0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: sonofdaxjones on November 09, 2015, 06:44:45 PMQuoteIn “The Coddling of the American Mind,” Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt argued that too many college students engage in “catastrophizing,” which is to say, turning common events into nightmarish trials or claiming that easily bearable events are too awful to bear. After citing examples, they concluded, “smart people do, in fact, overreact to innocuous speech, make mountains out of molehills, and seek punishment for anyone whose words make anyone else feel uncomfortable.”http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/the-new-intolerance-of-student-activism-at-yale/414810/QuoteAccording to the Washington Post, “several students in Silliman said they cannot bear to live in the college anymore.” These are young people who live in safe, heated buildings with two Steinway grand pianos, an indoor basketball court, a courtyard with hammocks and picnic tables, a computer lab, a dance studio, a gym, a movie theater, a film editing lab, billiard tables, an art gallery, and four music practice rooms. But they can’t bear this setting that millions of people would risk their lives to inhabit because one woman wrote an email that hurt their feelings?I like Conor's opinions. I don't think this is very comparable to what is happening at Mizzou though.
QuoteIn “The Coddling of the American Mind,” Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt argued that too many college students engage in “catastrophizing,” which is to say, turning common events into nightmarish trials or claiming that easily bearable events are too awful to bear. After citing examples, they concluded, “smart people do, in fact, overreact to innocuous speech, make mountains out of molehills, and seek punishment for anyone whose words make anyone else feel uncomfortable.”http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/the-new-intolerance-of-student-activism-at-yale/414810/QuoteAccording to the Washington Post, “several students in Silliman said they cannot bear to live in the college anymore.” These are young people who live in safe, heated buildings with two Steinway grand pianos, an indoor basketball court, a courtyard with hammocks and picnic tables, a computer lab, a dance studio, a gym, a movie theater, a film editing lab, billiard tables, an art gallery, and four music practice rooms. But they can’t bear this setting that millions of people would risk their lives to inhabit because one woman wrote an email that hurt their feelings?
In “The Coddling of the American Mind,” Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt argued that too many college students engage in “catastrophizing,” which is to say, turning common events into nightmarish trials or claiming that easily bearable events are too awful to bear. After citing examples, they concluded, “smart people do, in fact, overreact to innocuous speech, make mountains out of molehills, and seek punishment for anyone whose words make anyone else feel uncomfortable.”
According to the Washington Post, “several students in Silliman said they cannot bear to live in the college anymore.” These are young people who live in safe, heated buildings with two Steinway grand pianos, an indoor basketball court, a courtyard with hammocks and picnic tables, a computer lab, a dance studio, a gym, a movie theater, a film editing lab, billiard tables, an art gallery, and four music practice rooms. But they can’t bear this setting that millions of people would risk their lives to inhabit because one woman wrote an email that hurt their feelings?
Quote from: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 09, 2015, 06:42:07 PMQuote from: Rick RowdyBoyy Daris on November 09, 2015, 04:28:20 PMQuote from: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 09, 2015, 04:24:07 PMQuote from: MakeItRain on November 09, 2015, 01:24:28 PMQuote from: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 09, 2015, 12:46:00 PMThe funniest/saddest thing about the "collective" attacks against "institutional" or "systemic" racism or prejudice is that the people advocating against it want the masses to understand and agree with "the movement" while being simultaneously told they cannot actually understand what "the movement" is or is about. It's rampant in this thread.Yay, completely making crap up! Same script, different topic.It is an observation and self evident in this thread and others in the pit. The entire sensitivity movement, which entails per se slander and libel against a targeted public figure, is premised upon perceived and unquantifiable injustices caused by institutions under the control of numerous people (e.g., government, corporations or universities). Nobody can ever know what the standard is or should be, because it is forever defined as "not that". I cannot believe that the people targeted have almost universally decided to back down and quit, rather than stand up for themselves. I know you think this is progress, and it may very well be, but the method used to achieve this result is fundamentally immoral and ripe for abuse, which is terrifying from a societal standpoint.he quit because he did a bad job and his bosses told him to quit. that's pretty simple. you seem to think that underperforming people in this country should just be allowed to work with no repercussions which is, sad really.When your "bosses" are adolescents throwing temper tantrums, that argument kinda goes out the window.His bosses are the governor and the board of curators and he resigned ten minutes after his meeting with them. You can do the math on that. I would say that they obviously weren't impressed with the job he's been doing.Seems like you think people should have lifetime contracts but sorry bub, that's not how the real world works. In the real world people have to perform or run the risk of losing their job. This guy sucked, he got fired/resigned.
