Forum:Okay, I do believe it's time for a frank discussion about college students.

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

So there's no doubt you've heard about the resignation of the president of the University of Missouri. I will admit I am having a hard time getting together all the details, but is it true that the protests were all over him "not doing enough" about some random white guys off-campus calling a black student the n-word and a swastika smeared in shit in a campus restroom? I think there was also an incident of a white student calling some black students the n-word too.

Then there was this big hullabaloo earlier at Yale over an email about Halloween costume recommendations, and how students got offended over it and demanded a public apology. Is there something I'm missing here? It all sounds like they're being whipped up into a frenzy over minor things. I have no doubt in my mind that social media is being used to exaggerate the issue and foment outrage.

I know there were some negative reactions here to that Atlantic article written by the president of FIRE about the "Coddling of the American Mind," but it's incidents like these that give him credibility. Perhaps it is time that we start teaching students how to better deal with perceived slights? Blitz (Complaints Box) 02:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

College students already don't like college administration on account of that whole massive upcoming crisis over under and unemployed college graduates being crushed by debt forced on them by expensive colleges thing, so it's not surprising "minor things" would lead into massive hate for administration. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 02:56, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, I suppose that is a good point, though why don't they focus on those grievances then rather than a freaking poopy swastika? Blitz (Complaints Box) 03:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Because the universities don't give a shit about their legitimate complaints. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 03:04, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
See also Ray Watts. It's not about football (or bowling etc.), and I might say it's not even about debt etc. specifically. WalkerWalkerWalker 03:09, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Ray Watts? Blitz (Complaints Box) 03:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I assume this. I don't think it's about any of the broader issues because the great majority of college students lack any meaningful awareness of them. When I was at school I was alone in watching Charlie Rose most nights (why don't we have an article on him?), most of the other people where I was were busy getting drunk and/or tilting at windmils. In one of my American history classes we were comparing the U.S. to other countries during various time periods, and a disturbing number of people felt compelled to refer to the treatment of "African American South Africans"; one actually made a very loud complaint when I referred to the "black" and the "coloured" population there (those being the official terms), although I was fortunate to have a professor who told her to shut up and read a book on the subject before getting all huffy. KC Johnson has summarized the problem well, I can get some links as necessary. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately for the UOM president, after they screamed "JUMP!" he didn't ask "How high?" Thus ensued his polite firing. CaptainCaptain (talk) 19:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

As opposed to normal citizens?[edit]

Have you seen the shit that can get people enraged? Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 04:19, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

You might be onto something. Based on how the Religious Right is freaking out over a Starbucks cup design, perhaps this is more of a social trend happening to people of all political stripes; everything is a big damn problem that needs to go away immediately. Blitz (Complaints Box) 04:26, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, of course there are plenty of stories about morons who get all freaked out over (to use two examples) someone using the word niggardly or the expression tar baby. It does seem, though, that college campuses have taken this to an extreme (the niggardly one has also reared its ugly head on campus, so you can do a direct side-by-side). Next up, I'm sure, will be some retard writing some screed about how "Don't toss me in dat briar patch over there" is an egregious affront to black people because of its "appropriation" of AAVE (which would be in not even wrong territory, it takes a few seconds of searching to figure out why). The places where this can catch fire most are colleges because they can slap the veneer of scholarship on it. (Quick aside; it's frightening that I understood Uncle Remus stories better than a lot of adults when I was 8) The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
I tried to read Uncle Remus a while back. The eye dialect seemed so overdone it made the narratives hard for me to follow. The material ought to have kept my interest, since a lot of it has parallels in Africa, and also in classical antiquity, and that's usually the sort of thing that stokes my interest. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 05:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
I was young enough the first time that I didn't think much of it, and when I reread them about a year ago I was fresh off The Heart is a Lonely Hunter and it wasn't nearly as strange sounding as it probably would have been otherwise. Sometimes it's just luck. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Honestly, that's what most of this is. As much as people say it's "PC culture" that's all about getting offended, it's mostly the other way around. For my whole life, it's been an insult to call someone by the wrong gender pronoun. You call a little boy, a teenager, and a grown man a girl, they aren't taking that as a positive thing. Same for saying a woman looks like a man. But now they want to get offended at the idea that people be called by the correct pronoun. And it is gender, not sex, otherwise we'd have to do some awkward explaining about why we built guns and ships with female genitalia. Then you get all these people who are offended that now black people actually talk back. They remember the good old days, when you could call any black guy "boy" and they weren't allowed to say anything back. All this is just the same shit, different day for people trying to paint colleges as liberal institutions that are bad for the youth. You want to talk about radical protests, y'all are forgetting the Vietnam era. You know, with students taking over buildings, Black Panthers running around, and the national guard shooting people. Like the Kent State shootings where the protesters didn't like the Vietnam War. And then that shooting led to a protest by 4 million students that closed down colleges all over the place. Same shit, different day, still with the same right wing types whining about it. Or how about consent? After all, I'm sure this consent thing is relatively new, right? Oops, longstanding legal precedent and one of the basic foundations of contract law. Plus, even casinos aren't allowed to let someone gamble drunk at risk of losing their gaming license. In my case, I suppose I'm a bit sensitive about this pushback because I know someone who has gotten away with rape. He was invited to a party and had sex with a drunk girl who said "No." Not that he admitted it in court. Instead, he just told the jury that he penetrated her digitally and tried to have sex with her. They considered it a "he said-she said" matter despite that actually fitting the legal definition of rape. There's a little more to the story, but it all ends with the prosecution settling for disorderly conduct, and said rapist still does not believe he did anything wrong. Seriously, it just keeps getting fucked up when the so-called "enlightened, rational, reason-based" crowd falls for yesterday's conservative talking points. PC culture run amok? Time for the hand-wringing grannies on Fox News to stop getting offended at the idea that people don't want to be shot by cops, or raped, or treated like they are an "it" instead of a person. And tell Senfield that maybe people would find him funny if actually put some work into it like Carlin or Titus, the lazy bastard. Other comedians keep up with the times, but he doesn't want to work to make people laugh? There's the joke. - Psycho Gecko, 08:57, 23 November, 2015 (UTC)

