Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Mizzou President resigns (Page 0)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 16 pages: 1  2  3  4  ...  14  15  16   
Author Topic: Mizzou President resigns
ScottF
Member
Member # 6897

 - posted      Profile for ScottF         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Professor Quenette's error was failing to self-censor.

A non-committal response may have reduced the chance of eliciting the shock the students felt. I'm wondering if this kind of thing would be allowed in a safe zone?

Posts: 177 | Registered: Mar 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
While I do think that at least one of the readers attributed to her was unprofessional, the conclusion that they don't "feel safe" in her class makes them look like entitled jerks.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I also find ironic their concern that she might grade them poorly if she disagreed with their opinions.

This, from the group that is trying to get her fired from her job for her opinion (and for uttering the N-word in the context of describing it as a hateful word)

[ November 22, 2015, 12:56 PM: Message edited by: JoshCrow ]

Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
<sarcasm> If we can empower religious fundamentalists to control the behavior of complete strangers, why can't students control the behavior of their own teachers? Every constituency has equal legitimacy. </sarcasm>
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ScottF
Member
Member # 6897

 - posted      Profile for ScottF         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JoshCrow:
I also find ironic their concern that she might grade them poorly if she disagreed with their opinions.

This, from the group that is trying to get her fired from her job for her opinion (and for uttering the N-word in the context of describing it as a hateful word)

I was thinking these kids' brains are still moldable, but they're in for a rough ride in the real world. Then I realized we may actually be seeing the next generation of academia professionals hatching in front of our eyes, so the real world may not even be a factor for them.
Posts: 177 | Registered: Mar 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Let's face it, the teacher said something they didn't like, it 'triggered' them, and they decided she was donezo. I think the new policy on campus should be to have the students teach the classes while the teachers nod at their wisdom from the back of the class room.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
I don't think "fairness" is something that can be expected in conversation. It can be begged, requested, or demanded, but everyone gets to decide if they're willing to pay the price for conversation with the person making the request.

By 'fairness' I think what Pete said is good enough. The goal is to have a forum for communication where both parties feel they have a chance to say their piece, and can try to persuade each other or exchange ideas. In order for this to happen a few baseline things must be in place, which may include moderation of content (like Ornery Mod does), both sides actually being interested in what the other has to say (rather than one using the space as a soapbox and not caring what the other thinks unless it's agreement), and perhaps also the basic concession of a common set of terminology so that both parties don't speak past each other. I think it takes all of these things to establish a basic fairness in dialogue, which as you said isn't equivalent to complete equality and professionalism. You'll never get that, but one can do one's best.

My question to you, again, is if one wants to have a fair conversation about the topic of protests or rebellion or what have you, who gets to set the terms about which power axis is going to be the determining one for the conversation? Note that although perfect equality isn't attainable in such a conversation, basic equity in the terms of dialogue is attainable.

Hint: The answer I would offer were I asked this question would be "it's not fair for either party to unilaterally decide, but rather they should settle it together." If they can't then no reasonable or fair conversation can ensue.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Josh, this part kinda stuck me of the open letter.

"Dr. Quenette indicated that because she has not experienced or witnessed discrimination, it is not happening at KU. She asked for more evidence, and was dismissive of the multiple examples provided. These comments demonstrate not only an unwillingness to accept evidence contrary to her own ideas and experiences but also exemplify the dismissal and questioning of minority students’ experiences that has reinforced the very structural discrimination they seek to destroy by speaking up."

I'm a little disappointed the author didn't expand on this as it would support everything else in the letter. A place of learning should be a "safe space" but even the oppressive and simultaneously ignorant staff needs to feel safe as well. The type of filtering required to avoid triggering such a response seems to be an obstacle to meaningful dialogue.

Unless there was some seriously wrong comments and rudeness associated with the dismissiveness mentioned. Again it comes down to feelings the teacher triggered rather than actionable offenses if read in a certain light.

This piece however, makes it sound like this teacher is just an ******* all around and that their stepping into this particular issue was almost a foregone conclusion. (The section after it is also quite unflattering.)

