distinction is "undergrads/highschools, etc. can't act this way, but graduate schools can because [graduate schools have a greater interest in the professional conduct of its students or something]" I can live with that. It would be a weird distinction and one I would disagree with, but that's the only distinction that makes any sense.
It was pretty clearly cited in the ruling:
The Eighth Circuit rejected Keefe’s First Amendment claim. It noted that “many courts
have upheld enforcement of academy requirements of professionalism and fitness, particularly
for a program training licensed medical professionals. Fitness to practice as a health care
professional goes beyond satisfactory performance of academic course work.” Id. at 530. Thus,
given the strong state interest in regulating the health professions, the Eight Circuit held that
“teaching and enforcing viewpoint-neutral professional codes of ethics are a legitimate part of a
professional school’s curriculum that do not, at least on their face, run afoul of the First
Amendment.”
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nmd.340322/gov.uscourts.nmd.340322.24.0.pdf
There's no way that's how the First Amendment works with Social Media. Just because a listener could read your words in a particular spot doesn't give the government free reign to impose time place and manner restrictions based on where the words were read.
-
I agree. "Where the speech occurred" is the central issue IMO. If this kid gets up in his class and shouts "eff ABORTION," obviously that's disruptive and the school could rightfully punish him for that statement in that setting.
I can't think of any precedent that gives the school the right to punish a student for protected speech whose content and time/place/manner are wholly unrelated to the school.
Eh I think it's pretty different with social media - "where the speech occurred" is really "everywhere" when you post crap online. Fellow students saw it, so it was like yelling "eff ABORTIONS" within clear earshot of everyone in his school. Which, even if it wasn't directed at anyone in particular, could arguably be disruptive to class. And there was precedence in the case where a nursing student was expelled for
Also, I think this could be considered a pretty significant "injury":
Next, the letter
informed Hunt that the professionalism violation would be noted in the recommendation letter
the Dean would provide to residency training programs, but that in the future Hunt could petition
CSPE to remove the notation.
:dunno:
If the distinction is "undergrads/highschools, etc. can't act this way, but graduate schools can because [graduate schools have a greater interest in the professional conduct of its students or something]" I can live with that. It would be a weird distinction and one I would disagree with, but that's the only distinction that makes any sense.
It was pretty clearly cited in the ruling:
The Eighth Circuit rejected Keefe’s First Amendment claim. It noted that “many courts
have upheld enforcement of academy requirements of professionalism and fitness, particularly
for a program training licensed medical professionals. Fitness to practice as a health care
professional goes beyond satisfactory performance of academic course work.” Id. at 530. Thus,
given the strong state interest in regulating the health professions, the Eight Circuit held that
“teaching and enforcing viewpoint-neutral professional codes of ethics are a legitimate part of a
professional school’s curriculum that do not, at least on their face, run afoul of the First
Amendment.”
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nmd.340322/gov.uscourts.nmd.340322.24.0.pdf
There's no way that's how the First Amendment works with Social Media. Just because a listener could read your words in a particular spot doesn't give the government free reign to impose time place and manner restrictions based on where the words were read.
huh? Did I say that?
I'm not even saying this guy's initial post was disruptive, I just disagree with your assertion that the time and location of a social media post really matters if it contains threatening or disruptive content. (Maybe there is legal precedence, when I read the summary linked in the original article it seemed like it's still being figured out)
-
There's no way that's how the First Amendment works with Social Media. Just because a listener could read your words in a particular spot doesn't give the government free reign to impose time place and manner restrictions based on where the words were read.
huh? Did I say that?
I'm not even saying this guy's initial post was disruptive, I just disagree with your assertion that the time and location of a social media post really matters if it contains threatening or disruptive content. (Maybe there is legal precedence, when I read the summary linked in the original article it seemed like it's still being figured out)
I guess I could have misread what you meant, but I think you did say that with this:
Eh I think it's pretty different with social media - "where the speech occurred" is really "everywhere" when you post crap online. Fellow students saw it, so it was like yelling "eff ABORTIONS" within clear earshot of everyone in his school. Which, even if it wasn't directed at anyone in particular, could arguably be disruptive to class.
My point is that, there is an absolute clear and rational difference between speaking in a classroom during a class and posting something to FB, twitter, or gE. Time/place/manner restrictions have been recognized forever and they make perfect sense.
I agree that if the online opinion was threatening (within the meaning of the first amendment), then the time and place at which he made it isn't significant. I don't think it's correct to stretch "disruptive" to that same extent. Otherwise, any online opinion some students disagree with could be labeled disruptive. If you don't like someone's spicy hot political takes online (or on TV, or in a book or painting or song), you have a range of options: don't friend them, don't follow them, ignore them, read them for fun, think worse of the person, do whatever you want. We're all subject to opinions we disagree with every day.
If someone disrupts class though, you can't help but be subject to that disruption. If gone unpunished, that student has free reign to continue to waste the time and money of those teaching and attending the class. I don't think a school or any other government body has any right to punish a student for tweeting that "BLACK LIVES MATTER" (despite its potential to offend), whereas I think an outburst like that (or "ABORTION IS MURDER") is certainly punishable if shouted out during the middle of a Chem 200 class.
Generally speaking, the government entity shouldn't have any more authority over your online speech than it does over your speech in any other public forum -- which is to say, it should have next to none.
-
There's no way that's how the First Amendment works with Social Media. Just because a listener could read your words in a particular spot doesn't give the government free reign to impose time place and manner restrictions based on where the words were read.
huh? Did I say that?
I'm not even saying this guy's initial post was disruptive, I just disagree with your assertion that the time and location of a social media post really matters if it contains threatening or disruptive content. (Maybe there is legal precedence, when I read the summary linked in the original article it seemed like it's still being figured out)
I guess I could have misread what you meant, but I think you did say that with this:
Eh I think it's pretty different with social media - "where the speech occurred" is really "everywhere" when you post crap online. Fellow students saw it, so it was like yelling "eff ABORTIONS" within clear earshot of everyone in his school. Which, even if it wasn't directed at anyone in particular, could arguably be disruptive to class.
My point is that, there is an absolute clear and rational difference between speaking in a classroom during a class and posting something to FB, twitter, or gE. Time/place/manner restrictions have been recognized forever and they make perfect sense.
I agree that if the online opinion was threatening (within the meaning of the first amendment), then the time and place at which he made it isn't significant. I don't think it's correct to stretch "disruptive" to that same extent. Otherwise, any online opinion some students disagree with could be labeled disruptive. If you don't like someone's spicy hot political takes online (or on TV, or in a book or painting or song), you have a range of options: don't friend them, don't follow them, ignore them, read them for fun, think worse of the person, do whatever you want. We're all subject to opinions we disagree with every day.
If someone disrupts class though, you can't help but be subject to that disruption. If gone unpunished, that student has free reign to continue to waste the time and money of those teaching and attending the class. I don't think a school or any other government body has any right to punish a student for tweeting that "BLACK LIVES MATTER" (despite its potential to offend), whereas I think an outburst like that (or "ABORTION IS MURDER") is certainly punishable if shouted out during the middle of a Chem 200 class.
Generally speaking, the government entity shouldn't have any more authority over your online speech than it does over your speech in any other public forum -- which is to say, it should have next to none.
yeah it's clearly less "disruptive" to post something online, but a social media post can still be disruptive and not be avoided by fellow students. If this guy had posted something like "man, there are a bunch of girls I'd like to eff in my anatomy class" online, it isn't the same as announcing it in class and doesn't threaten or directly mention anyone, but it could still make female students forced to attend class and work with him uncomfortable and disrupt the class environment. I'm not necessarily saying the school has any right to punish this type of speech, just pointing out that it can be disruptive without directly interrupting a class.
-
https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/09/14/university-of-wisconsin-madison-students-say-ice-cream-marginalizes-muslim-vegans/
These PC nazi want the college to ban the sell of ice cream on campus because it hurts the feelings of Muslims and vegans.
Good Gawd!!
Tender panzys need to come into the real and leave their binkies and diapers.
-
This is pretty bad.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/11/us/politics/rutgers-jewish-education-civil-rights.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Feducation (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/11/us/politics/rutgers-jewish-education-civil-rights.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Feducation)
-
Treason
https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1043057116695556096?s=21
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Dumb Canadian has no idea what treason is
-
Dumb Canadian has no idea what treason is
Treason to the crown. They are all closet monarchists up there.
-
Dumb Canadian has no idea what treason is
he must be super stupid
-
https://twitter.com/respectablelaw/status/1043557710002892800?s=21
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
https://www.thedailybeast.com/inside-barstool-sports-culture-of-online-hate-they-treat-sexual-harassment-and-cyberbullying-as-a-game
The Sports IDW.
-
Beginning in August 2017, the trio wrote 20 hoax papers, submitting them to peer-reviewed journals under a variety of pseudonyms, as well as the name of their friend Richard Baldwin, a professor emeritus at Florida’s Gulf Coast State College. Mr. Baldwin confirms he gave them permission use his name. Journals accepted seven hoax papers. Four have been published.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/fake-news-comes-to-academia-1538520950
-
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20181004/4fb7208a186f4f3029a98f5dffd9c5de.png)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
https://lawandcrime.com/crazy/republicans-threaten-lawsuit-after-bar-declines-to-host-pro-kavanaugh-beers-4-brett-party/
-
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20181004/4fb7208a186f4f3029a98f5dffd9c5de.png)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Is that the facebook guy???
-
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20181004/4fb7208a186f4f3029a98f5dffd9c5de.png)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Is that the facebook guy???
Yeah, really let himself go. Should lay off the pizza...
-
There is hope
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/large-majorities-dislike-political-correctness/572581/
-
https://www.metrotimes.com/news-hits/archives/2018/10/11/video-released-showing-white-rochester-hills-man-shooting-at-black-teen
Pace told the court that after he told Zeigler he clearly aimed at the teen, Zeigler then responded, "I’m tired of being a victim."
-
A cautionary tale
https://twitter.com/notreallyjcm/status/1053324110783266821?s=19
-
CASE OF E.S. v. AUSTRIA (http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-187188)
the opinion from the mohammad defamation case. it's short and worth the read to see a different way of doing speech.
-
Dax beat you to this a couple of weeks ago.
-
i saw that i didn't see the opinion in his link.
here is another free speech story: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/pakistans-top-court-acquits-christian-woman-facing-death-penalty-for-blasphemy/2018/10/31/4e5d3fe6-dd11-11e8-85df-7a6b4d25cfbb_story.html?utm_term=.2ba0c28367cf (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/pakistans-top-court-acquits-christian-woman-facing-death-penalty-for-blasphemy/2018/10/31/4e5d3fe6-dd11-11e8-85df-7a6b4d25cfbb_story.html?utm_term=.2ba0c28367cf)
-
“Whoever, in circumstances where his or her behaviour is likely to arouse justified indignation, publicly disparages or insults a person who, or an object which, is an object of veneration of a church or religious community established within the country, or a dogma, a lawful custom or a lawful institution of such a church or religious community, shall be liable to up to six months’ imprisonment or a day-fine for a period of up to 360 days.”
Turns out you can expand the definition of "justified indignation" if you slaughter enough cartoonists. It's wild that the Austrian lady lost her case for voicing concern about the integration of Islam into democracy and for naming a pedophile, and then a week later you see grown men in the streets protesting the non-execution of a mother of 5.
-
CASE OF E.S. v. AUSTRIA (http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-187188)
the opinion from the mohammad defamation case. it's short and worth the read to see a different way of doing speech.
When you said short, did you mean like 100 pages short?
-
CASE OF E.S. v. AUSTRIA (http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-187188)
the opinion from the mohammad defamation case. it's short and worth the read to see a different way of doing speech.
When you said short, did you mean like 100 pages short?
you can skip paragraphs 14-39 if you haven't already read it all
-
CASE OF E.S. v. AUSTRIA (http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-187188)
the opinion from the mohammad defamation case. it's short and worth the read to see a different way of doing speech.
When you said short, did you mean like 100 pages short?
you can skip paragraphs 14-39 if you haven't already read it all
I'm really not a fan of article 9, and it seems like the court steps on paragraph 1 in favor of paragraph 2.
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.
2. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
A State may therefore legitimately consider it necessary to take measures aimed at repressing certain forms of conduct, including the imparting of information and ideas, judged incompatible with respect for the freedom of thought, conscience and religion of others
[...]
The Court therefore agrees with the domestic courts that the applicant must have been aware that her statements were partly based on untrue facts and apt to arouse (justified) indignation in others. In that context, the Court reiterates that the Convention States are even required, under their positive obligations under Article 9 of the Convention, to ensure the peaceful co-existence of religious and non-religious groups and individuals under their jurisdiction by ensuring an atmosphere of mutual tolerance (see paragraph 44 above). The Court endorses the Regional Court’s statement in its judgment of 15 February 2011, that presenting objects of religious worship in a provocative way capable of hurting the feelings of the followers of that religion could be conceived as a malicious violation of the spirit of tolerance, which was one of the bases of a democratic society
-
I can't make my American brain understand how anyone feels it's a good idea to so closely tie one person's freedoms to another's sensibilities. The court is trying hard for "mutual tolerance" but the law will clearly reward anyone who can establish their indignation.
This consideration is completely foreign as well. "Yeah you got your freedom of thought pissed on but you only had to pay 50 bucks."
56. Lastly, the Court reiterates that the applicant was ordered to pay a moderate fine of only EUR 480 in total for the three statements made, although the Criminal Code alternatively would have provided for up to six months’ imprisonment. Furthermore, the fine imposed was on the lower end of the statutory range of punishment of up to 360 day-fines, namely only 120 day-fines, and the domestic courts applied only the minimum day?fine of EUR 4. Though the applicant had no previous criminal record and this was taken into account as a mitigating factor, her repeated infringement had to be considered as an aggravating factor. Under the circumstances, the Court does not consider the criminal sanction as disproportionate.
-
he is obviously slowly going insane, and it's wonderful.
https://twitter.com/BritishGQ/status/1057234945427628032
-
very normal dude.
-
he is obviously slowly going insane, and it's wonderful.
https://twitter.com/BritishGQ/status/1057234945427628032
This guy and my new bff Jacob Wohl have my full attention.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I don't know who Jordan Peterson is.
-
Then keep his name out ya mouth
-
OMG. The bit about lying is unreal!
-
OMG. The bit about lying is unreal!
And also the bit about beef. Also unreal! "Unfortunately, yes." lol
-
speaking the bold truths others fear to express.
https://twitter.com/leahmcelrath/status/1058408691748220928
-
I'm just happy to see white people enjoying themselves again after the last decade of oppression.