So[edit]

So you guys are talking about this, right? Where white students regularly yell racial slurs at black students, a black faculty member says co-workers direct racial slurs at her, and the president's reaction was to ignore people bringing the issue up? Oh hey and then just recently a student at the school allegedly posted threats to murder blacks at the school. (As an additional unsurprising detail the president also cut off university relations with Planned Parenthood.) Gee, why is it that almost every time I actually look into these supposedly exaggerated events, they're actually pretty fucked up? It's almost like people have just made up their minds that those darn SJWs are lying about everything and geez, the kids these days! Just like during the civil rights movement, where many people said, "Well yeah there might be some minor issues, but those people marching and protesting are stirring up trouble!" --Ymir (talk) 22:56, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

That first Missourian article is a borderline unreadable mishmash of "Gawd help me!!" and only demonstrates that everyone, everywhere runs into jerkoffs. Reading between the fluff about "Tha Lawd" she seems to have the right idea that there's not a whole lot you can do besides lead by example and wish the jerkoffs well, which seems to elude the grasp of the students in question. I fail to see there where the president was ignoring anything; "some guys in a pickup truck said some mean words" isn't really enough to identify and take disciplinary action against someone, and if no one could put a name to the "drunken white student" there's no real way to fix that either. The professor at least did get put on administrative leave, and I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt that it took some time for that to work its way up the channels. Given that the president resigned before the aforementioned threat, exactly what was he supposed to do; get the Department of Future Crimes on the case? As to the Planned Parenthood thing it doesn't really explain why, there might be something else at work that you don't know about (or perhaps there's no good reason, but again we don't know). The Halloween furor was over an e-mail which simply said "I don't feel I can impose my standards of what is Right and JustTM on you, so where do you get off thinking you can do so?", which I find impossible to disagree with. And finally, I go to what I mentioned before; how in the hell do you justify "African American South Africans" in any context? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:03, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
I never made any statements regarding the other subjects. My comments only concerned the University of Missouri issue, because I decided to do a little reading up on it. Now, to drive home a salient point, I'm a white guy (obviously pale, blond hair) living in Southern California. The city I live in is majority Hispanic. Never once in my life have I been subjected to an insult regarding my ethnicity or appearance. So don't take this personally, but you're pretty much minimizing the shit some people are subjected to. "Oh well hey, some people are assholes and say dumb stuff! Get over it! At least they're not lynching you!" As far as the president goes, let's point out that it's extremely unlikely this racial stuff just started in the past week or two. Not only that, but after some of the students started protesting, he decided to go out and argue with them over how things aren't that bad and they should be just glad they have the opportunity to go to college (there's a video, too lazy to dig up a link). See, what you're doing is giving the benefit of the doubt to the people with power (Hey, maybe the president didn't know about the racial climate! And he's not a miracle-worker! He can't fix everything!) while dissecting every aspect of the protestors' claims (There will always be jerks! Why didn't they take down the name and ID number of the drunken student?). --Ymir (talk) 00:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Your experience has been different from mine, I've faced plenty of stigma for being a white guy in a predominantly black workforce (a lot of things distill down to "talkin' white", which as far as I can tell means "using more than a 4th grade vocabulary"); I work with Farrakhan supporters who have no problem openly proclaiming their eternal love for him. Since I like what I do enough, and since work isn't really the place to have these sorts of debates, I've figured out that the best way to get past it is to let it go and get on with things. At least for me the onus is on the people making the accusations to prove their point; if I had to guess the guy has probably done plenty of things wrong, it'd be nice to see some concrete examples that directly implicate him in some way instead of having to speculate off vague information. That said, reasonable people can approach this from different angles, and so can a reasonable person and I. (Nothing personal taken, as an autistic it helps to get feedback on how I sound to other people) The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
The president of MU and his faculty were behind those who faced racial slurs. But as I said before, when they screamed at the president to jump, he forgot to ask 'how high?'. And then someone drew a swastika with human shit, whereupon everyone threw their shit. These people literally fed the trolls, more than the trolls could have ever hoped for. Meanwhile in Yale one student said this: "It is not about creating an intellectual space, it is about creating a home here!" Universities are apparently not for academic teaching any more. They are now supposed to be homes. Additionally, the crazy student who said these things also questioned the official she was arguing with saying: "Who hired you?!" Ironically, it was she, alongside a small board, that hired the man. CaptainCaptain (talk) 00:25, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Uh... Captain, would you rather that universities no longer felt welcoming and no longer housed students? Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 00:27, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