"We have consistently been concerned throughout the semester with Dr. Quenette’s frequent and extreme defensiveness, continued belittlement of graduate student feedback, and confrontational demeanor in response to anonymous evaluations of the orientation process. Comments that reflected an increased desire for diversity training, representation, and discussion during orientation were cast as irrelevant and unnecessary at multiple junctions in the COMS 930 course. Furthermore, in the COMS 930 course, Dr. Quenette consistently misrepresented and denied speech calling attention to sexist remarks, racially insensitive comments, inappropriate jokes, constant swearing, hostility to alternative teaching methods, and ridicule of incoming GTAs that were all made apparent in the evaluations of orientation and/or during COMS 930 class sessions. Further cause for concern is Dr. Quenette’s multiple violations of anonymity and targeting individual student comments for direct confrontation in relation to these orientation evaluations and in-class comments."

This letter starts off as one that seems totally disproportionate in response for the triggering event but as you get towards the end it seems apparent it's a lot more, "straw that broke the camel's back" than anything else.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Feces swastikas? Damn.

If those are the facts on the ground, why aren't the protesters doing more to get the word out?


Are they not doing enough to get word out, or are you in a position where your access to information is limited? Why start with the assumption that they're coming up short when you know for a fact that you don't have the acessess necessary to easily look up even the basic facts on the ground?

quote:
Isn't incoherent noise, arguably just as much "unwitting support" of the status quo as silence or complacency?
What incoherence? There's little evidence of incoherence, just accusations of it by people that haven't looked into the information available or are preemptively making accusations about it because the facts on the ground are different than how they want to see the situation. In fact, one of the parallel accusations against the protesters is that they're putting too much of a priority on coherence and control of their message by rejecting reporters that they feel are looking to muddy the waters with sensationalism.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Just because the protesters are discussing racial matters, why does a comment I make about them have to be evaluated as if it was part of a discussion about racial matters? Maybe I'm talking about food and assessing the diets of the protesters, even though their main interest lies elsewhere? Why must my topic of conversation be limited to the topic they are addressing? I can observe the protesters and conduct a conversation about their hair style preferences, views on racial issues, their favorite tv shows, or any other numbers of subjects that I find it interesting to discuss.
See, also: derailment.All of those things basically amount to "How to I take advantage of the protestors to raise my issues instead of raising them on my own terms"

As you said above, the topic of discussion is what matters. If you're talking about the protests, then the topic of discussion has already been set. If you try to force a change to one that you care more about, you're pushing down against their topic and hijacking them to push up on yours.

quote:
After all, I am surely not a majority-status person in all respects across the map. I can guarantee you, as a matter of fact, that I am in the vast minority in certain respects of my being, and that some areas of life that are probably easy for most of the protesters are hard for me. In the intersectionality schema I'm majority-white, but minority-other things. What if, for instance, I'm a sort of revolutionary-type who is in the vast minority in economic theories, or in politics? What if I wear a beret on my head and fancy myself the next Vladimir Lenin, but my topic doesn't happen to be race relations. When I address things the protesters do, why, then, must my status in relation to them be considered to be majority-white when what I'm on about may in fact have nothing to do with the intersectional interests of race or even of class?
Because the protest has already set the context of the conversation. You are perfectly free to engage and raise your issues on your terms, it's only when you suggest that you need to attack or undermine them- to assert a false conflict between you- that you step over the line. (and they would very much be doing the same if you staged a rally and they decided to attack you instead of letting you have your own voice in turn.)

quote:
So can anyone explain to me in detail how this all works? Who gets to decide which schema is the 'official one' with which to judge all responders to a comment on a subject? Which line of power is the correct one in a discussion where various people are talking about various things? This is a real question, not a joke.
Who is trying to get their voice heard on an issue where the system has not been allowing them a voice or implicitly expressing opposing views? ARe you acting in ways that suppress their voice in favor of giving more power to your voice, or are you finding ways to express your issues in ways that don't distract or drown theirs out?

Now it's possible they may not be acting with the same respect. But unless you want to fundamentally challenge the validity of their issue, the answer isn't to sink to suppressive behavior, but rather to find your only place and forum to raise your issues instead of undermining their advocacy simply because you're upset that your toes are being stepped on.