-
We refer to those as the ‘dark ages’ :lol:
-
LOL, wut
https://twitter.com/WSJ/status/1059545721588854785?s=19
-
https://twitter.com/the_law_boy/status/1060618758828503040?s=21
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Wonder what happened here. ???
https://twitter.com/brianstelter/status/1064534865683582977
-
Michelle wolf hurt a lot of feelings
-
Safe space
-
https://twitter.com/getfiscal/status/1064870274699534336
-
New 3 hours of Jordan Peterson on Rogan :ksu:
-
New 3 hours of Jordan Peterson on Rogan :ksu:
Just when I thought this day couldn’t get any better!
-
https://twitter.com/ryanlcooper/status/1068583385956839424
-
https://twitter.com/ryanlcooper/status/1068583385956839424
http://dsadevil.blogspot.com/2018/12/from-river-to-sea-guide-to-perplexed.html
-
https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/rights-protesters/congress-trying-use-spending-bill-criminalize-boycotts-israel-and
WTF
-
lololol
https://twitter.com/MontereyAq/status/1075507604950966274
-
lololol
https://twitter.com/MontereyAq/status/1075507604950966274
Lol at all of this.
-
lololol
https://twitter.com/MontereyAq/status/1075507604950966274
lmao
-
Jr looks completely out of his element :lol:
-
it's an absolute braintrust of intellectual dark webbers, just asking the tough questions
-
Can someone give me the five second run down on why incels are against birth control? Is it just something woman related and therefore scary?
-
Can someone give me the five second run down on why incels are against birth control? Is it just something woman related and therefore scary?
I think there are some that really buy in to the whole "chad" idea that when women have "consequence free sex" with high-status males and then they will never settle down with the incel types.
Others are very in to the "death of western civilization" idea and want the birth rate up.
-
Ah, The Great Replacement.
-
Can someone give me the five second run down on why incels are against birth control? Is it just something woman related and therefore scary?
I think there are some that really buy in to the whole "chad" idea that when women have "consequence free sex" with high-status males and then they will never settle down with the incel types.
Others are very in to the "death of western civilization" idea and want the birth rate up.
Is this real?
-
Is my guy Jacob opposed to BC?
-
https://twitter.com/lpolgreen/status/1085229939597733888
-
https://twitter.com/lpolgreen/status/1085229939597733888
https://twitter.com/axios/status/1084127867305422848
Liberal media smdh
-
definitely want to get a hold of a copy of this at some point.
http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2019/01/book-review-souls-of-yellow-folk-by.html
-
Of course, lol
-
This is legit terrifying.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/angry-over-campus-speech-by-uighur-activist-students-in-canada-contact-chinese-consulate-film-presentation/2019/02/14/a442fbe4-306d-11e9-ac6c-14eea99d5e24_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.f3774a2fee8f (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/angry-over-campus-speech-by-uighur-activist-students-in-canada-contact-chinese-consulate-film-presentation/2019/02/14/a442fbe4-306d-11e9-ac6c-14eea99d5e24_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.f3774a2fee8f)
-
This is legit terrifying.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/angry-over-campus-speech-by-uighur-activist-students-in-canada-contact-chinese-consulate-film-presentation/2019/02/14/a442fbe4-306d-11e9-ac6c-14eea99d5e24_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.f3774a2fee8f (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/angry-over-campus-speech-by-uighur-activist-students-in-canada-contact-chinese-consulate-film-presentation/2019/02/14/a442fbe4-306d-11e9-ac6c-14eea99d5e24_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.f3774a2fee8f)
Yeah it is. The Chinese government is pure evil.
-
My cousin married a woman from that area. Her family has been treated pretty badly.
-
They have endured a lot of oppression. Also, the word Uyghur cracks me up. Also also, Uyghur food is delish.
-
https://twitter.com/jessicavalenti/status/1100100628473434112?s=21
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1101943776640229377
#FREEMILO
-
Compelled speech. Nice!
-
https://twitter.com/elivalley/status/1104199594810982402?s=19
-
https://www.campusreform.org/?id=12058
This is going to hurt a lot of feelings
-
https://www.campusreform.org/?id=12058
This is going to hurt a lot of feelings
I’m already triggered
-
https://twitter.com/willsommer/status/1115646769327685632
-
Actually just read the whole thread, it's short
https://twitter.com/willsommer/status/1115619383513104386
-
lmao
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Oh man that last tweet in the thread.
-
https://www.sfchronicle.com/news/us/article/The-Latest-Judge-awards-4-1-million-in-neo-Nazi-13971372.php
-
https://www.knoxnews.com/story/news/2019/06/12/knox-county-detective-calls-execution-lgbtq-people/1419137001/
-
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1139878112701927424?s=21
Get in line Dax, your boy Donny says the 1st amendment has got to go!
-
Waste of time. He’s got the downgrade “patriot” vote secured already.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1139878112701927424?s=21
Get in line Dax, your boy Donny says the 1st amendment has got to go!
Oh man, I know exactly where Dax is going on this one. Very exciting.
-
Dax will ignore. He kind of pinned himself in on the whole google should be forced by the gov to not block infowars
-
Dax will ignore. He kind of pinned himself in on the whole google should be forced by the gov to not block infowars
I don’t think google blocks infowars though. Did the government get to them? I just searched it through google on my chrome browser
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190615/cccc258a4136a924d6cff7a8cdb43ae8.jpg)
-
They only ban it on the computers of ultra conservatives dummy
-
Shadow ban tho
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
They only ban it on the computers of ultra conservatives dummy
It’s worse than I thought. The gov needs to take over google because it’s a public company
-
https://twitter.com/ketanj0/status/1155388563632152576?s=21
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
#freemitch
https://twitter.com/Cooksey__/status/1159204874615164928?s=19
Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk
-
Little Donnie is not pleased.
https://twitter.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/status/1159434519654600705
-
https://www.dw.com/en/uk-bans-ads-over-gender-stereotypes-in-landmark-ruling/a-50017637
:facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:
-
https://www.dw.com/en/uk-bans-ads-over-gender-stereotypes-in-landmark-ruling/a-50017637
:facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:
Thank god for the first amendment, that will never happen here!
-
Seems arbitrary. And yes, that would never happen here, but America is the exception, not the rule, when it comes to freedom of expression.
-
https://www.thetimesherald.com/story/news/2019/08/22/racist-comment-shocks-marysville-forum-amid-message-growth/2084613001/
-
https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/a-penn-law-professor-wants-to-make-america-white-again
-
https://twitter.com/jamisonfoser/status/1166167745626460161
https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1166291203022868480
-
Bret Stephens tried to pick on the wrong dude. lol.
Bret Stephens, the author of “Free Speech and the Necessity of Discomfort,” couldn’t handle the slightest discomfort when he saw speech about himself online.
https://twitter.com/ryanlcooper/status/1166819818227585024
-
Bret is a perfect representative for his “no safe spaces” club
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
https://twitter.com/notwoodse/status/1166947773536768000
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
:lol:
-
Cross posted in the melting down about Trump thread.
https://www.thecollegefix.com/poll-73-percent-of-republican-students-have-withheld-political-views-in-class-for-fear-their-grades-would-suffer/
-
Cross posted in the melting down about Trump thread.
https://www.thecollegefix.com/poll-73-percent-of-republican-students-have-withheld-political-views-in-class-for-fear-their-grades-would-suffer/
• Kansas State: Professor the day after the presidential election kicked two students wearing MAGA hats out of class. I was appalled. We’re all people, if someone disagrees with you — love them anyways.
:emawkid:
-
cRusty, just never pictured you as a goose stepper :surprised:
-
Cross posted in the melting down about Trump thread.
https://www.thecollegefix.com/poll-73-percent-of-republican-students-have-withheld-political-views-in-class-for-fear-their-grades-would-suffer/
who knew pubs were such beta cowards?
-
I’d just stand up and speak my beliefs. Also I’d work that much harder so go ahead and drop my grades I’ll still get an A+
-
Kind of ashamed of the Pubs for not standing up to the Facist Libs.
Gonna have to toughen up in order take on the most dangerous political party in the world.
-
I mean yeah.
If that is really how you feel. Pubs not standing up for there beliefs to a bunch of dorky ass lib arts professors probably doesn't inspire much hope.
-
I mean yeah.
If that is really how you feel. Pubs not standing up for there beliefs to a bunch of dorky ass lib arts professors probably doesn't inspire much hope.
With Facist Libs now rolling on to the next step by making lists, are we far off from the Facist American Left going full Pol Pot?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
makes you think...
-
makes you think...
What will be the ploy? Long march, agrarian utopia, re-education camps?
Khmer Rouge style Scarfs? Antifa black hoods and masks?
-
it really could be all of those things
or maybe just trying to get more people reasonable access to health care
-
it really could be all of those things
or maybe just trying to get more people reasonable access to health care
I'll go full Slow Dug for a moment and say that you really have to be utterly uniformed and frankly just lazy to not be able to get reasonable access to healthcare in this country.
But that's a LickNeckyFlection from the main theme of this thread.
So, are you thinking Rooseveltian style internment camps, Lick?
-
i think watching you turn into the personification of crazy chain email has been both fascinating and kinda sad
-
has charlie kirk peeing in an adult sized diaper and sucking on a binkie not toughened up the alt-right gen z'ers to be brave enough to speak their beliefs? sad
-
i think watching you turn into the personification of crazy chain email has been both fascinating and kinda sad
When you have a political movement that's advocating (black) lists, oppressing free speech and being triggered by red hats, then who knows what kind of crazy is coming next.
The American Democratic Party: The most dangerous political party in the world
-
very normal comments on that article dax posted.
gems mini-thread:
Who knew Econ departments were crawling with Marxists?
Likewise, I dumped a PhD program in Economics, after the professor teaching the mandatory Mathematics class turned his lectures—on mathematics!—into Marxist rants.
I can see how an addled loon might be duped into Hegelian doublethink, when logic contradicts his woefully misguided hypotheses, but Marxism???
I'm ABD (all but dissertation) in Econometrics because my adviser was a Marxist nutcase from the London School of Economics. I couldn't fight the communists forever not when they held all the cards.
There was some of it in the mid 70s already. Only one lib who would really hit you on grades for it openly (econ), but one or two others seemed sneakier.
On the other hand, I did have one very left prof from Sweden, who gave us a single essay question for the final exam. When I went to find out my grade, he said "I had to give you an A, because you were the only one who understood the question". He gave an 'A' to many others too though, I found out. I have always wondered on what basis.
I made sure I presented point-counterpoint to show the best arguments, and that worked with some but not others. The negative example that most frosts me was with an econ prof. I always got every objective question right, but he always gave my (point-heavy) essays a zero even though I explained what he maintained before showing a weakness in it or an alternative.
In his class I went into the final in such bad shape, that only if I got precisely 100%, could I have salvaged a 'D'.
I didn't study, and didn't know what I was going to do, but when I got the paper, I wrote at the top in big letters "I don't believe anything I say here," Then used the essay to parrot every nuance of his doctrine.
I actually got one objective question wrong on that exam, the first time I ever had, but he gave me a 'C' for the course, which was mathematically impossible.
The only thing I can believe from this, is that he saw that I had finally undertaken the path toward obedience. That is disgusting.
And by the way, I didn't in all classes deserve an A, I wasn't fixated on grades, which I know sounds incomprehensible. I am sure it would have then too if anyone had asked. I just went there to learn.
Sounds like it is pretty hard being a rich white person in South Africa.
If I had a penny for every time I've had to catch myself before I revealed my views (classical liberal)... If you think things are bad in America, try being a non black-supremacist-communist in South Africa. They'll quite literally crucify you and your family. I wrote a paper in one of my one-semester electives (socio-anthropology) in my first year in which I was not as enthusiastic about the conclusion (which aligned perfectly with what I knew the lecturer wanted) as the lecturer wanted, and I was slammed with a 60%, it was the only paper I wrote that year that got less than 80%, and most got 90+. She even rapped me for using 'he' in my generic person example instead of 'she'.
I learned there that the best thing for you was to just swallow your pride, and your core principles, and write the babble tripe your lecturer wants and get your certificate. I hope to eventually return to academia (I'm working to save up money for my masters right now) and I promised myself if I would never do something like that to any of my students.
It's perfectly fine for a professor to have positions on these kinds of matters, but their job is to teach their students to think for themselves, not to indoctrinate them to hold the professor's views, regardless of what they might be. They exist to teach students how to think, not what to think.
Finally some practical advice for the conservative on campus:
Practice good "grey-man" op-sec. Blend in.
-
lmao nerds
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
#triggered
-
Those dudes get wedgies and no girls
-
More than one mud pie has been eaten by that group
-
if only pubs were willing to surrender there second amendment rights as cowardly as they will there first.
#prolife
-
lmao nerds
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You laugh, but imagine if you would've had a Marxist econ professor at K-State.....you'd be back home trying to explain it to Tod.
-
https://www.vulture.com/2019/09/snl-shane-gillis-racist-homophobic-remarks.html
eff this guy
-
https://www.vulture.com/2019/09/snl-shane-gillis-racist-homophobic-remarks.html
eff this guy
I watched the video about Chinatown and even though it didn't seem quite as racist as the headlines made it seem it was definitely pretty racist but it was also really really unfunny and those guys looked like just the worst if the worst.
Like Chappelle's bit on not being able to say the f word on his show was some pretty dumb logic but at least it was presented in a funny way.
-
I think the fact that this kind of crap doesn't bother me at all is a sign of my privilege. Or not. I don't know/care.
-
don't mind race jokes if it's funny and doesn't put people down, should get at least a chuckle from the people being made fun of. but yea he's just throwing around the c-word to be edgy. really lazy. i think comedians who complain about the whole free speech issue should try and be funnier instead.
-
and he's out of there
kareem abdul-jabbar wrote a good article about it https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/kareem-abdul-jabbar-shane-gillis-snl-art-post-racist-rant-apology-1240924
-
and he's out of there
kareem abdul-jabbar wrote a good article about it https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/kareem-abdul-jabbar-shane-gillis-snl-art-post-racist-rant-apology-1240924
I read somewhere that SNL hired him to appease the Wackycats of the world.
-
he is obviously slowly going insane, and it's wonderful.
https://twitter.com/BritishGQ/status/1057234945427628032
have we discussed that maybe he was just high on drugs the whole time?
https://twitter.com/NikkiMcR/status/1175205868553588737?s=20
-
and he's out of there
kareem abdul-jabbar wrote a good article about it https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/kareem-abdul-jabbar-shane-gillis-snl-art-post-racist-rant-apology-1240924
I read somewhere that SNL hired him to appease the Wackycats of the world.
That's terrible strategy. The Wackycats are watching every week to find things to be offended by.
-
https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/465386-students-burn-copies-of-professors-book-after-she-asked-them-to-think
-
:grin:
https://twitter.com/revrrlewis/status/1184088887314079744
-
https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/465386-students-burn-copies-of-professors-book-after-she-asked-them-to-think
bunch of snowflakes
-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/11/11/donald-trump-jr-book-talk-ucla-derailed-by-far-right-protesters/
-
Guilfoyle is a year older than Melania. Lmao.