I doubt that's what she meant. She, being from a rather affluent family (and attending Yale) with a house worth 3/4 of a million dollars, has never faced such mundane facts such as the 'real world' where no one will clean up your mess but you. I seriously doubt many of the students want to be at Uni any longer than they need to be simply because they're rearing to get out into the world, make money, live dreams etc. But she, and a specific group of entitled fools, would prefer if they could remain at the university indefinitely. 'Home' isn't a word used to describe a uni. I will accept 'comfortable' or 'safe' but not 'home'. CaptainCaptain (talk) 00:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
So my friend, who will have spent 5 years at a uni far from her hometown and has lived in the dorm the entire time, that should in no way feel like " a home" to her? How do you figure such stupidity. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
She is talking about the uni, not the dorms. I think it is you who must examine your reading comprehension. She is saying a uni should not be a place for academic achievement, but 'just like home'. But hey, let's defend the crazy rich lady who insulted a Master of the University for no reason. CaptainCaptain (talk) 00:44, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
In case anyone was wondering: Yes, CaptainCaptain is making a huge ruckus about someone using the word "home". 142.124.55.236 (talk) 00:48, 12 November 42015 AQD (UTC)
She was screaming at a Master of the University and saying such things as what I have quoted and 'Who hired you?!' even though she hired the man. And she, being the caller-to-arms of the insanity, shall have her words judged in order to judge the validity of their movement. Seeing as she would have the place of learning and academic excellence that is university belittled to a mere location where one stays for a while, people will judge the people fighting behind her based upon her words. Her words being absolutely insane and entitled. CaptainCaptain (talk) 00:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
You have a much higher view of the state of universities than even the universities themselves these days i--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
If you're still watching this: Yes, CaptainCaptain just now continued making a ruckus about someone daring to use the word "home". 142.124.55.236 (talk) 00:53, 12 November 42015 AQD (UTC)
So you're saying universities should no longer fulfill the mundane role of teaching academics, but should instead fulfill the far better role of 'home away from home with more people your age!' As for second post, Oh no, he's quoting someone and analyzing their words! NO! STOP HIM!!!!!!111eleven!! You are pitiful, and you've also glazed over other things I've pointed out such as the UOM president and faculty being in support of those who faced racial slurs. CaptainCaptain (talk) 00:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps they should do both, as people do live on campus and thus by definition it is a home?--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:01, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
No, people live in dorms. They attend classes on the class-side of campus. The faculty are not your parents, the students are not your siblings. The faculty is in charge of running the facility and fulfilling its role, which is teaching and testing. They might be interested in making students feel safe, but just because a a skyscraper has nice staff and nice seating areas doesn't mean just because you work there it is your home. To quote the famous adage: reals before feels, my friend. CaptainCaptain (talk) 01:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
At my UNI, dorms are mixed between the education buildings, alongside student life buildings. There is no one part which is for one and one part which is for the other. Why should people not feel safe in a location in which they work, live and enjoy life, such as at my UNI's main campus? --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:08, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
By this logic, any safe area is a home. High tech scientific facility guarded by soldiers, built for the express purpose of developing weapons on-site? The entire facility is now a home. Universities only have dorms because it lets them rake in more cash from students who would otherwise not attend because they don't live in the area. Dorms are not a requirement for a uni, they are just prevalent. A university is still a school, and a school is a structure with a staff group that functions as a place that was not built for housing people, merely doing something with them when they're not sleeping or eating. CaptainCaptain (talk) 01:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Stop. You only look foolish the more you rant about how UNI's should in no way feel safe for the students on it.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
I didn't say that, don't be disingenuous. I've said that being safe and being a home are two very different things, and what the crazy lady was calling for was entitled insanity. CaptainCaptain (talk) 01:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
And concluding our episode for today: CaptainCaptain continued making a ruckus about the word "home", intently convinced there was some point to all their arguing. Feel free to join us on our next episode of Silly Arguments on RW, to be found on a discussion page relating to: race, Israel or ponies. Goatspeed, viewers! 142.124.55.236 (talk) 01:42, 12 November 42015 AQD (UTC)
You forget GG.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 01:45, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
I should be used to you people being bad at arguing, but man that does take the cake. Trying to use a smear campaign so that you don't have to address my criticisms? Bravo. CaptainCaptain (talk) 01:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Guys, the episode is over. Don't talk while the credits are rolling, it'll look awkward. Also, GG discussions are so passé. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 01:53, 12 November 42015 AQD (UTC)
Hey, during the credits (or after), you'll see all kinds of cool sequel hooks.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 02:18, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Back to the matter at hand? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Charming[edit]