Quote from: Rick RowdyBoyy Daris on November 09, 2015, 04:28:20 PMQuote from: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 09, 2015, 04:24:07 PMQuote from: MakeItRain on November 09, 2015, 01:24:28 PMQuote from: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 09, 2015, 12:46:00 PMThe funniest/saddest thing about the "collective" attacks against "institutional" or "systemic" racism or prejudice is that the people advocating against it want the masses to understand and agree with "the movement" while being simultaneously told they cannot actually understand what "the movement" is or is about. It's rampant in this thread.Yay, completely making crap up! Same script, different topic.It is an observation and self evident in this thread and others in the pit. The entire sensitivity movement, which entails per se slander and libel against a targeted public figure, is premised upon perceived and unquantifiable injustices caused by institutions under the control of numerous people (e.g., government, corporations or universities). Nobody can ever know what the standard is or should be, because it is forever defined as "not that". I cannot believe that the people targeted have almost universally decided to back down and quit, rather than stand up for themselves. I know you think this is progress, and it may very well be, but the method used to achieve this result is fundamentally immoral and ripe for abuse, which is terrifying from a societal standpoint.he quit because he did a bad job and his bosses told him to quit. that's pretty simple. you seem to think that underperforming people in this country should just be allowed to work with no repercussions which is, sad really.When your "bosses" are adolescents throwing temper tantrums, that argument kinda goes out the window.
Quote from: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 09, 2015, 04:24:07 PMQuote from: MakeItRain on November 09, 2015, 01:24:28 PMQuote from: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 09, 2015, 12:46:00 PMThe funniest/saddest thing about the "collective" attacks against "institutional" or "systemic" racism or prejudice is that the people advocating against it want the masses to understand and agree with "the movement" while being simultaneously told they cannot actually understand what "the movement" is or is about. It's rampant in this thread.Yay, completely making crap up! Same script, different topic.It is an observation and self evident in this thread and others in the pit. The entire sensitivity movement, which entails per se slander and libel against a targeted public figure, is premised upon perceived and unquantifiable injustices caused by institutions under the control of numerous people (e.g., government, corporations or universities). Nobody can ever know what the standard is or should be, because it is forever defined as "not that". I cannot believe that the people targeted have almost universally decided to back down and quit, rather than stand up for themselves. I know you think this is progress, and it may very well be, but the method used to achieve this result is fundamentally immoral and ripe for abuse, which is terrifying from a societal standpoint.he quit because he did a bad job and his bosses told him to quit. that's pretty simple. you seem to think that underperforming people in this country should just be allowed to work with no repercussions which is, sad really.
Quote from: MakeItRain on November 09, 2015, 01:24:28 PMQuote from: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 09, 2015, 12:46:00 PMThe funniest/saddest thing about the "collective" attacks against "institutional" or "systemic" racism or prejudice is that the people advocating against it want the masses to understand and agree with "the movement" while being simultaneously told they cannot actually understand what "the movement" is or is about. It's rampant in this thread.Yay, completely making crap up! Same script, different topic.It is an observation and self evident in this thread and others in the pit. The entire sensitivity movement, which entails per se slander and libel against a targeted public figure, is premised upon perceived and unquantifiable injustices caused by institutions under the control of numerous people (e.g., government, corporations or universities). Nobody can ever know what the standard is or should be, because it is forever defined as "not that". I cannot believe that the people targeted have almost universally decided to back down and quit, rather than stand up for themselves. I know you think this is progress, and it may very well be, but the method used to achieve this result is fundamentally immoral and ripe for abuse, which is terrifying from a societal standpoint.
Quote from: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 09, 2015, 12:46:00 PMThe funniest/saddest thing about the "collective" attacks against "institutional" or "systemic" racism or prejudice is that the people advocating against it want the masses to understand and agree with "the movement" while being simultaneously told they cannot actually understand what "the movement" is or is about. It's rampant in this thread.Yay, completely making crap up! Same script, different topic.
The funniest/saddest thing about the "collective" attacks against "institutional" or "systemic" racism or prejudice is that the people advocating against it want the masses to understand and agree with "the movement" while being simultaneously told they cannot actually understand what "the movement" is or is about. It's rampant in this thread.
CEOs have to resign for all kinds of stuff. He wanted to run Mizzou like a business and the shareholders realized he was a lot cheaper to replace than to buyout the BYU game.