-
https://dailynorthwestern.com/2019/11/10/lateststories/addressing-the-dailys-coverage-of-sessions-protests/ (https://dailynorthwestern.com/2019/11/10/lateststories/addressing-the-dailys-coverage-of-sessions-protests/)
-
https://dailynorthwestern.com/2019/11/10/lateststories/addressing-the-dailys-coverage-of-sessions-protests/ (https://dailynorthwestern.com/2019/11/10/lateststories/addressing-the-dailys-coverage-of-sessions-protests/)
While our goal is to document history and spread information, nothing is more important than ensuring that our fellow students feel safe
eff that
-
https://twitter.com/kvanvalkenburg/status/1194322882949779456?s=21
Good thread
-
https://dailynorthwestern.com/2019/11/10/lateststories/addressing-the-dailys-coverage-of-sessions-protests/ (https://dailynorthwestern.com/2019/11/10/lateststories/addressing-the-dailys-coverage-of-sessions-protests/)
While our goal is to document history and spread information, nothing is more important than ensuring that our fellow students feel safe
eff that
Such a weird thing to say for a paper. Your most important goal is making people feel safe? What on earth?
-
https://twitter.com/mrjasonlevy/status/1194445298095067136
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Man, that can't be real. All three people in that thread are insanely cartoonish.
-
Looks like Jacob Wohl with a beard.
-
I like Mr. Levy's earnest conviction to help all women who just want to snuggle. Also, did he do a poor MS paint job on the background of his profile pic because that dude commented on the wallpaper?
-
https://www.wvgazettemail.com/news/legal_affairs/wv-employees-suspended-after-photo-emerges-of-correctional-officers-nazi/article_fb446f32-31c5-5b46-9977-5854937697a7.html
-
https://twitter.com/Lowenaffchen/status/1226051435604869120
-
is this the thread for the Harper's letter? Lots of twitter folks are dunking on it
https://twitter.com/LLW902/status/1280547024014905346
-
Yes, and can be cross posted in Woke Nation thread as well.
-
is this the thread for the Harper's letter? Lots of twitter folks are dunking on it
https://twitter.com/LLW902/status/1280547024014905346
I guess if you insert "about trans people" into every sentence it does take a bit of a transphobic lean. FWIW, this thread is the first time i've heard about this letter.
-
I also had not heard about this letter
-
Seems wrong to me that a person’s endorsement of a viewpoint should be criticized based solely on the identity of others who support it.
People can have differing motives for supporting an idea. Yes, obviously bigots are fans of free speech. If you have to distance yourself from the First Amendment based on that then we’re mumped.
-
Yeah, letter seems good to me. Hadn’t heard of of it, and have only read the clip posted with the trans inserts, but yeah, I agree.
-
My only issue with the letter is that #cancelling someone is a form of speech. That's how it's supposed to work. Person A says something, society analyzes it and reacts accordingly -- whether neutrally, in support, or in opposition. I really don't have any problem with people calling out or canceling or whatever. That's part of Speech too, baby.
Seen in the best light, the letter is a call for more nuanced thought and consideration of how we oppose ideas we disagree with. Which I think is a great and smart thing to consider, but keeping in mind that sometimes, reprehensible ideas don't deserve much nuance or thought or discussion.
-
My only issue with the letter is that #cancelling someone is a form of speech. That's how it's supposed to work. Person A says something, society analyzes it and reacts accordingly -- whether neutrally, in support, or in opposition. I really don't have any problem with people calling out or canceling or whatever. That's part of Speech too, baby.
Seen in the best light, the letter is a call for more nuanced thought and consideration of how we oppose ideas we disagree with. Which I think is a great and smart thing to consider, but keeping in mind that sometimes, reprehensible ideas don't deserve much nuance or thought or discussion.
none of the people who signed are at risk of being cancelled. They just don't want criticism from regular people.
-
My only issue with the letter is that #cancelling someone is a form of speech. That's how it's supposed to work. Person A says something, society analyzes it and reacts accordingly -- whether neutrally, in support, or in opposition. I really don't have any problem with people calling out or canceling or whatever. That's part of Speech too, baby.
Seen in the best light, the letter is a call for more nuanced thought and consideration of how we oppose ideas we disagree with. Which I think is a great and smart thing to consider, but keeping in mind that sometimes, reprehensible ideas don't deserve much nuance or thought or discussion.
Right. To be clear, the letter is not a defense of the First Amendment, it’s a plea to give thought to and consider opposing views for what they are.
The “trans” write up really serves to highlight the point. That person is essentially saying, “I’m not going to respond to your stated viewpoint because I know what you REALLY mean based on the person I think you are.” It squelches opportunities for productive conversation.
-
Just occurred to me that fancy people already have a word for that: ad hominem attack.
-
My only issue with the letter is that #cancelling someone is a form of speech. That's how it's supposed to work. Person A says something, society analyzes it and reacts accordingly -- whether neutrally, in support, or in opposition. I really don't have any problem with people calling out or canceling or whatever. That's part of Speech too, baby.
Seen in the best light, the letter is a call for more nuanced thought and consideration of how we oppose ideas we disagree with. Which I think is a great and smart thing to consider, but keeping in mind that sometimes, reprehensible ideas don't deserve much nuance or thought or discussion.
Right. To be clear, the letter is not a defense of the First Amendment, it’s a plea to give thought to and consider opposing views for what they are.
The “trans” write up really serves to highlight the point. That person is essentially saying, “I’m not going to respond to your stated viewpoint because I know what you REALLY mean based on the person I think you are.” It squelches opportunities for productive conversation.
That's not allowed anymore, either agree, or get cancelled. Period.
-
Dax, have you been canceled?
-
My only issue with the letter is that #cancelling someone is a form of speech. That's how it's supposed to work. Person A says something, society analyzes it and reacts accordingly -- whether neutrally, in support, or in opposition. I really don't have any problem with people calling out or canceling or whatever. That's part of Speech too, baby.
Seen in the best light, the letter is a call for more nuanced thought and consideration of how we oppose ideas we disagree with. Which I think is a great and smart thing to consider, but keeping in mind that sometimes, reprehensible ideas don't deserve much nuance or thought or discussion.
none of the people who signed are at risk of being cancelled. They just don't want criticism from regular people.
while it is ludicrous to argue that the principle is invalid if there is a class of people powerful, influential or successful enough to not be subject to negative consequences that others may face or fear for the same actions, david shor was fired just a month or so ago for a (perfectly reasonable) tweet. by any standard, shor was influential and successful in his field.
-
My only issue with the letter is that #cancelling someone is a form of speech. That's how it's supposed to work. Person A says something, society analyzes it and reacts accordingly -- whether neutrally, in support, or in opposition. I really don't have any problem with people calling out or canceling or whatever. That's part of Speech too, baby.
Seen in the best light, the letter is a call for more nuanced thought and consideration of how we oppose ideas we disagree with. Which I think is a great and smart thing to consider, but keeping in mind that sometimes, reprehensible ideas don't deserve much nuance or thought or discussion.
none of the people who signed are at risk of being cancelled. They just don't want criticism from regular people.
while it is ludicrous to argue that the principle is invalid if there is a class of people powerful, influential or successful enough to not be subject to negative consequences that others may face or fear for the same actions, david shor was fired just a month or so ago for a (perfectly reasonable) tweet. by any standard, shor was influential and successful in his field.
I don't know enough about Shor or the company and their clients, but I can see how that tweet could damage relationships with clients or maybe violate an internal social media policy. I can certainly get a passive-aggressive condescending vibe from the tweet and his adjacent ones and got the sense from replies that there's a bit of a history with similar tweets. Also considering he's NDA'd up I'm assuming he got a decent payout and probably walked away with a larger profile than he would have had otherwise.
At the same time, I don't think the "mob" was all that large and it wouldn't have been an issue for Civis to stand up for him. :dunno:
-
My only issue with the letter is that #cancelling someone is a form of speech. That's how it's supposed to work. Person A says something, society analyzes it and reacts accordingly -- whether neutrally, in support, or in opposition. I really don't have any problem with people calling out or canceling or whatever. That's part of Speech too, baby.
Seen in the best light, the letter is a call for more nuanced thought and consideration of how we oppose ideas we disagree with. Which I think is a great and smart thing to consider, but keeping in mind that sometimes, reprehensible ideas don't deserve much nuance or thought or discussion.
none of the people who signed are at risk of being cancelled. They just don't want criticism from regular people.
while it is ludicrous to argue that the principle is invalid if there is a class of people powerful, influential or successful enough to not be subject to negative consequences that others may face or fear for the same actions, david shor was fired just a month or so ago for a (perfectly reasonable) tweet. by any standard, shor was influential and successful in his field.
I don't know enough about Shor or the company and their clients, but I can see how that tweet could damage relationships with clients or maybe violate an internal social media policy. I can certainly get a passive-aggressive condescending vibe from the tweet and his adjacent ones and got the sense from replies that there's a bit of a history with similar tweets. Also considering he's NDA'd up I'm assuming he got a decent payout and probably walked away with a larger profile than he would have had otherwise.
At the same time, I don't think the "mob" was all that large and it wouldn't have been an issue for Civis to stand up for him. :dunno:
I think it's fair enough for him to be upset by that episode, the hypothetical decent payout and larger profile notwithstanding.
-
My only issue with the letter is that #cancelling someone is a form of speech. That's how it's supposed to work. Person A says something, society analyzes it and reacts accordingly -- whether neutrally, in support, or in opposition. I really don't have any problem with people calling out or canceling or whatever. That's part of Speech too, baby.
Seen in the best light, the letter is a call for more nuanced thought and consideration of how we oppose ideas we disagree with. Which I think is a great and smart thing to consider, but keeping in mind that sometimes, reprehensible ideas don't deserve much nuance or thought or discussion.
none of the people who signed are at risk of being cancelled. They just don't want criticism from regular people.
while it is ludicrous to argue that the principle is invalid if there is a class of people powerful, influential or successful enough to not be subject to negative consequences that others may face or fear for the same actions, david shor was fired just a month or so ago for a (perfectly reasonable) tweet. by any standard, shor was influential and successful in his field.
I don't know enough about Shor or the company and their clients, but I can see how that tweet could damage relationships with clients or maybe violate an internal social media policy. I can certainly get a passive-aggressive condescending vibe from the tweet and his adjacent ones and got the sense from replies that there's a bit of a history with similar tweets. Also considering he's NDA'd up I'm assuming he got a decent payout and probably walked away with a larger profile than he would have had otherwise.
At the same time, I don't think the "mob" was all that large and it wouldn't have been an issue for Civis to stand up for him. :dunno:
I think it's fair enough for him to be upset by that episode, the hypothetical decent payout and larger profile notwithstanding.
I don't disagree with that. But like from my very brief research of Civis, they're kinda focused on getting left-leaning clients - one article mentioned that the Biden campaign spent six figures on them. It isn't a stretch to think the Biden campaign might want to disassociate from support of a study like that (and by association, so would civis, even if it was scientifically rigorous and well done). My very brief experience working with consultants is they can be very touchy about offending clients. I guess what I'm saying is that I don't think this was just about placating a twitter mob or is a great example of "cancel culture" at work.
Although, yikes
https://www.civisanalytics.com/mission/
1. First, and most importantly, we seek truth through scientific rigor.
The scientific method is at the core of everything we do. That’s because, after more than 700 years, it’s still the best process for determining truth. And our customers trust us and our technology because truth is the new anchor of good business.
2. We tell the truth, and we admit when we’re wrong.
We call it out with candor, empathy, and the license to be disproven – even when it’s awkward. We’d rather be fired than lie or obfuscate.
....
9. We do the right thing, even when it costs us money.
Data science is powerful: it can be used for good or bad. We’ll often pursue powerful social good work at a loss, and we’ll responsibly decline work that does wrong, even if it’s lucrative.
-
Right -- like I said originally, I don't really have a problem with private reactions to bad speech. This guy shared something that could be seen as controversial, and he got canned. I get why he's upset. I get (conceptually) why his detractors/employer was upset. Sucks, but as we've both pointed out, that's kind of how things go.
But I think the letter was an opportunity to suggest "hey maybe we should hold our horses on some of this stuff and be sure as we can that what we're doing/calling for is a good idea" in those kinds of situations.
-
But I think the letter was an opportunity to suggest "hey maybe we should hold our horses on some of this stuff and be sure as we can that what we're doing/calling for is a good idea" in those kinds of situations.
I don't know if you're referring to Civis or the #Mob, but
a) maybe Civis did hold their horses and consider what they were doing and
b) did anyone actually demand he was fired? I saw that some guy tagged the Civis CEO but I didn't see any demands (I also didn't look hard)
the other examples the letter shared were pretty vague
-
But I think the letter was an opportunity to suggest "hey maybe we should hold our horses on some of this stuff and be sure as we can that what we're doing/calling for is a good idea" in those kinds of situations.
I don't know if you're referring to Civis or the #Mob, but
a) maybe Civis did hold their horses and consider what they were doing and
b) did anyone actually demand he was fired? I saw that some guy tagged the Civis CEO but I didn't see any demands (I also didn't look hard)
the other examples the letter shared were pretty vague
I'm speaking generally. It seems like there's a lot less hesitation in writing people off these days for things they say/do, but that might just be my perception. What do I know?
Maybe civis/#mob considered the situation carefully and didn't knee-jerk. If that's the case, good on'em. They know a lot more about the situation than I do. But calls for thoughtfulness (if that's how the letter can be characterized) are probably a good idea.
-
Cancel culture is definitely a thing and as long as this country has no unions and at will employment it is bad. I don’t like racists either, but they should be able to earn a living and eat too. Unless we just want a special welfare program just for unemployable racists that we have cancelled it seems like it is to only ever ask that they be fired.
Also, in the academy and in real life at will employment has always been a tool of power and it seems like a very poorly thought out tactical decision if the left thinks they are now in a strong position to wield it.
-
The WaPo article where they told this story of a non public figure random woman who wore a Meghan Kelly costume in blackface years ago and then she got fired seems bad. Justin Trudeau and Ralph Northram still in power and I think that should tell you everything you need to know about whether this is even “effective” on its own terms.
-
Also Bari Weiss and a bunch of the people on their are absolutely full of crap about caring about free speech
https://theintercept.com/2018/03/08/the-nyts-bari-weiss-falsely-denies-her-years-of-attacks-on-the-academic-freedom-of-arab-scholars-who-criticize-israel/?comments=1
-
I tried to have an open mind about that letter, however tying what they're careful to not call cancel culture, as a right wing ideal is a steaming pile of crap that I couldn't overcome. I do find it interesting that we can all find some common ground on pieces of this and can completely disagree on other parts. In some ways I'm configured with viewpoints on this issue, in gE anyway, as I've grown very weary over the zero sum game all aspects of life has become. I don't feel the same way about Harper's editorial board and the people who signed that letter. They are not friends talking in their living room, they are people in position of influence and are using that influence to do exactly what they are speaking out about, and that is not allowing people to be able to freely express themselves.