That's the core or respect and etiquette- finding a way to make a comfortable space, even when others misbehave, not using your perception of the misbehavior of others as an excuse to justify your own misbehavior.

quote:
What if I'm also protesting something in the system, and my protest is about something different than these protesters? When I make comments about the protesters, whose framework is adopted to determine which of us is evaluated on whose power schema?
Which are you doing? Advocating for your cause or criticising the protestors? Unless you're making the assertion that they're fundamentally in opposition to your cause, those are two orthogonal things.

quote:
Like let's say I'm making a class-based protest and I'm poor while these protesters are rich and privileged (the 1%, say), and similarly they are protesting against black discrimination and I'm white. Now I want to comment on their protest and criticize something. Am I punching up, since they're the 1%, or am I punching down, because I'm white?
Are they protesting in favor of privilege for the wealthy or in favor of rights for minorities? That will tell you pretty easily which way you're punching, incidental characteristics unrelated to their protest aside. And note, your status doesn't matter. You could be a minority attacking them for protesting, effectively siding with the status quo, and in doing so punching down from the status quo. What matters is not your status, but that you're directing attacks against the voice of a marginalized group.

There is a provision here- if they're protesting specifically for the rights of rich minorities, and not minorities in general, then you have room to point out that there's something fundamentally problematic with advocating for rights for the wealthy, without regard to race, just as they'd have room on the classism end if you advocated for help only for poor withe people, and not the poor in general. IF they're actually trying to represent themselves as seeing privilege for an empowered group you've got an up angle, so long as you carefully limit yourself only to the up angle and don't spill over into the down angle. But odds are, the naturally narrowing nature of such a protest will do most of the work to undermine itself.

quote:
I'm trying to examine the precise calculus of punching up vs punching down, because in this thread Pyrtolin's entire argument is more or less based on the premise that when punching down you're more or less wrong out of the gate unless your knowledge is flawless. The standards of who can legitimately say what is determined by power-structure status. My question is, how does Pyrtolin, for example, get to assign a given power structure to the situation (in this case he chose race) and evaluate comments or criticisms based on that? Why don't I get to choose the power structure, which might be class, sex, neighborhood, or whatever else?
At your own protest, you do get to determine who you're representing. At someone else's protest, you respect who they're representing.

I didn't pick what the protestors were representing, they did.

quote:
After all, without questions being asked how can someone know whether my comments are coming from a place of rebellion or from a place of majority status quo?
You can tell because of who and what the comments are targeting. If your comments are targeting the majority/status quo, then they're going up. If they're targeting a minority group/those bringing grievance against the status quo, then they're aiming down.

quote:
This is especially pertinent since I most definitely am not only a critic of the system but would like to see it radically altered. So why do I not count as a protester too?
When you criticize the system, then you absolutely do count as a protester.When you support the system by criticizing protesters for protesting, then you're representing the system, regardless of whether you might also attack it at other times.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
What if I'm also protesting something in the system, and my protest is about something different than these protesters? When I make comments about the protesters, whose framework is adopted to determine which of us is evaluated on whose power schema?
Which are you doing? Advocating for your cause or criticising the protestors? Unless you're making the assertion that they're fundamentally in opposition to your cause, those are two orthogonal things.
And what if my cause is fundamentally opposed by the protesters? In fact, assuming you realized I was some kind of rebel, why would I criticize the protesters unless this was exactly the case? You assumed that by criticizing critics of the status quo that I'm punching down. But maybe I see them as aiding and abetting the status quo in some sense (unbeknownst to them) and by criticizing them I'm punching up? Did that occur to you? Now you might hear my thought on this and say I'm assessing it wrongly, but that's different from suggesting that I'm criticizing them by way of enforcing the status quo.

quote:
quote:
I'm trying to examine the precise calculus of punching up vs punching down, because in this thread Pyrtolin's entire argument is more or less based on the premise that when punching down you're more or less wrong out of the gate unless your knowledge is flawless. The standards of who can legitimately say what is determined by power-structure status. My question is, how does Pyrtolin, for example, get to assign a given power structure to the situation (in this case he chose race) and evaluate comments or criticisms based on that? Why don't I get to choose the power structure, which might be class, sex, neighborhood, or whatever else?
At your own protest, you do get to determine who you're representing. At someone else's protest, you respect who they're representing.