I'll let this speak for itself. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Interrupting students studying for exams. Shameless. I also remember another such group whinging because the deaths of over 120 innocent people in Paris stole their fifteen minutes of fame. CaptainCaptain (talk) 03:24, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Not quite what I had in mind, but... The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
What, you'd rather we support the anarchistic fools who harassed innocents for a made-up cause and whinged when terrorists killed over a hundred in Paris and stole the news spotlight? CaptainCaptain (talk) 04:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Stop talking, it doesn't help you. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 05:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
You've said so little in so many words. CaptainCaptain (talk) 07:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Reset button again for anyone else. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Dartmouth’s deep-seeded racism. Ouch. On the other hand, when it started out Black Lives Matter was a breath of fresh air. A political movement that was refreshingly different because it was addressing issues that political institutions can actually do something about. Once it hits the academic world, I guess it all becomes a matter of gesturing and posturing, and lashing out at soft targets. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 03:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
And here y'all were trying to say it was college students who were out of control with PC stuff. Besides, that line about believing that ignorant costumes are racist, sounds like that previously explained incident up there. That and, as someone from a former Confederate state, I'm fairly certain that costumes can be about racism. Might be a few well-known groups from this general region who could be used as good examples. Though I will say, it sure didn't take the Dartmouth comments to go Godwin. Which is odd, since the media seems to be continuously saying to hate this group of ethnic minorities and even if you have to ignore the parts where they had legitimate grievances. Just like back with the protesters in all those states where the cops shoot them and don't get charged. - Psycho Gecko, 08:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
What were those "legitimate grievances" at Dartmouth? None of them seemed terribly forthcoming about these grievances, they seemed more interested in threatening (in their words) white bitches and telling them to fuck themselves. Read the whole article, especially the second half, it expresses the sentiment I'm thinking better than I could. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Real politics is about choosing goals that can be achieved with the help of governments and institutions. Real politics is about crafting messages that people will agree with and want to support. Real politics then involves taking those messages to people who can do something to further the goals in the message, and if they won't help, replacing them with people who will. What went on there was proof that racism must indeed be in sharp decline; nothing says "privilege" like pulling stupid stunts and getting away with them. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 21:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Now that school is back in session[edit]