I don't think cancel culture is a thing, not unless you acknowledge that people for the as long as words have existed, have either fairly or unfairly had repercussions for the things they say and feel.
It is completely self serving for these people to complain about words having consequences, given almost all of them make a living or are able to enhance their profile by speaking publicly. I guess it's no surprise that these people, largely Gen Xers are attempting to create a society where your words mean less. No one told JK Rowling to poke at trans people, more than once. While most American's could say the things she's said without repercussion, some couldn't, I sure as hell couldn't, not that I'd want to.
The best way to not get cancelled is to not have to publicly broadcast all of your thoughts, I don't know why that's so difficult, we've all spent everyday of our lives doing just that.
-
Sorry MIR, but is there a DNR version of this?
-
Interesting thread in the topic:
https://twitter.com/RottenInDenmark/status/1280859257970159618
-
Interesting thread in the topic:
https://twitter.com/RottenInDenmark/status/1280859257970159618
I learned a lot from this video. Good to look back
https://youtu.be/J3D2iyBqlCk
-
Sorry MIR, but is there a DNR version of this?
This topic is nuanced isn't it? Read it or don't, I don't give a crap.
-
Most of your prob dgaf about poker but this clip def belongs here imo. Also very lol imo. I know who my villain is, not sure if there is a real protagonist. I can say I do know which guy I want to punch in the face.
[youtube]https://youtu.be/I6qLj_f5hLc[/youtube]
-
I tried to have an open mind about that letter, however tying what they're careful to not call cancel culture, as a right wing ideal is a steaming pile of crap that I couldn't overcome. I do find it interesting that we can all find some common ground on pieces of this and can completely disagree on other parts. In some ways I'm configured with viewpoints on this issue, in gE anyway, as I've grown very weary over the zero sum game all aspects of life has become. I don't feel the same way about Harper's editorial board and the people who signed that letter. They are not friends talking in their living room, they are people in position of influence and are using that influence to do exactly what they are speaking out about, and that is not allowing people to be able to freely express themselves.
I don't think cancel culture is a thing, not unless you acknowledge that people for the as long as words have existed, have either fairly or unfairly had repercussions for the things they say and feel.
It is completely self serving for these people to complain about words having consequences, given almost all of them make a living or are able to enhance their profile by speaking publicly. I guess it's no surprise that these people, largely Gen Xers are attempting to create a society where your words mean less. No one told JK Rowling to poke at trans people, more than once. While most American's could say the things she's said without repercussion, some couldn't, I sure as hell couldn't, not that I'd want to.
The best way to not get cancelled is to not have to publicly broadcast all of your thoughts, I don't know why that's so difficult, we've all spent everyday of our lives doing just that.
Not sure whether it falls under your concept of "cancel culture" but when I hear that phrase I think of the twitter mob mentality of people who are willing to jump into the fray and attack a person, @ their superiors, etc. based on some rumor getting picked up by an influencer. I'm not concerned about the radio personalities of the world who are held to account for what they say, I'm concerned about the folks that have one mistake caught on camera and aren't even able to make amends before their life is ruined.
-
I tried to have an open mind about that letter, however tying what they're careful to not call cancel culture, as a right wing ideal is a steaming pile of crap that I couldn't overcome. I do find it interesting that we can all find some common ground on pieces of this and can completely disagree on other parts. In some ways I'm configured with viewpoints on this issue, in gE anyway, as I've grown very weary over the zero sum game all aspects of life has become. I don't feel the same way about Harper's editorial board and the people who signed that letter. They are not friends talking in their living room, they are people in position of influence and are using that influence to do exactly what they are speaking out about, and that is not allowing people to be able to freely express themselves.
I don't think cancel culture is a thing, not unless you acknowledge that people for the as long as words have existed, have either fairly or unfairly had repercussions for the things they say and feel.
It is completely self serving for these people to complain about words having consequences, given almost all of them make a living or are able to enhance their profile by speaking publicly. I guess it's no surprise that these people, largely Gen Xers are attempting to create a society where your words mean less. No one told JK Rowling to poke at trans people, more than once. While most American's could say the things she's said without repercussion, some couldn't, I sure as hell couldn't, not that I'd want to.
The best way to not get cancelled is to not have to publicly broadcast all of your thoughts, I don't know why that's so difficult, we've all spent everyday of our lives doing just that.
Not sure whether it falls under your concept of "cancel culture" but when I hear that phrase I think of the twitter mob mentality of people who are willing to jump into the fray and attack a person, @ their superiors, etc. based on some rumor getting picked up by an influencer. I'm not concerned about the radio personalities of the world who are held to account for what they say, I'm concerned about the folks that have one mistake caught on camera and aren't even able to make amends before their life is ruined.
That's essentially how the Salem Witch Trials started, right? Someone misinterpreted something they saw then extrapolated it into something greater that it actually wasn't. While what we know as cancel culture isn't new, that phrase certainly is and it was crafted by the majority who, for the first time in the history, are victimized by this, instead of perpetuating it. Today's consequences of this are much less significant than it ever has been. Forgive me for not being sympathetic.
-
I tried to have an open mind about that letter, however tying what they're careful to not call cancel culture, as a right wing ideal is a steaming pile of crap that I couldn't overcome. I do find it interesting that we can all find some common ground on pieces of this and can completely disagree on other parts. In some ways I'm configured with viewpoints on this issue, in gE anyway, as I've grown very weary over the zero sum game all aspects of life has become. I don't feel the same way about Harper's editorial board and the people who signed that letter. They are not friends talking in their living room, they are people in position of influence and are using that influence to do exactly what they are speaking out about, and that is not allowing people to be able to freely express themselves.
I don't think cancel culture is a thing, not unless you acknowledge that people for the as long as words have existed, have either fairly or unfairly had repercussions for the things they say and feel.
It is completely self serving for these people to complain about words having consequences, given almost all of them make a living or are able to enhance their profile by speaking publicly. I guess it's no surprise that these people, largely Gen Xers are attempting to create a society where your words mean less. No one told JK Rowling to poke at trans people, more than once. While most American's could say the things she's said without repercussion, some couldn't, I sure as hell couldn't, not that I'd want to.
The best way to not get cancelled is to not have to publicly broadcast all of your thoughts, I don't know why that's so difficult, we've all spent everyday of our lives doing just that.
Not sure whether it falls under your concept of "cancel culture" but when I hear that phrase I think of the twitter mob mentality of people who are willing to jump into the fray and attack a person, @ their superiors, etc. based on some rumor getting picked up by an influencer. I'm not concerned about the radio personalities of the world who are held to account for what they say, I'm concerned about the folks that have one mistake caught on camera and aren't even able to make amends before their life is ruined.
That's essentially how the Salem Witch Trials started, right? Someone misinterpreted something they saw then extrapolated it into something greater that it actually wasn't. While what we know as cancel culture isn't new, that phrase certainly is and it was crafted by the majority who, for the first time in the history, are victimized by this, instead of perpetuating it. Today's consequences of this are much less significant than it ever has been. Forgive me for not being sympathetic.
I’m not sure I follow, but if you’re suggesting no one was complaining about the witch trials when they were happening I really don’t think that’s right.
-
I think it is good that people can call Bret Stephens names on twitter and that some guy emailed Bret Stephens and pissed him off.
I think it is bad that Bret Stephens basically threatened the guys livelihood.
I think it is good that people can constantly broadcast to increasingly large audiences how awful Alan Dershowitz is.
I think it is bad that Alan Dershowitz can prevent Norman Finkelstein from getting tenure.
I think it is good that people got mad at JK Rowling and maybe cost her some bucks down the road because she doesn't like trans people.
I think it is bad that some woman who was not a public figure made a bad call on a Halloween costume and is now getting fired for it.
Democratizing this system has definitely pissed off some powerful people, but the people that actually experience most of the consequences are regular ass people that never get a chance to sit down with Oprah or whatever and rehab themselves. These just everyday assholes that become twitter's enemy for a day bear the brunt of the consequences not the rich and powerful.
-
Academic freedom and free speech . . . . as long as you never criticized any of our favorites!! (BidenBot Nation)
-
hilarious and precisely makes my point
-
Academic freedom and free speech . . . . as long as you never criticized any of our favorites!! (BidenBot Nation)
Bari literally tried to get a Palestinian professor at Columbia fired because she "didn't feel safe."
beyond parody.
-
really good recap and exploration of possible implications of l'affaire shor.
https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1288535690406486023
-
really good recap and exploration of possible implications of l'affaire shor.
https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1288535690406486023
Pretty good read. Mildly surprised to see it on Vox.
-
haven't read yet, but pretty sure yglesias signed the harper's letter
-
correct, he did.
-
I mean
this:
David Shor did nothing wrong
seems directly contradicted by this:
And all accounts of the internal situation at Civis confirm that clients and partners did in fact complain about him and his tweet to the company.
regardless of whether or not the research was sound and perfectly fine (AFAIK, it is), he failed to read the room at the time, which is pretty important as a consultant. Pretty interesting that his new employer doesn't want it known that he works for them.
as for the cool exclusive listserv, I've never been a part of one so I have no idea what the goal of his might be
-
i agree with yglesias that it is wrong for clients to want you to lie to them and not wrong of a person not to.
-
i agree with yglesias that it is wrong for clients to want you to lie to them and not wrong of a person not to.
I agree, I think the issue is that it was broadcast publicly. I don't think a client (or Civis) would have been nearly as upset if it had been presented confidentially as part of a project with proper vetting from civis and context for the client.
-
ok, then why would it be wrong for a consultant to accurately discuss non-proprietary research unrelated to any client in a public forum?
-
ok, then why would it be wrong for a consultant to accurately discuss non-proprietary research unrelated to any client in a public forum?
Given that Civis specializes in left leaning political clients (including the biden campaign), I think it's pretty safe to the tweet wasn't unrelated to at least some of their clients' interests.
-
Sounds like a healthy breakup for both sides.
-
ok, then why would it be wrong for a consultant to accurately discuss non-proprietary research unrelated to any client in a public forum?
Given that Civis specializes in left leaning political clients (including the biden campaign), I think it's pretty safe to the tweet wasn't unrelated to at least some of their clients' interests.
not in a consulant/client's context of interest. like i don't know for sure, but i think it is very unlikely that he posted information or opinions that he was paid a client's money to research, and there is essentially no suggestion anywhere that that was the nature of the complaints registered by clients.
yglesias already spelled this out, but the complaints centered on him thinking and expressing something the clients felt he should not think or express, even though it is supported by quality data and analyses.
my understanding of the central thesis of yglesias' piece is that it is unhealthy for an ideology to be unconcerned with the accuracy of the precepts they espouse (and i agree, obviously).
-
not in a consulant/client's context of interest. like i don't know for sure, but i think it is very unlikely that he posted information or opinions that he was paid a client's money to research, and there is essentially no suggestion anywhere that that was the nature of the complaints registered by clients.
I'm guessing most clients would want to keep their complaints kept quiet as well.
yglesias already spelled this out, but the complaints centered on him thinking and expressing something the clients felt he should not think or express, even though it is supported by quality data and analyses.
By extension, Shor was a representative of Civis clients. there are plenty of hypotheses that are supported by quality data and analyses that campaigns and companies wouldn't want said by representatives of the campaign or company. I don't think this is a recent phenomenon. What if he had posted something like "more whites are killed by cops than blacks" or shared a poll that concluded something negative about Biden? The study he shared might be well researched and accurate, but it was the wrong thing to tweet at that moment in time given who pays his bills.
my understanding of the central thesis of yglesias' piece is that it is unhealthy for an ideology to be unconcerned with the accuracy of the precepts they espouse (and i agree, obviously).
I agree with this, too, I'm just not convinced that the issue necessarily boils down to that.
-
Pretty good read. Mildly surprised to see it on Vox.
Thought it was well written as well. Why were you surprised to see it on Vox? Critical of some liberals?
Yes. Based on my limited perception of Vox, I wasn’t expecting it to publish a rebuke of “cancel culture” - to the extent that’s what the article is.
-
By extension, Shor was a representative of Civis clients. there are plenty of hypotheses that are supported by quality data and analyses that campaigns and companies wouldn't want said by representatives of the campaign or company. I don't think this is a recent phenomenon. What if he had posted something like "more whites are killed by cops than blacks" or shared a poll that concluded something negative about Biden? The study he shared might be well researched and accurate, but it was the wrong thing to tweet at that moment in time given who pays his bills.
so, there is a pretty clear and obvious distinction between communicating negative information about a client and communicating unrelated information that a client does not agree with. i kinda don't think i really need to address that since it's an obvious red herring.
if shor had shared a study saying that more whites are killed by cops and it was accurately conveyed and part of good faith discussion and not some weird trolling thing (which i've never seen shor do), then of course that would also be appropriate. that a thing is true being more important than that it fit a desired ideology is an overriding ethos. it has to be.
-
It seems pretty clear it was interpreted as a weird trolling thing, even if it wasn't his intent, which I think is the crux
-
It seems pretty clear it was interpreted as a weird trolling thing, even if it wasn't his intent, which I think is the crux
The alternative is he's a just fact sharing robot, which isn't ideal for an arm of a political campaign, either.
-
Haven't read all of this, but it's really interesting and I'm leaning toward the robot theory.
https://twitter.com/EricLevitz/status/1284103371960524802
I can see why political campaigns could both value his work and not want him to say what he's saying the way he's saying it out loud
-
Haven't read all of this, but it's really interesting and I'm leaning toward the robot theory.
https://twitter.com/EricLevitz/status/1284103371960524802
I can see why political campaigns could both value his work and not want him to say what he's saying the way he's saying it out loud
The mere existence of someone like that within campaigns is why I have no hope for presidents ever actually what's in the public's best interests. It was clear that Obama's presidency was nothing more than 8 years of inauthenticity. The primary thought in every decision his first term was "will this get me reelected." "Will this advance the party," was the goal of his second term. In a perverse way I admire trump for somewhat bucking this, but for the most part it's how business is done in Washington.
-
Trump absolutely thinks everything he does is more likely to get him re-elected.
-
Trump absolutely thinks everything he does is more likely to get him re-elected.
If you take Shor's take of "Clinton lost because she didn't appeal to racists enough" at its word you can see how it does.
-
Trump absolutely thinks everything he does is more likely to get him re-elected.