I didn't pick what the protestors were representing, they did.

This is, to an extent, the crux of my question. What makes you think I'm not at my own protest right now? It it just because you're hearing from me on a discussion forum and rather than reading about me in a paper in regards to campus activism? Maybe I was discussing the topic of my protest long before these protesters came along, and I see them now as sabotaging my protest. Might that not be sufficient grounds for criticism? After all, while they may have set the framework for their own protest (race) I may see it as infringing on the progress of a protest in a completely different area. So why should my comments be assigned a power-structure based on their protest rather than my own?
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
My question to you, again, is if one wants to have a fair conversation about the topic of protests or rebellion or what have you, who gets to set the terms about which power axis is going to be the determining one for the conversation? Note that although perfect equality isn't attainable in such a conversation, basic equity in the terms of dialogue is attainable.
There are two different questions here- the one you actually wrote "about protests" is a pretty academic one, and from that it follows that the parties that want to discuss protesting in general should come to mutually agreeable terms as you suggested.

But what I think you mean to ask was "About a given protest", which is a different beast altogether, in large part because of the very nature of what a protest is. It's a reaction by a marginalized group to a status quo that has set the rules of discussion of a topic they want to raise such that they don't have a voice in the conversation. It's a request to change the terms of the conversation because the current terms are biased in favor of the status quo. So if you choose to focus on the request- the protest= itself, you're arguing for silence or subservience from those pointing out that they've been silenced or ignored.

If your intent is to shut down conversation on the subject or to challenge the validity of the position of those protesting, then you're doing what you intend. But if you're saying that you're interested in setting equitable terms for discussion on the issue in question, then you're working at cross purposes with your stated intent by defending a system that silences and invalidates people trying to raise objections to it.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
And what if my cause is fundamentally opposed by the protesters? In fact, assuming you realized I was some kind of rebel, why would I criticize the protesters unless this was exactly the case? You assumed that by criticizing critics of the status quo that I'm punching down.
That's not an assumption, that's a factual description. Criticizing critics of the status quo _is_ punching down, regardless of what other positions you may hold. IF you want to challenge their _position_ based of facts and evidence, that's one thing. But attacking the people themselves unjustified.

quote:
. But maybe I see them as aiding and abetting the status quo in some sense (unbeknownst to them) and by criticizing them I'm punching up? Did that occur to you? Now you might hear my thought on this and say I'm assessing it wrongly, but that's different from suggesting that I'm criticizing them by way of enforcing the status quo.
Reverse that to accurately represent my position:
quote:
I'm enforcing the status quo by way of criticizing them
If you're attacking them for speaking, then you're enforcing the status quo and not advocating your own position. If you believe _their position_ is in opposition to yours, then focus your criticism on their position, not the fact that they have a position and are making an effort to have it heard. Criticizing them is attacking their freedom to speak, not discussing what they're saying.

quote:
What makes you think I'm not at my own protest right now?
Because you're talking against a group of people protesting, not advocating for anything. You could be turning around to advocate for something between posts here, but that's orthogonal.

quote:
It it just because you're hearing from me on a discussion forum and rather than reading about me in a paper in regards to campus activism?
No, it's because you're putting down people for speaking instead of advocating for your own cause.

quote:
Maybe I was discussing the topic of my protest long before these protesters came along, and I see them now as sabotaging my protest. Might that not be sufficient grounds for criticism?
No, unless your intent is to criticize the legitimacy of their issue and call into question the earnestness of their advocacy. You may well intend to do that, but then you shouldn't try to pretend that you're doing anything but attacking the protestors trying to silence them, since that is what your actual goal is.

quote:
After all, while they may have set the framework for their own protest (race) I may see it as infringing on the progress of a protest in a completely different area.
Well, then discuss it on evidence based gourds centered on the principles in question, not based on superficial attacks on their attempt to be heard.

But so far your examples have been based in issues that are parallel, not opposed, such as race and class, so the issue is completely moot.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Criticizing critics of the status quo _is_ punching down, regardless of what other positions you may hold. IF you want to challenge their _position_ based of facts and evidence, that's one thing. But attacking the people themselves unjustified."