First there's the lunacy at Bowdoin College with people getting kicked out of dorms for holding a tequila party at which a few people... wait for it... wore miniature sombreros, which seems to have been an especially egregious example of "cultural appropriation" (I guess none of them have ever seen a Taco Bell?) Then there's this (the article bandys about "liberal" a bit too much, but its central point stands) petulant tirade about "hxstory" because the actual word is apparently triggering; and that's just the start! These "vastly oppressed students" only got away with crashing a Trustees meeting, so why not try for even more? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:50, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Is there a Hanlon's razor for this? "Assume that these students are idiots, not that they're hyperliberal?" Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 03:05, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
The more that Social Justice spreads, the more I become Archie Bunker. Oh, you are eliminating the Vagina Monologues because it doesn't include surgically created vaginas? Go die in a fire. CorruptUser (talk) 03:07, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
I remain half convinced that the brand of social justice that's all about marginalization and identity politics is a scheme to politically neuter the Left. The institutions that foster this outlook on campuses don't seem to be hurting for money. It seems to me to be the mirror image of riling the Bible Belt about gays and abortion to persuade them to support corporate kleptocrats. It pushes grounded people away from left-wing ideas. It diverts energy and attention away from the ruling classes, and towards sombreros at a tequila party, or arguing that Zoe Saldana is not black enough to play Nina Simone. Neither of these debates is going to trouble anyone in the boardrooms. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 04:10, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Don't go tinfoil hat here. A quick visit to Tumblr shows that this group is impossible to predict, much less control. And the infighting is enormous. A mass astroturfing campaign agaisnt the populist left would at least have coherent goals. Besides, the ideas they took from Critical Theory are valid, the problem is that the SJWs don't really know how they're meant to be applied. It breaks down into a competition of who is more pro-SJ than the next, which goes as well as you'd expect. Lord Aeonian (talk) 04:53, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
My assumption is that the internet has spread so many concepts around the populace that those uneducated about issues misuse these terms and try to build an identity around it.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:06, 8 March 2016 (UTC) 05:06, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Pretty much. The SJWs have a grab bag of concepts, postmodern critical theory being the main representative. But critical theory and its concepts, intersectionality, postcolonialism, etc. are models and can't be acted upon by themselves. The SJWs, due to the amateur nature of the movement, lose this nuance. Also, their worldviews are myopic and based entirely on their own surroundings. While personal narratives are useful, especially in critical theory, the SJWs are trying to apply conclusions about their personal situation to everything. Which is were people get the impression that they're hilariously out of touch with reality - they are. In addition, their general ideology has glaring contradictions in certain areas. For instance, they take a strong position against genetically determined gender, but then say that trans people are "born" a certain way. Another example is how they apply cultural relativism only to certain groups, and crucify others, based on who oppresses who (the SJWs themselves make this call, of course). But all of that comes down to lack of academic training and just plain myopia. Lord Aeonian (talk) 09:37, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
I woupd generally agree; it's stupid people in a left-leaning environment, ergo stupid people trying to make themselves stand out by pushing even further than the previous idiots. What's somewhat distressing, though, is that this kind of stupid is (in the case of Bowdoin) on full display at what's supposed to be an elite university. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:16, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Or how about kicking a professor out because you don't understand context.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:18, 8 March 2016 (UTC) 03:18, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
[EC] Perhaps there should be a course on the Balkanization of the left, or a course on the disproportionate physical -- almost entirely non-rhetorical -- harms felt by contemporary queers, so that when they push further, they push further into giving homeless trans kids a place to stay. FuzzyCatPotato of the Perspicacious Mongooses (talk/stalk) 03:21, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Funny thing is, the little cretins at Bowdoin didn't piss themselves with rage over a USSR themed party at which students wore fur hats and dressed like Russian communists. Why no moral outrage for the Slavs, whose history of oppression is so long our word for slave comes from them?The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Well now that I have actually investigated a little bit I have found that all those stories from the Daily Beast about SJW's on campus come from one journalist, Robby Soave.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC) 04:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
I still agree that all of this outrage is pure Maoism, but it appears somewhat overblown. So just like the New Left authoritarians will be the most notable.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:11, 8 March 2016 (UTC) 04:11, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Well that explains some of it, although I had a Washington Post piece in mind with Bowdoin. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:05, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
I generally prefer the company policy of "Don't use that word. Ever. In any context." Can't blame them for giving her the boot on that either. --Castaigne2 (talk) 15:34, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Eeeeeh. I'm more for a talking-to rather than a boot. Context is very important. I remember very clearly an instance back when I was in college, talking to my grandmother over the phone, when I was pretty seriously accosted (and assaulted) by a black person who believed I was talking about him derogatorily using the N-word, but in Korean so he wouldn't understand. (To be fair, it didn't seem like he was in the right state of mind)
Thing is, the word for "I/I am" (informal, prolly improper, but w/e she doesn't mind and she's close family) is "내가" which sounds remarkably like the N-word. Other cases of confusion have happened before with a form of "You/You are" (informal), which is "니가" and also sounds similar. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 19:58, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
That's a foreign language and so wouldn't apply as far as I can see it. But then, I wouldn't know - all corporate work at my place is in English and nothing but. Using n---, even in the context she did, would lead me to being escorted off the property in a permanent way. --Castaigne2 (talk) 20:03, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
As someone with a background in history that would render it impossible to discuss certain things or to assign certain readings; I would never have a discussion about the Belgian Congo without using Heart of Darkness, for instance. It wasn't the greatest word choice, but I don't agree with outright banning words at all. Simply being, dare I say, niggardly with their usage should suffice. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:14, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
It's not advisable to use that term down here in the South. People will take it as well as "He jewed me down on that deal." --Castaigne2 (talk) 22:56, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
I've more or less been using "Hanlon's Razor, TumblrInAction corollary." ℕoir LeSable (talk) 19:58, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I would like to point anyone interested in this topic to sociologist Johnathan Haidt's analysis of a scholarly paper on the matter. I think this explains the extremes of the populist SJWs, as well as their lack of any coherent political or social ideology, quite well. A sociological perspective is also a nice change from the usual political lines. Lord Aeonian (talk) 04:50, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Like. So main takeaway is that we shifted from a culture of honor to that of dignity. Cultures of honor tend to be those that have little access to authority, are often poorer, etc. Cultures of dignity tend to be somewhat more egalitarian, ostensibly at least, have functional courts, and make up the middle and upper classes. I... think I finally understand a huge chunk of poor black culture after reading that article, even though it was only tangentally related. Can't shrug off insults; honor at stake. Only have honor, because there are no third party authority figures (police) to turn to. Get annoyed at 'help' as it's more of an insult than support. Upper middle class white people can't understand poor black people, and vice versa, because the two cultures are radically different in spite of occupying the same space. CorruptUser (talk) 06:10, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, academic sociology has looked at these issues for a while, and they have some good explanations for human behavior. I'm a STEM person myself and I know people who bash the social sciences as either useless, easy, or both, but they really are very well-informed and enlightening. As for "poor black culture" - I assume you mean in the U.S. - it's one of the reasons I support more government support for integration within urban areas. The busing initiatives in the 1960s were the right choice. Cultures produce a cycle; we have the stereotypes of Asian students succeeding tremendously due to the work ethic their families force upon them for a reason. With urban culture - and this applies to all races, just look at Los Angeles - you have to fit in and get respect with your peers. You don't that by studying and getting a cushy job - you do that on the street. Now, cultural pluralism can only exist in parallel societies, which is what wealth disparity creates, and why black Americans are in ghettos. The point of forced integration is really to destroy harmful aspects of culture, in addition to combating racism and xenophobia by having different groups interact.