Sure, but my larger point is that he isn't letting pollsters and think tanks dictate what comes out of his mouth. He believes nearly everything he says, certainly all of the things central to his campaign. He's spent the last five years saying the same crap because they aren't things polished by other people. There are many things about him that are phony, but I do think his stated positions are more authentic than Obama's or GWB's were.
-
jesus rough ridin' christ.
-
katkid will like this one.
https://reason.com/2020/08/04/auburn-university-professor-cops-cancel-culture/
-
https://twitter.com/edsbs/status/1290848903999488000
-
Is she the one who profited off of classified pandemic briefing?
-
Rusty beat me to it, I'm glad Loeffler unintentionally lifted the veil on the fake construct of cancel culture. And yes stone, she's the pandemic profiteer.
-
It's amusing that a woman APPOINTED to a senate seat describes herself as a political outsider
-
Wrong thread, dummies
-
Good one, Memphis.
-
interesting times in the peterson family.
https://twitter.com/RationalDis/status/1293292933807058948
-
interesting times in the peterson family.
https://twitter.com/RationalDis/status/1293292933807058948
Fascinating. Wonder what the grandkid is going to end up like.
-
I didn't know who these people were before reading that thread, but I'm amazed people actually live lives like that, what an amazingly bat crap existence.
-
I didn't know who these people were before reading that thread, but I'm amazed people actually live lives like that, what an amazingly bat crap existence.
Their lives were crazy on their own in that thread but the fact that they the dad was also like leading a weird self help movement that was centered on degrading women and cleaning your room makes it even crazier
-
interesting times in the peterson family.
https://twitter.com/RationalDis/status/1293292933807058948
I had kind of heard second hand snippets, but that is insane.
-
I didn't know who these people were before reading that thread, but I'm amazed people actually live lives like that, what an amazingly bat crap existence.
Their lives were crazy on their own in that thread but the fact that they the dad was also like leading a weird self help movement that was centered on degrading women and cleaning your room makes it even crazier
Lol
-
This is sort of interesting.
https://twitter.com/_aswesterman/status/1296049754376413185
-
https://twitter.com/The_Law_Boy/status/1331429343613038596
-
Yeah Peterson has a lot of good things to say but he's also says a bunch of weirdo stuff and does weirdo things and isn't exactly someone anyone should try to imitate.
If you can filter out the batshit stuff, what's left is great.
-
Yeah Peterson has a lot of good things to say but he's also says a bunch of weirdo stuff and does weirdo things and isn't exactly someone anyone should try to imitate.
If you can filter out the batshit stuff, what's left is great.
Do as I say (well, the good stuff at least), not as I do is a real thing imo.
-
Yeah Peterson has a lot of good things to say but he's also says a bunch of weirdo stuff and does weirdo things and isn't exactly someone anyone should try to imitate.
If you can filter out the batshit stuff, what's left is great.
Do as I say (well, the good stuff at least), not as I do is a real thing imo.
I think there are probably a lot of people that do and say good stuff worth listening to that also do or say bad stuff that isn't worth listening to. I don't think the bad stuff wholly invalidates the value of the good stuff.
-
Peterson should be ignored.
-
i do think abandoning your day job as a professor, moving to eastern europe, nearly killing yourself and being a strung out drug addict takes the luster off of one's career as a self-help guru.
-
Yeah Peterson has a lot of good things to say but he's also says a bunch of weirdo stuff and does weirdo things and isn't exactly someone anyone should try to imitate.
If you can filter out the batshit stuff, what's left is great.
Do as I say (well, the good stuff at least), not as I do is a real thing imo.
I think there are probably a lot of people that do and say good stuff worth listening to that also do or say bad stuff that isn't worth listening to. I don't think the bad stuff wholly invalidates the value of the good stuff.
I would say it absolutely does make them not worth listening to for the role they’re trying to play. Being able to filter out “the good stuff” from BS or bat crap crazy stuff would suggest someone who is not particularly in need of self help.
I certainly wouldn’t employ a dietician who every once in a while recommends I eat something poisonous, even if there are some really fantastic meals mixed in.
-
But what if the dietician told you to eat an all beef diet
https://twitter.com/dennisbhooper/status/1331362331218112513
-
https://twitter.com/HawleyMO/status/1347327743004995585
I thought he was supposed to be smart? Is he just playing to Trump's idiot base?
-
is mob really the word he was looking for on 1/7/2021?
-
https://twitter.com/HawleyMO/status/1347327743004995585
I thought he was supposed to be smart? Is he just playing to Trump's idiot base?
First amendment right to have a book publishing deal with Simon and Schuster
-
He's right to be mad. They should have cancelled his book deal for lying about the protesters at his house. He's pretty clearly a liability to someone attempting to publish a non fiction book.
-
He’s plenty smart, he is just incredibly ambitious and cynical. He is the pub version of Buttigieg.
-
He’s plenty smart, he is just incredibly ambitious and cynical. He is the pub version of Buttigieg.
Yes
-
there are probably no stupid intentional demagogues
-
https://twitter.com/NathanBransford/status/1347336560128176129?s=19
-
He’s plenty smart, he is just incredibly ambitious and cynical. He is the pub version of Buttigieg.
He's very good at it. He dropped an irregardless in his first real live speech to the entire country as a wink to those itk
-
there are probably no stupid intentional demagogues
we have a president.
-
there are probably no stupid intentional demagogues
we have a president.
fellas are there actually mostly stupid demagogues?
-
lmao
https://twitter.com/J4Years/status/1351409702903504897
-
A dude on ags posted a picture he took of a newsmax graphic listing the top five free speech universities (aws hosted images don't play nice on gE for some reason)
1. U of Chicago
2. Ksu cats :ksu:
3. Aggie
4. Ucla
5. AZ state.
-
I think it's pretty obvious that emaw let's people speak their mind, even the super gross downgrades.
-
https://twitter.com/JeffPassan/status/1378059762017910784
-
Should play it in Toronto
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
so now that the far right has boycotted the NFL, NBA, and MLB what is left?
-
NOOSECAR
-
https://www.outsideonline.com/2404651/pro-cornhole-sport-world-championships (https://www.outsideonline.com/2404651/pro-cornhole-sport-world-championships)
Cornhole Is a Pro Sport Now
The American Cornhole League wants to turn a game that's typically played with one hand holding a beer—and possibly named for an indecent part of the human body—into an international spectator sport
-
these brain geniuses really think they've got something here, and who am I to disagree
https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/1378128079449624580
-
https://www.outsideonline.com/2404651/pro-cornhole-sport-world-championships (https://www.outsideonline.com/2404651/pro-cornhole-sport-world-championships)
Cornhole Is a Pro Sport Now
The American Cornhole League wants to turn a game that's typically played with one hand holding a beer—and possibly named for an indecent part of the human body—into an international spectator sport
if video games is a sport, anything is
-
NOOSECAR
Remember all the crying they did when the confederate flag was banned from NASCAR tracks?
They also whined about the NHL last summer too.
-
MLB giving GA the ol what for.
Just so very brave!
-
LMAOOOOOOOO
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20210403/00e8c83597dab102a347a4a32574b2ad.jpg)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Campus right-wingers are literally the biggest babies in the world.
https://www.thefire.org/law-students-graduation-in-jeopardy-as-stanford-investigates-satirical-email-lampooning-federalist-society-sen-hawley-and-jan-6/ (https://www.thefire.org/law-students-graduation-in-jeopardy-as-stanford-investigates-satirical-email-lampooning-federalist-society-sen-hawley-and-jan-6/)
-
F free speech, comrade
-
Stanford comes out of this looking pretty weak. They initially didn't have the back of one of their own students, then they flip flopped after about 5 minutes of negative media attention.
-
Stanford comes out of this looking pretty weak. They initially didn't have the back of one of their own students, then they flip flopped after about 5 minutes of negative media attention.
If I had to guess I’d bet they flip flopped after it caught the attention of someone with authority and common sense who said what the eff are you guys doing. The position really is indefensible.
Definitely a bad look for Stanford either way.
-
someone needs to show this to The Mole and tell him to strike a blow for freedom of speech this fall
-
Just skimmed the article. Stanford originally had a problem w/ this kid’s email, then changed their minds, right?
Good grief Stanford. Leave the kid alone.
-
Just skimmed the article. Stanford originally had a problem w/ this kid’s email, then changed their minds, right?
Good grief Stanford. Leave the kid alone.
I think they had that problem because the federalist society cried because this dude shoved them in a locker right?
-
Just skimmed the article. Stanford originally had a problem w/ this kid’s email, then changed their minds, right?
Good grief Stanford. Leave the kid alone.
I think they had that problem because the federalist society cried because this dude shoved them in a locker right?
Yeah, seems just loling at the federalist society from the outset would have been the preferred move.
-
Stanford probably has a stupid policy that allows someone to trigger an investigation and hold up their transcripts in the interim, which is absolutely the kind of limitations on free speech that right wingers are supposed to be on a crusade to protect. High comedy that this was the policy the Federalist society used to try and retaliate against this guy for owning them on an email.
-
I think the cat is out of the bag as far as the “leave government out of my business” conservatives who think Congress should force Twitter to promote Trump conspiracy theories. Really the only side I’ve seen with a consistent stance on free speech is probably the ACLU.
-
I feel compelled to again state that the Federalist Society is not some shady, Q-anon-esque organization.
-
I think the cat is out of the bag as far as the “leave government out of my business” conservatives who think Congress should force Twitter to promote Trump conspiracy theories. Really the only side I’ve seen with a consistent stance on free speech is probably the ACLU.
The ACLU has been very good.
-
I feel compelled to again state that the Federalist Society is not some shady, Q-anon-esque organization.
I thought they were republicans.
-
I feel compelled to again state that the Federalist Society is not some shady, Q-anon-esque organization.
I mean, they are certainly moving that direction though. but that's not unique to them unfortunately.
-
I feel compelled to again state that the Federalist Society is not some shady, Q-anon-esque organization.
I mean, they are certainly moving that direction though. but that's not unique to them unfortunately.
When I was in school they were quite admirable and I was very good friend with several members, went to a few meetings and crushed brews. ANYONE who says they aren't becoming whiney ass trumpers now versus then is a legit liar. The shift to trumpism is very well illustrated in the stanford crying their asses off because they got teased situation
-
Fun DQ law school fact:
I was a member of the Black Law Students Association, but not the Federalist Society!
-
https://thefederalist.com/author/joshhawley/
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
as I was saying
-
https://thefederalist.com/author/joshhawley/
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
https://thefederalist.com/2020/06/12/sen-josh-hawley-the-left-wants-a-civil-war/
Perfectly normal, moderate stuff, not the least bit radical or intentionally inflammatory and divisive
-
I feel like The Federalist Society is as close as you can get these days to a White Students Association.
-
https://thefederalist.com/author/joshhawley/
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
https://thefederalist.com/2020/06/12/sen-josh-hawley-the-left-wants-a-civil-war/
Perfectly normal, moderate stuff, not the least bit radical or intentionally inflammatory and divisive
my point gains momentum
-
Really the only side I’ve seen with a consistent stance on free speech is probably the ACLU.
interesting article.
https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1401659159230267392
-
Well that would be a disappointment. Conceptually at least.
-
Yeah Peterson has a lot of good things to say but he's also says a bunch of weirdo stuff and does weirdo things and isn't exactly someone anyone should try to imitate.
If you can filter out the batshit stuff, what's left is great.
Do as I say (well, the good stuff at least), not as I do is a real thing imo.
I think there are probably a lot of people that do and say good stuff worth listening to that also do or say bad stuff that isn't worth listening to. I don't think the bad stuff wholly invalidates the value of the good stuff.
I was listening to a Peterson Bible Series lecture today (which are really fun tbh), and he was talking about Adam and Eve and going real in depth with all his crazy stuff, and I found one of his points really interesting. Basically he's talking about when God talks to Adam after he eats the fruit. This is why I think people who painted him as some incel apologist got him so wrong:
I love this part of the story. It’s so funny, and we could use a little humor at this point. "And the Lord God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou? And Adam said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked." So, in case there was any doubt about that, that's why. "And God said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Did you eat of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that you should not eat?" This is where Adam shows himself in all his post-fall, heroic glory: "And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat."
So that's man. Again, there's a modern feminist interpretation of the story of Adam and Eve that makes the claim that Eve was portrayed as the universal bad guy of humanity for disobeying God and eating the apple. It’s like, fair enough. It looks like she slipped up, and then she tempted her husband, and that makes her even worse—although, he was foolish enough to immediately eat, so it just means that she was a little more courageous than him and got there first.
It’s Adam who comes across as really one sad creature in this story, as far as I'm concerned. Look at what he manages in one sentence: First of all, it wasn’t him; it was the woman. Second, he even blames God! It wasn’t just the woman— "and you gave her to me! And she gave me of the tree, and I did eat." It’s like, hey, Adam’s all innocent—except now, not only is he naked, disobedient, cowardly, and ashamed, he’s also a snivelling, backbiting fink. He rats her out like the second he gets the opportunity, and then he blames God. That’s exactly right. You go online, and you read the commentary that men write about women when they're resentful and bitter about women. It’s so interesting. It’s like, it’s not me: it’s those bitches. It’s not me: it’s them—and not only that, but what a bloody world this is in which they exist. It’s exactly the same thing. It’s exactly the same thing, and it is absolutely pathetic.
I think that's a pretty brutal takedown of incels tbh. Anyway, his lecture series on the old testament is really good. He makes some pretty out-there claims, but he really makes you appreciate these paragraphs-long stories that are the bedrock of a lot of our civilization and offer a lot of universal truths thousands of years later.
-
STUPID AIRLINE TERMS ARE CANCELLED!
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E4vZZyIX0AQL1Tg?format=jpg&name=900x900)
-
Is that graphic from 1987? Haven't those terms been used for decades?
-
Is that graphic from 1987? Haven't those terms been used for decades?
My planes will only be driven by airmen, none of this "pilot" bullshit.
Kind of surprised they didn't lament the end of "stewardess" tbh
-
Is that graphic from 1987? Haven't those terms been used for decades?
My planes will only be driven by airmen, none of this "pilot" bullshit.
Kind of surprised they didn't lament the end of "stewardess" tbh
Mr. Belding’s brother, Rod, LOVES stewardesses.
-
https://twitter.com/ClaremontInst/status/1438181305779425282
Now who's the Communist?
-
How to say you've never heard of Google Fiber without saying it or typing it (Or understand the ubiquity of Google Cloud Services for that matter)
-
How to say you've never heard of Google Fiber without saying it or typing it (Or understand the ubiquity of Google Cloud Services for that matter)
(https://y.yarn.co/d62abe37-8b8b-49ff-b338-b50ea6d9abca_text.gif)
-
How to say you've never heard of Google Fiber without saying it or typing it (Or understand the ubiquity of Google Cloud Services for that matter)
(https://y.yarn.co/d62abe37-8b8b-49ff-b338-b50ea6d9abca_text.gif)
How to say you don't understand regulated public utilities and common carrier status in one post.