But you attacked me for "punching down",when I criticized the protesters for failing to express their grievances at a moment they finally had the world's attention. There, you and the protesters were maintaining the status quo.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pyrtolin, my question was addressed to anyone interested in answering, but in your response it seems that you've simply dismissed the premise of my question. The premise is that I am protesting something and see the actions of the protesters at Mizzou as hurting my cause and inadvertently serving the status quo. In your reply you simply said that this was not the case and that in trying to prevent them speaking I am serving the status quo. But your reply is contrary to the very premise of my question. Ignore whatever comments you think I've made in this thread (since based on your replies I don't think you've understood them anyhow) and answer my question instead. Assuming I believe the protesters are, in fact, serving the status quo and are hurting my own protest, why should my critical commentary on their protest be considered to be punching down?

You'll note that although the protesters believe they, themselves, are punching up, I myself may observe their activities and evaluate them as punching down instead. How can I make this evaluation when the basis of their claim is otherwise? Simple: as you yourself have said many times, it's the result of the action, and not the intention behind the action that matters. They can earnestly believe they're punching up but if, though ignorance, they have made a mistake (let's say) they may in fact be doing the opposite of what they think they are.

So let's say I'm making this claim; how is it then reasonable to insist automatically that I'm trying to silence them by criticizing them? I maintain now that I do not want to silence anyone, but want to discuss both the substance of claims made and actions taken by protesters who are protesting causes other than those covered by my own protest. Who are you to silence my protest and tell me I'm supporting the status quo? That wouldn't be a very supportive thing to say to a rebel, now would it?

[ November 23, 2015, 03:44 PM: Message edited by: Fenring ]

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There is no right cross in this discussion. We only accept binary analogies.
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
"Criticizing critics of the status quo _is_ punching down, regardless of what other positions you may hold. IF you want to challenge their _position_ based of facts and evidence, that's one thing. But attacking the people themselves unjustified."

But you attacked me for "punching down",when I criticized the protesters for failing to express their grievances at a moment they finally had the world's attention. There, you and the protesters were maintaining the status quo.

Except they did not fail to do so. You failed to have sufficient access to information to see the ways that they had done so. You were insisting that they go through the effort to specifically make sure you were informed instead of accepting that you needed to actually make a reasonable effort to see and understand what they were saying, but were limited in your ability to do so because of your current circumstances.

As we've seen a couple of times over the information was there, you were just limited in your ability to access it.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Pyrtolin, my question was addressed to anyone interested in answering, but in your response it seems that you've simply dismissed the premise of my question. The premise is that I am protesting something and see the actions of the protesters at Mizzou as hurting my cause and inadvertently serving the status quo. In your reply you simply said that this was not the case and that in trying to prevent them speaking I am serving the status quo. But your reply is contrary to the very premise of my question. Ignore whatever comments you think I've made in this thread (since based on your replies I don't think you've understood them anyhow) and answer my question instead. Assuming I believe the protesters are, in fact, serving the status quo and are hurting my own protest, why should my critical commentary on their protest be considered to be punching down?
Because, by criticizing their _protest_ rather than their ideas, you are attacking the legitimacy of their cause and their freedom to express themselves. You're attacking them for speaking, rather than actually addressing the content of their speech.

Again, if your goal is to dismiss and legitimize them them. To silence them, then at least be honest about what you're doing; you're attacking them for speaking instead of addressing their ideas. THat's an inherently disrespectful and oppressive act toward them.

Counter protesters have every right to protest, and basic respect says you address them on the facts of their position, not simply the fact that they chose to speak.

[ November 23, 2015, 04:52 PM: Message edited by: Pyrtolin ]

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Why must you hyperfocus on a bad-faith interpretation of my word choice and deliberately ignore the question? You can replace "my critical commentary on their protest" with "my critical commentary on the ideas put forward in their protest, as well as the methodology employed by their protest?" For the last time, I said nothing about criticizing the actual fact of them protesting, and I'll have to interpret any further readings on my comments along these lines as you being unwilling to respond to what I said.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I addressed discussing the contents of the protest respectfully many times over, and you instead kept focusing on objecting tot he fact that they were protesting or not at least following your prescriptions for how to do it. That's controlling behavior that silences them for not saying things the way you want them to be said. Discussing the substance of their argumnents in a respectful, fact-based manner is a reasonable form of dialog.