On a side note, this is why I oppose the SJWs and their odd cultural relativism - some cultural ideas are better than others, because they produce better results for their participants. The cycle of poverty for urban Americans is a prime example. SJWs also tend to confuse some cultural ideas with others - they don't understand that minority groups can integrate economically while still retaining traditional music, art, etc. In their simplistic oppression narratives, they think these things will be stomped out and replaced - history shows us the opposite happens; minority cultural elements always become mainstream when minorities attain social and economic power. In a truly fascinating twist, the SJWs think the slow adoption of a minority culture by the mainstream is cultural appropriation, irrespective of the phrase's original intent in postcolonial studies. That's why people accuse the SJWs of being regressive - their ideas, if adopted by society, would create parallel, segregated societies, which self-reinforce by internal xenophobia. Horseshoe theory at its finest. Lord Aeonian (talk) 09:59, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Assume that I held a tequila party with mini-sombreros outside of work at my house, with some "Arriba, arriba, ondelay!" shouts added because that's funny too. If word got back to my work? Fired, for "conduct unbecoming to the company's image". Since I don't think that universities should be exempt from the same code of conduct and you-represent-the-company-24x7x365 attitude that I operate under, I just can't get worked up about them getting booted. --Castaigne2 (talk) 15:34, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
I think that kinda attitude is a great pile of shit and should be stomped out. Just cause there are retarded attitudes in the business world (depends on what company and how good the union or lawyer is), why should the universities give a monkey's testicle (funny exclamation, thank you, Internet) about them?--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 15:48, 8 March 2016 (UTC) 15:48, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
I have to disagree. I am of the opinion that these policies are a good thing that ensure workplace harmony and conformity. These policies should exist in universities in order to prepare students for their work in the corporate world. --Castaigne2 (talk) 15:53, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
It allows corporations to become pocket-version of tin-pot dictators, controlling the private lives of their employees. Fuck that. Sideways.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 16:03, 8 March 2016 (UTC) 16:03, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
You have the choice of not working for them. I have plenty of friends who work "small business" or are starving artists; their consciences are clear, if their lives less comfortable. As usual, I prefer conformity and security. --Castaigne2 (talk) 16:24, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
starving artists Hell of a "choice" and the corrupt legal authorities even allow that to happen.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 16:29, 8 March 2016 (UTC) 16:29, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm puzzled. What exactly do you expect the government (be it federal, state, or local) to do about it? Pass legislation forbidding codes of conduct or dictating what will be in them? --Castaigne2 (talk) 16:59, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
I cant give specific examples off hand, but there have been cases of people getting sacked for things outside of work and contesting the sacking on the basis of a 'right to a private life'. I believe some were successful. I cant be arsed to find those examples though. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:06, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
It's spelled "ándale", from the imperative form of the Spanish verb "andar". And I'd say that while, yes, there's a line to be drawn somewhere, something like that is on the far side. Do you think there would've been a similar response if instead of a party last month, they had a party in a couple weeks where people dressed up as leprechauns, wore oversized four-leaf clovers and green giant-buckle boots, and chugged Guinness? ℕoir LeSable (talk) 20:16, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
I actually don't approve of that type of stereotype either, speaking personally. And that party wouldn't be allowed at my work (or my house)
Just like I didn't watch Married...With Children back in the day and refuse to have it in my house. What an awful mockery of lower-class people. Simply no. --Castaigne2 (talk) 22:56, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Wait, what's bad about stereotyping leprechauns? They're fictional characters! 141.134.75.236 (talk) 00:00, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
The party being described mocks Irish culture. I don't mock things unless I consider the subject to be something that is wrong and needs to be destroyed. --Castaigne2 (talk) 15:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
So people can have leprechaun parties as long as they're not too Irish? Where do you draw the line? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 15:20, 9 March 42016 AQD (UTC)
I should also add, should companies who have such policies fire people who openly support the Trump presidential campaign, then? Given Trump's rampant and pretty open racism after all. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 20:29, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
I have to say, I would have no problem showing my coworkers pictures of either kind of party and they would all have a good laugh with me (as I don't really go to parties I can't foresee that ever happening, but it's sometimes fun to play with hypotheticals). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:28, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
My opinion is that politics isn't a protected class, so private entities should feel free to fire a person for their political beliefs. --Castaigne2 (talk) 22:56, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm glad live in the uk, where workers actually have rights. At least until we leave the eu out of spite. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:59, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
You can't be fired for any of the protected classesWikipedia, so I really don't see much of a problem with it. We do need to add sexual orientation to the list, though. It'll happen in time. What more rights does a worker need? --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:05, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Trans* I guess? CorruptUser (talk) 23:06, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
I would prefer that be covered under gender, because it is, right? But yes, still a slog to protect one from being fired for being trans. --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:21, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
It should, certainly. Though in (legal) practice, it usually isn't. 141.134.75.236 (talk)
am i right in thinking, from what castaigne says, can fired for your political views in the us? If so, how is democracy served if you employer can effectively prevent you from campaigning or even just supporting anyone the émployer doesnt like? Thats surely not the case is it? Thats almost mcarthyite AMassiveGay (talk) 23:16, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm really not kidding. To quote "Most Americans can be legally fired for almost any reason. Private sector workplace relationships tend to operate under the standard of employment-at-will, which means you can be fired for the color of your shirt, your political views, supporting your favorite sports team or for refusing to fetch your boss a cup of coffee. The Bill of Rights does not apply to your office." --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:21, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
its almost funny that US sets its self as a bastion of freedom when all evidence would suggest its not even close. The land of the free, where you need permission to cross the road. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
People often don't understand that freedom is value-neutral. Free to speak, free to talk politics, free to be fired at will, free to be poor when you can't get a job. Freedom is not all that. Liberty, on the other hand...but people usually confuse the two. --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:31, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
i'm not sure US liberty is applied to all either. i'm quite partial to some the (is it negative freedoms?) freedom froms AMassiveGay (talk) 23:37, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Tangent about negative and positive freedoms[edit]