I think dax still thinks this whole thing at mizzou is about the poop swastika
Quote from: michigancat on November 09, 2015, 07:22:51 PMI like Conor's opinions. I don't think this is very comparable to what is happening at Mizzou though.“catastrophizing", walks hand in hand with the unsubstantiated allegations which make up the backbone of the claims at MU.
I like Conor's opinions. I don't think this is very comparable to what is happening at Mizzou though.
But many of the students believe that his responsibility is to hear their demands for an apology and to issue it. They see anything short of a confession of wrongdoing as unacceptable. In their view, one respects students by validating their subjective feelings.
Some Yalies are defending their broken activist culture by seizing on more defensible reasons for being upset. “The protests are not really about Halloween costumes or a frat party,” Yale senior Aaron Lewis writes. “They’re about a mismatch between the Yale we find in admissions brochures and the Yale we experience every day. They’re about real experiences with racism on this campus that have gone unacknowledged for far too long. The university sells itself as a welcoming and inclusive place for people of all backgrounds. Unfortunately, it often isn’t.”
Quote from: Rick RowdyBoyy Daris on November 09, 2015, 07:21:03 PMQuote from: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 09, 2015, 06:42:07 PMQuote from: Rick RowdyBoyy Daris on November 09, 2015, 04:28:20 PMQuote from: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 09, 2015, 04:24:07 PMQuote from: MakeItRain on November 09, 2015, 01:24:28 PMQuote from: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 09, 2015, 12:46:00 PMThe funniest/saddest thing about the "collective" attacks against "institutional" or "systemic" racism or prejudice is that the people advocating against it want the masses to understand and agree with "the movement" while being simultaneously told they cannot actually understand what "the movement" is or is about. It's rampant in this thread.Yay, completely making crap up! Same script, different topic.It is an observation and self evident in this thread and others in the pit. The entire sensitivity movement, which entails per se slander and libel against a targeted public figure, is premised upon perceived and unquantifiable injustices caused by institutions under the control of numerous people (e.g., government, corporations or universities). Nobody can ever know what the standard is or should be, because it is forever defined as "not that". I cannot believe that the people targeted have almost universally decided to back down and quit, rather than stand up for themselves. I know you think this is progress, and it may very well be, but the method used to achieve this result is fundamentally immoral and ripe for abuse, which is terrifying from a societal standpoint.he quit because he did a bad job and his bosses told him to quit. that's pretty simple. you seem to think that underperforming people in this country should just be allowed to work with no repercussions which is, sad really.When your "bosses" are adolescents throwing temper tantrums, that argument kinda goes out the window.His bosses are the governor and the board of curators and he resigned ten minutes after his meeting with them. You can do the math on that. I would say that they obviously weren't impressed with the job he's been doing.Seems like you think people should have lifetime contracts but sorry bub, that's not how the real world works. In the real world people have to perform or run the risk of losing their job. This guy sucked, he got fired/resigned.Is this really the way you see it?
Quote from: gatoveintisiete on November 09, 2015, 07:28:29 PMQuote from: Rick RowdyBoyy Daris on November 09, 2015, 07:21:03 PMQuote from: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 09, 2015, 06:42:07 PMQuote from: Rick RowdyBoyy Daris on November 09, 2015, 04:28:20 PMQuote from: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 09, 2015, 04:24:07 PMQuote from: MakeItRain on November 09, 2015, 01:24:28 PMQuote from: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 09, 2015, 12:46:00 PMThe funniest/saddest thing about the "collective" attacks against "institutional" or "systemic" racism or prejudice is that the people advocating against it want the masses to understand and agree with "the movement" while being simultaneously told they cannot actually understand what "the movement" is or is about. It's rampant in this thread.Yay, completely making crap up! Same script, different topic.It is an observation and self evident in this thread and others in the pit. The entire sensitivity movement, which entails per se slander and libel against a targeted public figure, is premised upon perceived and unquantifiable injustices caused by institutions under the control of numerous people (e.g., government, corporations or universities). Nobody can ever know what the standard is or should be, because it is forever defined as "not that". I cannot believe that the people targeted have almost universally decided to back down and quit, rather than stand up for themselves. I know you think this is progress, and it may very well be, but the method used to achieve this result is fundamentally immoral and ripe for abuse, which is terrifying from a societal standpoint.he quit because he did a bad job and his bosses told him to quit. that's pretty simple. you seem to think that underperforming people in this country should just be allowed to work with no repercussions which is, sad really.When your "bosses" are adolescents throwing temper tantrums, that argument kinda goes out the window.His bosses are