Attacking them for protesting based on your opinions of how they should be protesting is diminishing and disrespectful of their voice. It is actively trying to silence them; if that's your intent, fine, own it, if not, then stick to respectful fact based discussion of the substance of the actual issues instead of trying to tell them how to speak to meet your standards.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
"Criticizing critics of the status quo _is_ punching down, regardless of what other positions you may hold. IF you want to challenge their _position_ based of facts and evidence, that's one thing. But attacking the people themselves unjustified."

But you attacked me for "punching down",when I criticized the protesters for failing to express their grievances at a moment they finally had the world's attention. There, you and the protesters were maintaining the status quo.

Except they did not fail to do so. You failed to have sufficient access to information to see the ways that they had done so. .
That's true. But you didn't say that until Kate brought their responses to light. In the mean time you were accusing me of punching down for asking what the message was.

Please understand that reflexively attacking and shaming anyone who criticizes or asks questions is toolish, and far more oppressive than the behaviors you complain of. Your whole premise that being on the right side automatically makes everything you said right, destroys discussion and threatens to set enlightenment back to the dark ages.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
That's true. But you didn't say that until Kate brought their responses to light. In the mean time you were accusing me of punching down for asking what the message was
No I was pointing out that you were blindly attack and punching instead of politely asking for more information. That was the punching. IF you had reserved judgment and not spewed out unfounded attacks until your premise was debunked, there wouldn't have been an issues.

You didn't ask for clarification, you just attacked until Kate debunked you.

quote:
Please understand that reflexively attacking and shaming anyone who criticizes or asks questions is toolish,
Indeed. Which is why I'm not doing that. In fact, I'm being very careful only to point out where others are doing that or are failing to ask questions instead of making assumptions and using those as the foundation for attacks.

quote:
Your whole premise that being on the right side automatically makes everything you said right
That's not my premise. That's something that you're making up.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
I addressed discussing the contents of the protest respectfully many times over, and you instead kept focusing on objecting tot he fact that they were protesting or not at least following your prescriptions for how to do it. That's controlling behavior that silences them for not saying things the way you want them to be said. Discussing the substance of their argumnents in a respectful, fact-based manner is a reasonable form of dialog.

Attacking them for protesting based on your opinions of how they should be protesting is diminishing and disrespectful of their voice. It is actively trying to silence them; if that's your intent, fine, own it, if not, then stick to respectful fact based discussion of the substance of the actual issues instead of trying to tell them how to speak to meet your standards.

Now, I know this is hard for you, but I'll be patient. I asked a hypothetical question, and requested that you answer it while refraining from bringing other comments I've made into it in an attempt to circumvent answering by repeating something you said earlier. Take me out of the equation and answer the question I just posed. If you can't answer a substantive point without resorting to discussing your perception of the habits of the poster then I'm afraid reasonable discussion will be out of the question.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I wasn't discussing the real you. I was talking about the hypothetical you in your example.

I've addressed the scenario many times over. If you discuss substance with the protestors in a respectful and evidence based manner, then you're son solid ground so far as actually listening to them and allowing them to speak goes.

If you attack them for protesting or not protesting the way you think they should be, then you are asserting authority over them and, to some degree silencing them. You're not talking about their issues, distracting from them even to focus on policing their behavior. You may even be right in your evaluation, but it's impossible to avoid the fact that you are suppressing their voice in the process, so you'd do better to up to what you're doing instead of contradicting yourself by claiming that it's not what it is just because you, for some reason are ashamed to call a duck "a duck".