Freedom froms and freedom tos can virtually all be rephrased positively or negatively, e.g. freedom to express oneself = freedom from (government) censorship, freedom from slavery = freedom to make one's own choices, freedom from fear = freedom to enjoy a life without fear etc. It is true that each freedom has a polar opposite freedom—e.g. freedom to murder versus freedom from murder (or freedom from government interference/judicial punishments in acts of murder versus freedom to live)—but categorizing them into groups of positive or negative freedoms is largely an arbitrary endeavor. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 15:46, 9 March 42016 AQD (UTC)

Going to challenge that assertion. Restrict freedoms/not freedoms to things where it's based on what you do and what others do to you. Perform the "desert island" test; who is restricting the rights of the starving homeless man on a desert island? Your "freedom to express oneself" or "freedom to be free from censorship" is a negative right since no one on the island is taking it away from the guy. But the "freedom to eat" or "freedom from starvation" is a positive right as it requires someone else to provide the man with food. This is the basis of libertarianism; libertarians (and NOT the fucktarded reactionaries that it attracts) accept almost all negative rights while rejecting positive ones. I agree but don't take it as far, being a pragmatist; the starving man may not have the right to my food, but if that man starves he will probably steal, so it's cheaper to just give him a crust of bread. Not to mention that if I feed the man, he may be able to regain his strength and help push plows tomorrow, the result being that giving some food now may mean more food for me tomorrow (this is why social democracy does better than libertarians project). StickySock (talk) 16:13, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Ah, hypotheticals. Well sure, let's run with this. But how did this one guy end up on a desert island? Did his plane crash and is he the only survivor? Ah, that means there's a society out there that is restricting his freedoms by not going over there to help the guy out. Maybe there's no one out there anymore due to some global catastrophe, be it man-made or a natural occurrence, and this guy is the only human left alive. In that case, the man is free to assert all solitary freedoms that the non-human world provides him, but the situation has forever robbed him of his social freedoms (unless he's some super-resourceful scientist that can clone humanity back into existence). Sure, he has the freedom to express himself, there's no one around to stop him from saying what he likes. But, he lacks the freedom to communicate with anyone other than himself (as well as the freedom to enjoy government censorship, though few people actually desire the latter). He has the whole world to himself, but no one to share it with. Is he free to eat? Sure, he can put whatever he likes in his mouth, there's no one to stop him. Is he free from starvation? Well, if there's edible stuff around. If it's desert all around, our one guy's odds of surviving seem dim. But wait! He's not alone after all! Turns out this whole situation was set up by this one really powerful libertarian to prove a point and they're flying over to his location in a chopper, and they got food with them! The chopper drops a couple crates with bread crumbs on the ground and our starving desert dweller runs for his salvation. But our libertarian stops him in his track, explaining "No, no, you don't have any right to this food. It's my food. You need to wait until I grant you the freedom to eat of it." Our starving loner replies: "Uh, what gives you more right than me to eat from that food? Why are you restricting your fellow man's freedoms? This is theft! You greedy crook!" Before our libartarian can think of an appropriate answer, the lone desert dweller takes a rock from the ground and hits the libartarian in the back of his head. "Well, thanks for at least granting me the freedom to knock you out," the desert dweller snickers. Alone again, with no other conscious beings in the proximity, the desert dweller confiscates the chopper and flies off to more fertile regions, away from hoarding-obsessed wannabe-dictators. Relaxing somewhere on a sunny beach in Malibu, he later dies from eating spoilt fruit. The end. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 17:54, 9 March 42016 AQD (UTC)
That's stupid and obtuse and misses the point entirely and you know it. The point is that with freedoms, there are things you are not allowed to do, and things you are required to do. If the freedom requires that you and others not do something (free to live your life without being stabbed), it's a negative right. If it requires that you and others do something, such as freedom to not starve, it's a positive right. I'm if the belief that while no one is inherently entitled to jack shit, it's still society's responsibility. StickySock (talk) 17:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Eh, was just trying to tell a funny but educative story. And again, freedom from starvation relies on availability of food, which depends on location and other people not stopping you from eating it. That makes it a negative right according to your terminology, no? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 18:08, 9 March 42016 AQD (UTC)
Depends. If the "food" is "deer in a forest", it's a negative right to hunt deer. If it's food on the farm, it's a negative right for the farmer to be free from thieves, and a positive right for the farmer to give you food. "Freedom to eat" is most definitely not the same as "freedom to steal". You could probably argue all day about the ethics of stealing bread to feed your family, but I define good and evil by how your actions affect everyone but you; that is whether society is better off with or without you in it, even if stealing helps you more than it hurts others. If you steal a loaf from a rich baker but the result is you gain enough strength to become a clerk at his store, stealing is "good". But if you steal that loaf just to sit around all day, sorry, the world is better without you. Also include karmic debt and expected values of some form, to avoid the problem with retirees and people injured in the job, etc.
But government has to regulate hunting so society doesn't run out of deer; free market is crap for Common Goods (deer), and is only marginally better at providing Social Goods (National Defence), suboptimal at Club Goods (cable subscription), and really only good for Private Goods (just about anything in a store) but even then it needs heavy regulation to account for externalities to the point that you need government to handle at least half of the economy and then heavily regulate the remaining half. And this is without getting into Anti-Common Goods (postal service, phones, Internet; the value increases the more people that have it).StickySock (talk) 18:29, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Though if we want to get nihilistic on this convo, there are no such things as rights to begin with, only desires, might, and agreements of how we use might to satisfy wants or not. Fact is, if someone is munching your food and you/society can't/won't stop that person, sorry it's not your food no matter how many treaties you sign. StickySock (talk) 18:59, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