-
How to say you've never heard of Google Fiber without saying it or typing it (Or understand the ubiquity of Google Cloud Services for that matter)
(https://y.yarn.co/d62abe37-8b8b-49ff-b338-b50ea6d9abca_text.gif)
How to say you don't understand regulated public utilities and common carrier status in one post.
How to show you didn't read the original tweet in two posts (and no doubt more to come)
-
this board has me scrounging linkedin for more content but did not see this one coming today
BIG NEWS: Yesterday, the one and only Dr. Jordan Peterson stopped by my house to record an episode of The Diary Of A CEO 🤯 one of the most emotional moving episodes in our history.
We discussed everything from business, life, remote working, the metaverse, how to set better goals, how to become self aware, how to build confidence, purpose, meaning, how he would have handled the last two years if he was in charge, the importance of avoiding the temptation to label yourself anything and much much much more… at the very end, Jordan broke down in tears when I asked him the simple question “How are you doing?”… his answer to that quaestuon was “Brilliant and Terribly” I asked him why, and his answer was not what I was expecting 🤯 😔
Hit the subscribe button to get notified when this one drops 👉🏽 https://lnkd.in/ea-9AqPb 🙏🏽
:frown:
-
is he still drugged up?
-
is he still drugged up?
I did not click the link and am not taking on additional Jordan Peterson research
-
max cringe guy
-
is he still drugged up?
Just way too much beef, I think.
-
https://twitter.com/allahliker/status/1472602372975308805
-
https://twitter.com/OhNoSheTwitnt/status/1475218667059175430
-
A ban on the word "woke" seems like a really efficient way to get all of the conservative teachers fired.
-
That list, gah.
-
https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1491195256075079680
-
:lol:
-
https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1491195256075079680
lmfao
-
yesterday i was laughing so hard at JB that i missed the word list
:sdeek:
-
Lol at JBP. Incredible photo.
-
lmao
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20220316/a8295737bbd8d24cff4f4a865102bf6e.jpg)
-
I feel compelled to again state that the Federalist Society is not some shady, Q-anon-esque organization.
2022 update:
After their Chairman of Federalism & Separation of Powers for the last 16 years literally organized a conspiracy to overthrow the US Presidential election, a conspiracy which included urging VP Pence to violate the Electoral Count Act and count fake electors, the Federalist Society did not issue any kind of statement and resisted pressure to remove Eastman from his leadership position. Instead, they slow-rolled his departure from that position(which apparently had been planned since late 2020) and allowed him to leave the position on his own time so it wouldn't look like they were caving in to outside pressure and condemning his insurrection/conspiracy. Again, they didn't come out as 'anti-insurrection' or 'pro-democracy' in response to Eastman's plot because that would have been seen as a failure by their membership. Insurrection/sedition should be one of those non-controversial things that you can speak out against...if you can't speak out against it then that makes you a shady Q-anon-esque org.
Also, the Federalist Society tried to cancel satire at Stanford, which was the exact sort of sad and losery behavior this thread was created to criticize
-
Today I saw an older black man walk out of the Popeyes at 13th and Hillside in Wichita wearing a Nipsey Hussle t-shirt and chains get into and drive away in an old Buick w/ stars and bars on the front plate. I’m so confused.
-
I didn't watch, but the description is hilarious
https://twitter.com/thebadstats/status/1508579434441236482
-
Checked texags (as I do) and a thread had just been posted with a news article about the call gap. There had been no replies yet so I came back 10 minutes later and the thread was deleted :sdeek:
-
lmao
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FPYFGaeVQAEFKr0
-
lmao
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FPYFGaeVQAEFKr0
Signs of getting old :frown:
-
you hate to (not be able to) see it
-
you hate to (not be able to) see it
Gee, I thought my chrome was acting up again. :dunno:
-
https://twitter.com/MollyJongFast/status/1521101676869996544
-
A fantastic additional deflection for the generational failings of #blueanon political leaders in generational #blueanon strongholds.
-
https://twitter.com/david_j_roth/status/1526317206342090754
-
TIL that "spaz" is an offensive word particularly in the UK
https://twitter.com/lizzo/status/1536480260732047361?s=20&t=3rSLewTxWT9oRNuqUBa7DA
-
https://twitter.com/BradenIsBased/status/1544448370500161543
-
https://twitter.com/BradenIsBased/status/1544448370500161543
Amazing. Remember when people on this blog thought he was good?
-
https://twitter.com/BradenIsBased/status/1544448370500161543
Amazing. Remember when people on this blog thought he was good?
you can call dq12 by name, he can take it. bubbles too? I know there were a few.
-
https://twitter.com/BradenIsBased/status/1544448370500161543
Amazing. Remember when people on this blog thought he was good?
you can call dq12 by name, he can take it. bubbles too? I know there were a few.
To be fair to them wasn't his original message basically for boys to clean their rooms?
-
Well that and something about lobsters who eff.
-
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20220709/d4c0521cfa15ed0c72296893c1c3337f.jpg)
-
That’s perfect
-
https://twitter.com/BradenIsBased/status/1544448370500161543
Amazing. Remember when people on this blog thought he was good?
you can call dq12 by name, he can take it. bubbles too? I know there were a few.
To be fair to them wasn't his original message basically for boys to clean their rooms?
I don't follow JP closely by any means but the occasional clips I do see appear to be more and more unhinged each time.
I mean I used to enjoy Whitlock before he pivoted. I wonder what dlew thinks about JP now
-
lmao
https://twitter.com/kyriathanatos/status/1545099386644045825
-
:lol:
-
To be fair to them wasn't his original message basically for boys to clean their rooms?
in hindsight, it's easy to see why he was convinced that the only thing keeping us from spinning wildly out of control was adherence to rigid societal rules.
-
I think Andrew Tate deflowering his daughter sent him over the edge
-
https://twitter.com/BradenIsBased/status/1544448370500161543
Amazing. Remember when people on this blog thought he was good?
you can call dq12 by name, he can take it. bubbles too? I know there were a few.
To be fair to them wasn't his original message basically for boys to clean their rooms?
Yeah, I don't think I've ever been a ride-or-die, "everything Peterson says is correct" guy. He says a lot of off-the-wall stuff (especially about politics/cancel culture/etc.) and his personal life is a shitshow from what I can tell.
I did like a lot of what he had to say though, and I still do. I think his self-help stuff is generally good (from what I've heard of it), even if it's all already been said before in a ton of different ways. His philosophy/psychology stuff is pretty interesting too -- I've listened to a hours of those lectures and really enjoyed it.
-
I just think it is really funny that in his debate with Zizek he claimed that you need to get your personal house in order first before you can help others.
-
:cry:
https://twitter.com/joumana_khatib/status/1558228952736579585
-
Terrible
-
:lol:
https://www.kstatecollegian.com/2022/09/30/sister-cindy-returns-be-a-ho-no-mo-sermons-on-campus/
-
sister cindy returns to be a ho. no mo sermons on campus.
-
https://twitter.com/kthalps/status/1577722727221399559
-
https://twitter.com/paulisci/status/1585034516833660928?t=nrR86m4WnArck_2b4n_T4Q&s=19
-
I enjoyed that
-
https://twitter.com/paulisci/status/1585034516833660928?t=nrR86m4WnArck_2b4n_T4Q&s=19
this is not funny
-
https://twitter.com/paulisci/status/1585034516833660928?t=nrR86m4WnArck_2b4n_T4Q&s=19
(https://media.tenor.com/GX2PY5QOo0EAAAAC/thank-you-the-office.gif)
-
lmao
https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1600329860638863360?s=46&t=CkT5VX6pM377h342U1beVQ
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
lmao
https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1600329860638863360?s=46&t=CkT5VX6pM377h342U1beVQ
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
lol these turkeys hate free speech so much
-
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20230202/16ce2c4ee19a9fb437df3966bccf2721.jpg)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
What’s wrong with him?
-
lol
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
What’s wrong with him?
He’s got a message for woke moralists like you ‘stone…
UP YOURS!
-
Did reading the list traumatize pwood to where he’s taking some time off?
https://twitter.com/willblakely3/status/1623821708829270017
-
I downloaded the crap out of that list and it is hilarious :lol:
-
Spiceless girls.
-
Coke Rabbits
Unseasoned Chicken
-
mayosapiens is pretty good
-
mayosapiens is pretty good
ha, that took me a minute but I just got it
-
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1626533667408596992
-
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1626533667408596992
Lol at this meaningless platitude. I guess I'm not the target audience, because I can't figure out what he's trying to say.
-
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1626533667408596992
Lol at this meaningless platitude. I guess I'm not the target audience, because I can't figure out what he's trying to say.
He's saying that conservatives should make their own AI just like they made their own Twitter.
-
he wants an AI that says stuff conservatives would agree with
he clearly is not aware of daxbot
-
daxbot reads and distills Revolver so you don't have to!
-
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1626533667408596992
Lol at this meaningless platitude. I guess I'm not the target audience, because I can't figure out what he's trying to say.
he is saying please look at me
-
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1626533667408596992
Lol at this meaningless platitude. I guess I'm not the target audience, because I can't figure out what he's trying to say.
He's saying that conservatives should make their own AI just like they made their own Twitter.
And literally the only difference in both is their acceptance of racial slurs.
-
https://www.npr.org/2023/02/21/1158347261/roald-dahl-books-changed-offensive-words (https://www.npr.org/2023/02/21/1158347261/roald-dahl-books-changed-offensive-words)
Getting this thread back on topic. Augustus Gloop, the gluttonous boy who drowned in a river of chocolate, will no longer be called "fat." :cry:
-
Looks like the change was from “fat” to “enormous.” Frankly seems less an issue of being PC and more recognizing the fact that there’s layers of fat.
-
Looks like the change was from “fat” to “enormous.” Frankly seems less an issue of being PC and more recognizing the fact that there’s layers of fat.
The issue is that the author is dead and changing his words just isn't right.
-
Counterpoint: he doesn’t give a crap on account of being dead
-
Looks like the change was from “fat” to “enormous.” Frankly seems less an issue of being PC and more recognizing the fact that there’s layers of fat.
i think the prior term was "enormously fat" and they changed it to "enormous."
-
Counterpoint: he doesn’t give a crap on account of being dead
This got a chuckle from me, because it's true. But counter-counterpoint: in Augustus Gloop's homeland of Germany, you can be sued for insulting the memory of the dead.
-
i can't pretend to care all that much about roald dahl or the particular verbiage of his work. i don't really care if augustus gloop is fat or just enormous.
but the whole concept seems weird to me. in roald dahl's story, the one he wrote, gloop WAS fat. he wasn't just big. he was a big fatso. a fatty fat fat, as it were. if you can't handle that (fictional) reality, then maybe his seminal work isn't one you should read.
-
Looks like the change was from “fat” to “enormous.” Frankly seems less an issue of being PC and more recognizing the fact that there’s layers of fat.
The issue is that the author is dead and changing his words just isn't right.
The owners of the copyrights decided they wanted to make a change. It's well within their rights to do so.
-
Looks like the change was from “fat” to “enormous.” Frankly seems less an issue of being PC and more recognizing the fact that there’s layers of fat.
The issue is that the author is dead and changing his words just isn't right.
The owners of the copyrights decided they wanted to make a change. It's well within their rights to do so.
It's within their rights, but it isn't right.
-
Looks like the change was from “fat” to “enormous.” Frankly seems less an issue of being PC and more recognizing the fact that there’s layers of fat.
The issue is that the author is dead and changing his words just isn't right.
The owners of the copyrights decided they wanted to make a change. It's well within their rights to do so.
It's within their rights, but it isn't right.
To me this is in the vein of all the Lucas Star Wars remaster stuff. I get that it’s unsettling to people that even great art can be tampered with by its rightful holder, but it can be, and there’s really no moral obligation for the art holder to refrain from doing so.
-
Weird to focus on Augustus being fat when the whole Oompa Loompa origins is more, problematic.
That being said who cares. Shouldn't need to change but changing it barely alters your view of the book. Kid got bounced cause he ate a crap ton of chocolate to get there and then sucked up a pipe in a chocolate river, being obese was a by-product of the gluttony but all Dahl cared about was creating a character who got where he was cause he was gluttonous.
-
Dahl was by far my favorite author as a kid. I guess I really don't care either way about this though.
-
i can't pretend to care all that much about roald dahl or the particular verbiage of his work. i don't really care if augustus gloop is fat or just enormous.
but the whole concept seems weird to me. in roald dahl's story, the one he wrote, gloop WAS fat. he wasn't just big. he was a big fatso. a fatty fat fat, as it were. if you can't handle that (fictional) reality, then maybe his seminal work isn't one you should read.
He wrote children's books, sir, the world isn't going to stop spinning on its axis if children aren't subjected to literature using unnecessary language about another kid's weight. Changing that language doesn't change the story and I'd hope is now closer to being reflective as to how we'd want our children talking about another overweight child.
-
i can't pretend to care all that much about roald dahl or the particular verbiage of his work. i don't really care if augustus gloop is fat or just enormous.
but the whole concept seems weird to me. in roald dahl's story, the one he wrote, gloop WAS fat. he wasn't just big. he was a big fatso. a fatty fat fat, as it were. if you can't handle that (fictional) reality, then maybe his seminal work isn't one you should read.
He wrote children's books, sir, the world isn't going to stop spinning on its axis if children aren't subjected to literature using unnecessary language about another kid's weight. Changing that language doesn't change the story and I'd hope is now closer to being reflective as to how we'd want our children talking about another overweight child.
I know. I pointed that out in the post you quoted.
i can't pretend to care all that much about roald dahl or the particular verbiage of his work. i don't really care if augustus gloop is fat or just enormous.
I just brought this up because it strikes me as strange to censor art (especially when a lot of it is mundane stuff...making the oompa loompas genderless, for example) after the artist is dead. Like I said, it's not anywhere close to the hill I care enough to die on, but changing the substance of another person's work without approval (on account of death), which has stood for like, 60 years, just seems a little strange to me.
-
Looks like the change was from “fat” to “enormous.” Frankly seems less an issue of being PC and more recognizing the fact that there’s layers of fat.
The issue is that the author is dead and changing his words just isn't right.
The owners of the copyrights decided they wanted to make a change. It's well within their rights to do so.
It's within their rights, but it isn't right.
To me this is in the vein of all the Lucas Star Wars remaster stuff. I get that it’s unsettling to people that even great art can be tampered with by its rightful holder, but it can be, and there’s really no moral obligation for the art holder to refrain from doing so.
No, it's in the same vein as if Disney would have done it. The creators can change the books all they want, but they should have to remove the author's name and simply acknowledge the original work if they are going to do that.