the governor and the board of curators and he resigned ten minutes after his meeting with them. You can do the math on that. I would say that they obviously weren't impressed with the job he's been doing.Seems like you think people should have lifetime contracts but sorry bub, that's not how the real world works. In the real world people have to perform or run the risk of losing their job. This guy sucked, he got fired/resigned.Is this really the way you see it?some other people apparently do/did as well...Rep. Steve Cookson, a Republican from Poplar Bluff who chairs the House Higher Education Committee, joined Jones later in the day with a statement calling for Wolfe to either resign or be fired, even hinting at some sort of legislative action if Wolfe is allowed to remain. “It has become clear that the MU system leadership can no longer effectively lead and should step aside,” Cookson said. “Failing that the University of Missouri system board of curators should force a change in leadership. Failing this common sense approach it will be incumbent for the governor and the General Assembly to take the appropriate steps to protect this important public asset.”Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/the-buzz/article43682574.html#storylink=cpy
Quote from: sonofdaxjones on November 09, 2015, 07:27:42 PMQuote from: michigancat on November 09, 2015, 07:22:51 PMI like Conor's opinions. I don't think this is very comparable to what is happening at Mizzou though.“catastrophizing", walks hand in hand with the unsubstantiated allegations which make up the backbone of the claims at MU. this part is also a fairly clear parallel.QuoteBut many of the students believe that his responsibility is to hear their demands for an apology and to issue it. They see anything short of a confession of wrongdoing as unacceptable. In their view, one respects students by validating their subjective feelings.
Quote from: Rick RowdyBoyy Daris on November 09, 2015, 08:30:41 PMQuote from: gatoveintisiete on November 09, 2015, 07:28:29 PMQuote from: Rick RowdyBoyy Daris on November 09, 2015, 07:21:03 PMQuote from: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 09, 2015, 06:42:07 PMQuote from: Rick RowdyBoyy Daris on November 09, 2015, 04:28:20 PMQuote from: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 09, 2015, 04:24:07 PMQuote from: MakeItRain on November 09, 2015, 01:24:28 PMQuote from: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 09, 2015, 12:46:00 PMThe funniest/saddest thing about the "collective" attacks against "institutional" or "systemic" racism or prejudice is that the people advocating against it want the masses to understand and agree with "the movement" while being simultaneously told they cannot actually understand what "the movement" is or is about. It's rampant in this thread.Yay, completely making crap up! Same script, different topic.It is an observation and self evident in this thread and others in the pit. The entire sensitivity movement, which entails per se slander and libel against a targeted public figure, is premised upon perceived and unquantifiable injustices caused by institutions under the control of numerous people (e.g., government, corporations or universities). Nobody can ever know what the standard is or should be, because it is forever defined as "not that". I cannot believe that the people targeted have almost universally decided to back down and quit, rather than stand up for themselves. I know you think this is progress, and it may very well be, but the method used to achieve this result is fundamentally immoral and ripe for abuse, which is terrifying from a societal standpoint.he quit because he did a bad job and his bosses told him to quit. that's pretty simple. you seem to think that underperforming people in this country should just be allowed to work with no repercussions which is, sad really.When your "bosses" are adolescents throwing temper tantrums, that argument kinda goes out the window.His bosses are the governor and the board of curators and he resigned ten minutes after his meeting with them. You can do the math on that. I would say that they obviously weren't impressed with the job he's been doing.Seems like you think people should have lifetime contracts but sorry bub, that's not how the real world works. In the real world people have to perform or run the risk of losing their job. This guy sucked, he got fired/resigned.Is this really the way you see it?some other people apparently do/did as well...Rep. Steve Cookson, a Republican from Poplar Bluff who chairs the House Higher Education Committee, joined Jones later in the day with a statement calling for Wolfe to either resign or be fired, even hinting at some sort of legislative action if Wolfe is allowed to remain. “It has become clear that the MU system leadership can no longer effectively lead and should step aside,” Cookson said. “Failing that the University of Missouri system board of curators should force a change in leadership. Failing this common sense approach it will be incumbent for the governor and the General Assembly to take the appropriate steps to protect this important public asset.”Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/the-buzz/article43682574.html#storylink=cpyInteresting, I think he got fired because the board believes that firing him will appease the Mob, even though the board knows the mob has unreasonable demands. The mob has developed effective economic leverage. I have little respect for this type of strong-arm tactic, seems kinda rainbow-pushy to me.
I don't understand the anti-media thing at all.
Just inexplicably oblivious.http://gawker.com/professor-of-mass-media-seen-calling-for-muscle-to-bl-1741597776