And here we go again.[edit]

So there's apparently an edited "leaked" video going around in the right-wing/conspiracy news outlets where two students at Harvard (labeled "BLM activists" and actually from Univ. West Georgia) say that "it's ethical" for white people to kill themselves during a competitive debate regarding renewable energy, among other things. What the news stories neglect to mention is that the statements were made in 2012 (prior to the BLM movement), and one of the two involved appear to already have ties to the black supremacy movement (being an instructor in the Eddie Conway Liberation Institute), so it's only really indicative of a pair of bigots that happen to be award-winning debaters in a debate competition circle known for its share of bad winners.

I think it's good to keep this kind of fearmongering in mind when talking with people who start spouting about how "them SJWs" are taking over colleges. Never underestimate the power of anecdotes and video recordings on people (cf. the 2009 ACORN controversy and the 2015 Planned Parenthood controversy). ℕoir LeSable (talk) 21:17, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there are obviously people out there making things up and it's always best to fact check before making accusations. But as long as you mention BLM, while what you raise above is clearly an effort to drum up something over nothing the shit they pulled at Dartmouth (link is above) was completely inexcusable and actually did happen. While jumping to conclusions is a bad idea, some jerkoffs faking something also doesn't obviate the real issues that sometimes come up. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
What happened at Dartmouth? Nevermind. Every movement has problems though so... meh.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 00:44, 22 March 2016 (UTC) 00:44, 22 March 2016 (UTC)