-
If you don't like it, push for changes in copyright law. If his stuff was in public domain you wouldn't have to worry. But he wanted to give the rights to his kids, and this is what they're doing with it
-
If you don't like it, push for changes in copyright law. If his stuff was in public domain you wouldn't have to worry. But he wanted to give the rights to his kids, and this is what they're doing with it
Nobody is saying they don't or shouldn't have the right to do it.
-
i can't pretend to care all that much about roald dahl or the particular verbiage of his work. i don't really care if augustus gloop is fat or just enormous.
but the whole concept seems weird to me. in roald dahl's story, the one he wrote, gloop WAS fat. he wasn't just big. he was a big fatso. a fatty fat fat, as it were. if you can't handle that (fictional) reality, then maybe his seminal work isn't one you should read.
He wrote children's books, sir, the world isn't going to stop spinning on its axis if children aren't subjected to literature using unnecessary language about another kid's weight. Changing that language doesn't change the story and I'd hope is now closer to being reflective as to how we'd want our children talking about another overweight child.
I know. I pointed that out in the post you quoted.
i can't pretend to care all that much about roald dahl or the particular verbiage of his work. i don't really care if augustus gloop is fat or just enormous.
I just brought this up because it strikes me as strange to censor art (especially when a lot of it is mundane stuff...making the oompa loompas genderless, for example) after the artist is dead. Like I said, it's not anywhere close to the hill I care enough to die on, but changing the substance of another person's work without approval (on account of death), which has stood for like, 60 years, just seems a little strange to me.
It’s not censoring when it’s done by the copyright owner on their own initiative.
-
Looks like the change was from “fat” to “enormous.” Frankly seems less an issue of being PC and more recognizing the fact that there’s layers of fat.
The issue is that the author is dead and changing his words just isn't right.
just because you can do something doesn't mean you should
The owners of the copyrights decided they wanted to make a change. It's well within their rights to do so.
-
i can't pretend to care all that much about roald dahl or the particular verbiage of his work. i don't really care if augustus gloop is fat or just enormous.
but the whole concept seems weird to me. in roald dahl's story, the one he wrote, gloop WAS fat. he wasn't just big. he was a big fatso. a fatty fat fat, as it were. if you can't handle that (fictional) reality, then maybe his seminal work isn't one you should read.
He wrote children's books, sir, the world isn't going to stop spinning on its axis if children aren't subjected to literature using unnecessary language about another kid's weight. Changing that language doesn't change the story and I'd hope is now closer to being reflective as to how we'd want our children talking about another overweight child.
I know. I pointed that out in the post you quoted.
i can't pretend to care all that much about roald dahl or the particular verbiage of his work. i don't really care if augustus gloop is fat or just enormous.
I just brought this up because it strikes me as strange to censor art (especially when a lot of it is mundane stuff...making the oompa loompas genderless, for example) after the artist is dead. Like I said, it's not anywhere close to the hill I care enough to die on, but changing the substance of another person's work without approval (on account of death), which has stood for like, 60 years, just seems a little strange to me.
It’s not censoring when it’s done by the copyright owner on their own initiative.
lol. I mean we're getting into semantics here. A third party (albeit the copyright owner) posthumously changed the works to make them less offensive. I don't know what else you would call that.
-
Capitalism?
-
How fat are the copyright owners?
-
dlew i think that how little you care about the original use of the word fat is equal to how little i care that they changed it to enormous.
-
dlew i think that how little you care about the original use of the word fat is equal to how little i care that they changed it to enormous.
We've all established that nobody thinks that the modifications in and of themselves are that big of a deal. It's more the concept of modifying dead authors' works to make them less offensive/irreverent that I think is a little hairy.
-
Enormous sounds far more insulting than fat imo.
-
How much can I sell my vintage Charlie book to some victimized maga for?
-
Capitalism?
This is exactly my thought. They’re doing it to meet a market demand. It’s the opposite of censorship.
-
Capitalism?
This is exactly my thought. They’re doing it to meet a market demand. It’s the opposite of censorship.
I'm sorry, but calling this "the opposite of censorship" is some 1984 new-speak crap. You can think the censorship isn't that big of a deal (or good!), but calling it "the opposite of censorship" is silly.
Like, "radio edits" meet a market demand too, but bleaping out (or otherwise editing) cuss words in songs is still censorship.
-
This is in no way censorship.
-
Capitalism?
This is exactly my thought. They’re doing it to meet a market demand. It’s the opposite of censorship.
I'm sorry, but calling this "the opposite of censorship" is some 1984 doublespeak crap. You can think the censorship isn't that big of a deal (or good!), but calling it "the opposite of censorship" is silly.
Except it is the opposite of censorship.
Censorship would be telling the copyright owner what they can and can’t put in their books…kind of like what you’re doing ITT.
-
This is in no way censorship.
I feel like i'm in a twilight zone episode where everyone knows what the word "censorship" means except for me.
How is editing another person's work to remove language deemed offensive not censorship?
-
dlew i think that how little you care about the original use of the word fat is equal to how little i care that they changed it to enormous.
We've all established that nobody thinks that the modifications in and of themselves are that big of a deal. It's more the concept of modifying dead authors' works to make them less offensive/irreverent that I think is a little hairy.
I mean look at the Bible. Yikes
-
This is in no way censorship.
I feel like i'm in a twilight zone episode where everyone knows what the word "censorship" means except for me.
How is editing another person's work to remove language deemed offensive not censorship?
It’s not another person’s work.
-
This is in no way censorship.
I feel like i'm in a twilight zone episode where everyone knows what the word "censorship" means except for me.
How is editing another person's work to remove language deemed offensive not censorship?
It’s not another person’s work.
It' not their work. Does holding a copyright make you the author?
-
This is in no way censorship.
I feel like i'm in a twilight zone episode where everyone knows what the word "censorship" means except for me.
How is editing another person's work to remove language deemed offensive not censorship?
It’s not another person’s work.
This conversation is bananas.
-
Radio edits are government censorship for sure, but nothing like making a new version of Willy Wonka or the Bible
-
This is in no way censorship.
I feel like i'm in a twilight zone episode where everyone knows what the word "censorship" means except for me.
How is editing another person's work to remove language deemed offensive not censorship?
It’s not another person’s work.
It' not their work. Does holding a copyright make you the author?
No but it sure as hell gives you the right to be the editor.
-
This is in no way censorship.
I feel like i'm in a twilight zone episode where everyone knows what the word "censorship" means except for me.
How is editing another person's work to remove language deemed offensive not censorship?
It’s not another person’s work.
It' not their work. Does holding a copyright make you the author?
No but it sure as hell gives you the right to be the editor.
Right. The key is you're not being coerced by an outside force, be it the government or a private pressure group. This post is directed at Dlewser.
-
This is in no way censorship.
I feel like i'm in a twilight zone episode where everyone knows what the word "censorship" means except for me.
How is editing another person's work to remove language deemed offensive not censorship?
It’s not another person’s work.
This conversation is bananas.
I think you’re just having an issue seeing this for what it is. What’s bananas is claiming that you’re being censored BY THE PERSON YOU SAID COULD DO WHAT THEY WANT WITH THE MATERIAL.
-
This is in no way censorship.
I feel like i'm in a twilight zone episode where everyone knows what the word "censorship" means except for me.
How is editing another person's work to remove language deemed offensive not censorship?
It’s not another person’s work.
It' not their work. Does holding a copyright make you the author?
No but it sure as hell gives you the right to be the editor.
Right. The key is you're not being coerced by an outside force, be it the government or a private pressure group. This post is directed at Dlewser.
I guess that would be a key point if these edits were made at the whim (divorced from any outside force) of Roald Dahl. But they're not. They're edits made by third parties (albeit the ones with uncontested rights to do so) to a dead guy's art so that the art is less offensive. If you don't want to call that censorship we don't have to.
I don't know who holds the rights to The David, but I'd still think it was censorship if they decided to put a marble fig leaf over his nuts and dick and bush.
-
This is in no way censorship.
I feel like i'm in a twilight zone episode where everyone knows what the word "censorship" means except for me.
How is editing another person's work to remove language deemed offensive not censorship?
It’s not another person’s work.
This conversation is bananas.
I think you’re just having an issue seeing this for what it is. What’s bananas is claiming that you’re being censored BY THE PERSON YOU SAID COULD DO WHAT THEY WANT WITH THE MATERIAL.
I never said I was being censored. I said the original work is being censored...Dahl's work is being censored posthumously. Is that where the confusion is?
-
I’ll try it simpler: at the point you give up the right to make changes to your work, you cannot be censored. It’s nonsensical.
-
dlew i think that how little you care about the original use of the word fat is equal to how little i care that they changed it to enormous.
We've all established that nobody thinks that the modifications in and of themselves are that big of a deal. It's more the concept of modifying dead authors' works to make them less offensive/irreverent that I think is a little hairy.
I mean look at the Bible. Yikes
Translations are different. Tolstoy's books have some differences in translation. To me, the difference is that the translators are clearly identified on the book and it is made clear that you are reading a translation of Tolstoy's original work. If these books are being marketed as abridged versions of the original, then I don't really have a problem with them.
-
I’ll try it simpler: at the point you give up the right to make changes to your work, you cannot be censored. It’s nonsensical.
So, as soon as the author of a work (music, painting, movie, literature, whatever) dies (or otherwise releases the rights), the work is immune from censorship? Any modifications to it are just "edits" as distinct from "censorship"? At least when the modifications are done by the rightsholder?
I really wasn't expecting this conversation to dovetail this way, but I gotta say I find it fascinating.
On the topic of censorship, if whoever owns the rights to Orwell's 1984 goes in and replaces every utterance of the word "eff" with "fudge" for future prints, you would view that as something other than "censorship"?
-
dlew i think that how little you care about the original use of the word fat is equal to how little i care that they changed it to enormous.
We've all established that nobody thinks that the modifications in and of themselves are that big of a deal. It's more the concept of modifying dead authors' works to make them less offensive/irreverent that I think is a little hairy.
I mean look at the Bible. Yikes
Translations are different. Tolstoy's books have some differences in translation. To me, the difference is that the translators are clearly identified on the book and it is made clear that you are reading a translation of Tolstoy's original work. If these books are being marketed as abridged versions of the original, then I don't really have a problem with them.
Do you think the only differences among bible versions are due to translations? That they are otherwise articulating the original authors' intents?
-
dlew i think that how little you care about the original use of the word fat is equal to how little i care that they changed it to enormous.
We've all established that nobody thinks that the modifications in and of themselves are that big of a deal. It's more the concept of modifying dead authors' works to make them less offensive/irreverent that I think is a little hairy.
I mean look at the Bible. Yikes
say more about this
-
dlew i think that how little you care about the original use of the word fat is equal to how little i care that they changed it to enormous.
We've all established that nobody thinks that the modifications in and of themselves are that big of a deal. It's more the concept of modifying dead authors' works to make them less offensive/irreverent that I think is a little hairy.
I mean look at the Bible. Yikes
Translations are different. Tolstoy's books have some differences in translation. To me, the difference is that the translators are clearly identified on the book and it is made clear that you are reading a translation of Tolstoy's original work. If these books are being marketed as abridged versions of the original, then I don't really have a problem with them.
Do you think the only differences among bible versions are due to translations? That they are otherwise articulating the original authors' intents?
Yeah. There aren't any important differences between any of the translations that I have seen. Some of them try to translate word-for-word and others try to translate phrase-for-phrase.
-
dlew i think that how little you care about the original use of the word fat is equal to how little i care that they changed it to enormous.
We've all established that nobody thinks that the modifications in and of themselves are that big of a deal. It's more the concept of modifying dead authors' works to make them less offensive/irreverent that I think is a little hairy.
I mean look at the Bible. Yikes
Translations are different. Tolstoy's books have some differences in translation. To me, the difference is that the translators are clearly identified on the book and it is made clear that you are reading a translation of Tolstoy's original work. If these books are being marketed as abridged versions of the original, then I don't really have a problem with them.
Do you think the only differences among bible versions are due to translations? That they are otherwise articulating the original authors' intents?
Yeah. There aren't any important differences between any of the translations that I have seen. Some of them try to translate word-for-word and others try to translate phrase-for-phrase.
Translate them from what?
-
dlew i think that how little you care about the original use of the word fat is equal to how little i care that they changed it to enormous.
We've all established that nobody thinks that the modifications in and of themselves are that big of a deal. It's more the concept of modifying dead authors' works to make them less offensive/irreverent that I think is a little hairy.
I mean look at the Bible. Yikes
Translations are different. Tolstoy's books have some differences in translation. To me, the difference is that the translators are clearly identified on the book and it is made clear that you are reading a translation of Tolstoy's original work. If these books are being marketed as abridged versions of the original, then I don't really have a problem with them.
Do you think the only differences among bible versions are due to translations? That they are otherwise articulating the original authors' intents?
Yeah. There aren't any important differences between any of the translations that I have seen. Some of them try to translate word-for-word and others try to translate phrase-for-phrase.
Translate them from what?
Hebrew and Greek.
-
The interesting thing about the bible is most decent translations will note in footnotes something like "many early manuscripts do not have this" etc.
For instance in the NIV, at the end of Mark 16 it has this footnote:
Mark 16:8 Some manuscripts have the following ending between verses 8 and 9, and one manuscript has it after verse 8 (omitting verses 9-20): Then they quickly reported all these instructions to those around Peter. After this, Jesus himself also sent out through them from east to west the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation. Amen.
Many Biblical scholars are dedicating their entire lives to figuring out what words the original author wrote when there are disparities in manuscript evidence. I think that's pretty neat!
-
dlew i think that how little you care about the original use of the word fat is equal to how little i care that they changed it to enormous.
We've all established that nobody thinks that the modifications in and of themselves are that big of a deal. It's more the concept of modifying dead authors' works to make them less offensive/irreverent that I think is a little hairy.
I mean look at the Bible. Yikes
Translations are different. Tolstoy's books have some differences in translation. To me, the difference is that the translators are clearly identified on the book and it is made clear that you are reading a translation of Tolstoy's original work. If these books are being marketed as abridged versions of the original, then I don't really have a problem with them.
Do you think the only differences among bible versions are due to translations? That they are otherwise articulating the original authors' intents?
Yeah. There aren't any important differences between any of the translations that I have seen. Some of them try to translate word-for-word and others try to translate phrase-for-phrase.
Translate them from what?
Hebrew and Greek.
Yes but did the original authors write them down in Hebrew in Greek?
-
dlew i think that how little you care about the original use of the word fat is equal to how little i care that they changed it to enormous.
We've all established that nobody thinks that the modifications in and of themselves are that big of a deal. It's more the concept of modifying dead authors' works to make them less offensive/irreverent that I think is a little hairy.
I mean look at the Bible. Yikes
Translations are different. Tolstoy's books have some differences in translation. To me, the difference is that the translators are clearly identified on the book and it is made clear that you are reading a translation of Tolstoy's original work. If these books are being marketed as abridged versions of the original, then I don't really have a problem with them.
Do you think the only differences among bible versions are due to translations? That they are otherwise articulating the original authors' intents?
Yeah. There aren't any important differences between any of the translations that I have seen. Some of them try to translate word-for-word and others try to translate phrase-for-phrase.
Translate them from what?
Hebrew and Greek.
Yes but did the original authors write them down in Hebrew in Greek?
Seems most likely.
-
Depends on the book but archeological evidence would suggest almost all of the New Testament was written in Greek. Matthew might have been Aramaic and Hebrews might have been Hebrew. But the Paulian letters were almost certainly written in Greek, likely any writing attributed to John was also, as was Luke and Acts.
The Old testament was most likely written in Hebrew, but we're talking about many books written hundreds of years apart.
-
The discovery of things like the Dead Sea Scrolls show that certain books of the bible were being translated into Greek and Aramaic by ancient Jews. Where there are text variances that's where scholars have their work cut out for them!
-
I have many thoughts about the translations, retranslations, reretranslations of the Bible, etc. But that probably deserves its own thread.
-
I have many thoughts about the translations, retranslations, reretranslations of the Bible, etc. But that probably deserves its own thread.
would be interesting.
-
Apparently it is a short walk from Willy Wonka to Jesus.
-
dlew i think that how little you care about the original use of the word fat is equal to how little i care that they changed it to enormous.
We've all established that nobody thinks that the modifications in and of themselves are that big of a deal. It's more the concept of modifying dead authors' works to make them less offensive/irreverent that I think is a little hairy.
I mean look at the Bible. Yikes
Translations are different. Tolstoy's books have some differences in translation. To me, the difference is that the translators are clearly identified on the book and it is made clear that you are reading a translation of Tolstoy's original work. If these books are being marketed as abridged versions of the original, then I don't really have a problem with them.
Do you think the only differences among bible versions are due to translations? That they are otherwise articulating the original authors' intents?
Yeah. There aren't any important differences between any of the translations that I have seen. Some of them try to translate word-for-word and others try to translate phrase-for-phrase.
Translate them from what?
Hebrew and Greek.
Yes but did the original authors write them down in Hebrew in Greek?
Seems most likely.
Seems like a lot of it was passed down orally!
:dunno:
-
I’ll try it simpler: at the point you give up the right to make changes to your work, you cannot be censored. It’s nonsensical.
So, as soon as the author of a work (music, painting, movie, literature, whatever) dies (or otherwise releases the rights), the work is immune from censorship? Any modifications to it are just "edits" as distinct from "censorship"? At least when the modifications are done by the rightsholder?
I really wasn't expecting this conversation to dovetail this way, but I gotta say I find it fascinating.
On the topic of censorship, if whoever owns the rights to Orwell's 1984 goes in and replaces every utterance of the word "eff" with "fudge" for future prints, you would view that as something other than "censorship"?
As far as “anytime they die,” I don’t necessarily think that’s the case here. Not my expertise at all, but I’d sure expect that an artist could make arrangements to ensure their work isn’t tampered with after they die.
And otherwise, yes. If you give those rights away (not being coerced of course), you have no space to complain when the rightful holder changes them as they see fit. What else is the point of ownership vs licensing?
You don’t see me claiming censorship when I sell my house and the new owner takes down the Ernie Barret replica statue I had in the courtyard. It’s up to the new owner’s completely terrible tastes.
-
I’ll try it simpler: at the point you give up the right to make changes to your work, you cannot be censored. It’s nonsensical.
So, as soon as the author of a work (music, painting, movie, literature, whatever) dies (or otherwise releases the rights), the work is immune from censorship? Any modifications to it are just "edits" as distinct from "censorship"? At least when the modifications are done by the rightsholder?
I really wasn't expecting this conversation to dovetail this way, but I gotta say I find it fascinating.
On the topic of censorship, if whoever owns the rights to Orwell's 1984 goes in and replaces every utterance of the word "eff" with "fudge" for future prints, you would view that as something other than "censorship"?
As far as “anytime they die,” I don’t necessarily think that’s the case here. Not my expertise at all, but I’d sure expect that an artist could make arrangements to ensure their work isn’t tampered with after they die.
And otherwise, yes. If you give those rights away (not being coerced of course), you have no space to complain when the rightful holder changes them as they see fit. What else is the point of ownership vs licensing?
You don’t see me claiming censorship when I sell my house and the new owner takes down the Ernie Barret replica statue I had in the courtyard. It’s up to the new owner’s completely terrible tastes.
What are your thoughts on the new owner telling everyone that you are responsible for his horrible design?
-
As far as “anytime they die,” I don’t necessarily think that’s the case here. Not my expertise at all, but I’d sure expect that an artist could make arrangements to ensure their work isn’t tampered with after they die.
And otherwise, yes. If you give those rights away (not being coerced of course), you have no space to complain when the rightful holder changes them as they see fit. What else is the point of ownership vs licensing?
You don’t see me claiming censorship when I sell my house and the new owner takes down the Ernie Barret replica statue I had in the courtyard. It’s up to the new owner’s completely terrible tastes.
I don't think we need to get into the weeds regarding an obscure discussion of property or estate law because I think that misses the point. No argument from me that the family/publisher broke the law or violated any tenet of property rights here. I acknowledge that the rightsholders had the right to do whatever they wanted with the IP (including censor portions of it it!). I also think lawncare is different than literature for lots of reasons that we can (but I don't think *need* to) discuss.
What happened is that the books he authored had portions deleted because they were considered objectionable - which happens to actually be the dictionary definition of "censor." That you think that's not merely "not censorship," but actually the opposite of censorship is bonkers to me. And not for nothing, but i think we can agree that not all censorship is necessarily "bad." But I think it's starts approaching "bad" when you're modifying someone else's art to make it less offensive without their approval (read: after they're dead). And I think assuming that Dahl approved of these changes by not dotting his i's or crossing his t's in his estate plan is a pretty big assumption.
-
As far as “anytime they die,” I don’t necessarily think that’s the case here. Not my expertise at all, but I’d sure expect that an artist could make arrangements to ensure their work isn’t tampered with after they die.
And otherwise, yes. If you give those rights away (not being coerced of course), you have no space to complain when the rightful holder changes them as they see fit. What else is the point of ownership vs licensing?
You don’t see me claiming censorship when I sell my house and the new owner takes down the Ernie Barret replica statue I had in the courtyard. It’s up to the new owner’s completely terrible tastes.
I don't think we need to get into the weeds regarding an obscure discussion of property or estate law because I think that misses the point. No argument from me that the family/publisher broke the law or violated any tenet of property rights here. I acknowledge that the rightsholders had the right to do whatever they wanted with the IP (including censor portions of it it!). I also think lawncare is different than literature for lots of reasons that we can (but I don't think *need* to) discuss.
What happened is that the books he authored had portions deleted because they were considered objectionable - which happens to actually be the dictionary definition of "censor." That you think that's not merely "not censorship," but actually the opposite of censorship is bonkers to me. And not for nothing, but i think we can agree that not all censorship is necessarily "bad." But I think it's starts approaching "bad" when you're modifying someone else's art to make it less offensive without their approval (read: after they're dead). And I think assuming that Dahl approved of these changes by not dotting his i's or crossing his t's in his estate plan is a pretty big assumption.
Also I think it is important to note that google seems to believe that the copyright grants the right to "derivative works" and not necessarily carte blanche to change the work however the copyright holder pleases. The censored version can be a new version, a derivative work, but it is no longer the author's original work.
-
Dlew, I understand your side here, and I would probably object to other forms of "censorship", but this particular case is so minor and seems like normal editor type changes that would likely be acceptable if the book was written today. Maybe that's projection on my part.
I also think being a children's book is part of the equation. If this was adult literature I would not understand any need to update the work.
-
I’m with DQ. Changing old books is stupid. If the old books are offensive don’t read them.
-
I stand with catastrophe. This is such a wrongheaded thing to get hung up on.
-
They've done this to stuff like Nancy Drew and Hardy Boys tons of times already. Not that uncommon in children's literature.
-
I’m with DQ. Changing old books is stupid. If the old books are offensive don’t read them.
Same.
-
I’m with DQ. Changing old books is stupid. If the old books are offensive don’t read them.
Same.
This is an affront to property rights, though.
-
I agree it is wrongheaded
-
Dlew, I understand your side here, and I would probably object to other forms of "censorship", but this particular case is so minor and seems like normal editor type changes that would likely be acceptable if the book was written today. Maybe that's projection on my part.
I also think being a children's book is part of the equation. If this was adult literature I would not understand any need to update the work.
good thoughts. The copyright holders are doing this to make sure it continues to be recommended by librarians and teachers. If you were Dahl's ghost, and you saw language that wasn't offensive at the time evolve into something offensive as attitudes shifted, would you be willing to adjust that so more children could read the story, or updated it slightly with the times so people continue to enjoy it? I think the ghost would probably prefer more children read the story.
also I'm really glad Eenie-meanie-miney-mo was censored before I started using it. Yikes!
-
I’m with DQ. Changing old books is stupid. If the old books are offensive don’t read them.
Same.
This is an affront to property rights, though.
The cover needs to say "based on the original works of Roald Dahl. Edited by..." and it's fine.
-
I’m with DQ. Changing old books is stupid. If the old books are offensive don’t read them.
Same.
This is an affront to property rights, though.
The cover needs to say "based on the original works of Roald Dahl. Edited by..." and it's fine.
I really can't imagine getting upset over this, but feel free to buy the rights and make whatever changes you feel are appropriate.
By the way, the first leaf after the cover will inevitably contain the information you desire. "Enormously fat" vs. "Enormous". Just write "^ly fat" between the lines if it matters that much to you.
-
I’m with DQ. Changing old books is stupid. If the old books are offensive don’t read them.
The old ones aren’t changing. Only the new ones.
-
We have actual state enforced censorship happening in Florida, but it's telling our "free speech" advocates don't seem concerned.
-
Well now gE management (Chongs) has told me to go back and take out all the times I’ve used “fat” on this board and brother, it’s a whoooole lot.
-
Well now gE management (Chongs) has told me to go back and take out all the times I’ve used “fat” on this board and brother, it’s a whoooole lot.
I want to sell the collection of posts on the site as a book, and fat people are in our target demo.
-
We have actual state enforced censorship happening in Florida, but it's telling our "free speech" advocates don't seem concerned.
That’s true, Enormous Ron has been doing some heavy lifting in terms of state sponsored censorship but let us not lose focus on the important issue.
-
Well now gE management (Chongs) has told me to go back and take out all the times I’ve used “fat” on this board and brother, it’s a whoooole lot.
I want to sell the collection of posts on the site as a book, and fat people are in our target demo.
Just look how many posts I have!
-
We have actual state enforced censorship happening in Florida, but it's telling our "free speech" advocates don't seem concerned.
Don’t like that either! But it seems like aside from dax that’s basically a consensus on this board.
-
omg lmao
https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1628292293173342208?s=46&t=_X_-EesrfoTIV2uF2xdC7g
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
:lol:
-
:lol:
-
:D
-
https://variety.com/2023/film/news/matilda-roald-dahl-rewritten-rerelease-1235534515/
The edited books might end up being sort of valuable as collectors items some day.
-
I cant believe they censored the edits. SAD
-
pretty good cash grab IMO
-
omg lmao
https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1628292293173342208?s=46&t=_X_-EesrfoTIV2uF2xdC7g
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You'll take my non compostable paper towels from my freshly dried dead hands
-
pretty good cash grab IMO
Maybe. I'd bet that most of the sales from these books go to school libraries and book fairs. It will be sort of interesting to see which version schools choose. I'd hope they opt for the original non-offensive text over the revised, slightly less offensive text.
-
https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/childrens/childrens-book-news/article/91601-no-plans-for-dahl-text-changes-from-u-s-european-publishers.html
Huh. Looks like it's just the British cunts who are being sensitive.
-
https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/childrens/childrens-book-news/article/91601-no-plans-for-dahl-text-changes-from-u-s-european-publishers.html
Huh. Looks like it's just the British cunts who are being sensitive.
good job, america. we did it.
-
It feels like winning the revolution all over again.
-
I’m with DQ. Changing old books is stupid. If the old books are offensive don’t read them.
Same.
What part of "children's book" isn't computing here?
-
Page 69. Nice ...
-
Page 69. Nice ...
This thought did cross my mind today too. Nice
-
Uh oh
https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1631202861068570626?t=d8_BGbAs0TocGlF1bM8bug
-
Nothing Christian about caring for the sick, feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, clothing the naked, etc.
-
It's quite the pickle
-
JFC
-
omg lmao
https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1628292293173342208?s=46&t=_X_-EesrfoTIV2uF2xdC7g
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You'll take my non compostable paper towels from my freshly dried dead hands
lolz, nice
-
omg lmao
https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1628292293173342208?s=46&t=_X_-EesrfoTIV2uF2xdC7g
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
@Trim
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20230303/567a41ddabfc5c4d18eea75899b7c8be.jpg)
-
:lol:
-
that little Dilbert weenie messed around and found out and now is on a 72 hour twitter cry sesh
-
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20230403/2c87a8892c217b28cb4b6121ebceaca0.jpg)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
lol that moron
-
Dr. Peterson was just april foolsing too guys.
-
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/27/opinion/christopher-rufo-diversity-desantis-florida-university.html
so the NYT published Chris Rufo (who's fave candidate DeSantis is cratering and his agenda got a R loss in the midterms) and disabled the comments. . .
lol
happy to see the electorate (minus retirees (Grand)Moms for Liberty yelling at schoolboards)
the #groomerguys are going to be backing a rapist that fantasizes about his daughter.
-
Probably the most mentally weak human still existing on our planet earth, lmao
https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1695901095803998577
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
https://twitter.com/efischberger/status/1723058776834511037
(https://ih0.redbubble.net/image.1527288559.1519/raf,360x360,075,t,fafafa:ca443f4786.jpg)
-
I’m amazed at all these high school level educated folks who are so concerned about campus groups at universities that are a bajillion intellectual miles beyond their reach.
-
What a weird rough ridin' post, Pete
-
https://twitter.com/KrangTNelson/status/1723942357425324106
-
Both he AND Ted frickin' Cruz were on Bill Maher on Friday. Yuck.
-
RE: the death of free speech
https://twitter.com/ChristinaPushaw/status/1724524144954380794
-
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20240202/f935baacc64118972ee4675fa996ff28.jpg)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
our special free speech warrior is having a normal one
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20240202/f935baacc64118972ee4675fa996ff28.jpg)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sort yourself out.
-
Uhhhhhhhhhhhh, lmao