You don't always have to be polite. But it's absurd to be rude and then claim it was being polite simply because you want to define polite based on your behavior so that you can claim that you're always polite.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If you can't answer a substantive point without resorting to discussing your perception of the habits of the poster then I'm afraid reasonable discussion will be out of the question.
It is funny that you say that while both dodging my point and trying to find justification for doing just that because of an objection to how the hypothetical protesters are protesting instead of actually working to understand and address the point that they're making.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
critical commentary

quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
attack

quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
I said nothing about criticizing the actual fact of them protesting

quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
If you attack them for protesting

quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
commentary on the ideas put forward in their protest

quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
You're not talking about their issues

I can see you're not ready to have this conversation. Maybe some other time. If anyone else wants to help me understand the dynamics of competing protests, I'd like to hear what you have to say.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I can see you're not ready to have this conversation. Maybe some other time.
When you're ready to be consistent instead of constantly shifting what youre talking about then claiming I didn't address things that I've addressed multiple times over then maybe we can get somewhere. I responded many times over to addressing them on substance, and you said that you wanted to ask about addressing them on how they were protesting. when I respond about addressing them on how they're protesting you shift back to wanting to address them on substance and say I haven't already responded to that, despite the fact that I have made a point of addressing that frequently and clearly.

[ November 24, 2015, 11:09 AM: Message edited by: Pyrtolin ]

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"No I was pointing out that you were blindly attack and punching instead of politely asking for more information. "

Get off my leg. I asked why certain info wasn't available in the age of the internet. It's a valid question and I shouldn't have to say pretty please with whipped cream on my nipples when asking a valid question.

The whole safe spaces argument still looks like irresponsible stonewalling and I think your punching down rhetoric is an evasion wrapped in an ad homeniem.

Sad thing is the punching up s punching down rhetoric might actually be fair and reasonable in another context but you have poisoned it for me, turned it into a joke

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I asked why certain info wasn't available in the age of the internet. It's a valid question and I shouldn't have to say pretty please with whipped cream on my nipples when asking a valid question.
Except you didn't ask if the information was available. You blamed them for not presenting you with the information, then took egg on your face when it was pointed out that the information was, in fact available, and the breakdown was actually on your level of access, not on the lack of information.

Maybe considering asking first, and attacking later, only once you have positive evidence to base the criticism on rather than just a lack of information being handed to you?

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
'You blamed them for not presenting you with the information, then took egg on your face when it was pointed out that the information was, in fact available, "

Available on Kate's specialized gourmet engine. No egg on my face. My question is still legitimate. University profs and students should have taken less care for their safe spaces and more for making their message available on facebook, Google, etc. It's pure jackassery to call that "punching down"

If I told a protester his shoelace was untied, by your standard that's criticizing and therefore punching down. Just ... Think harder, pyr.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You remind me of what my parents were told in Cameroon when they witnessed a young man and women were being stoned to death. They looked at the scene with horror and then came under attack by the mob, had to escape. Explanation: it was rude and oppressive for them to look as if they didn't just assume that those that started the stoning had good cause. So either join in, or pretend you see nothing and drive away.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
They should have focused less on trying to get the productive things they want and need done and more on how to spoon feed you information, despite you not even being connected to their situation? Yeah, not buying it.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
You remind me of what my parents were told in Cameroon when they witnessed a young man and women were being stoned to death. They looked at the scene with horror and then came under attack by the mob, had to escape. Explanation: it was rude and oppressive for them to look as if they didn't just assume that those that started the stoning had good cause. So either join in, or pretend you see nothing and drive away.

Except, of course, that I'm actually stand up to you and the rest of the mob who are throwing stones here instead of treating the protestors justly and respectfully.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
Except, of course, that I'm actually stand up to you and the rest of the mob who are throwing stones here instead of treating the protestors justly and respectfully.

This isn't the most effective way to show JoshCrow that he's wrong about the pride of victim culture.

Incidentally I don't see you standing up to us, so much as making it impossible to have a real discussion. Tom offered up a thoughtful and nuanced point on the subject we were discussing, and it impressed some of the posters here even though they hadn't previously agreed with him on some of the key points. But his contribution had the effect of furthering the conversation even though were weren't all necessarily 'on the same side' beforehand. Stonewalling isn't "standing up to."

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Why should I go through any effort to that effect when you've so far shown that you're uninterested in anything that doesn't confirm your bias or at least pat you on the back for contributing to a smear campaign?

I've said that I'm fully willing to go back and discuss the substance of the actual issue if we can get past the meta conversation about the way that many here opened it with such a show of bias and prejudice that communicated that informed discussion wasn't welcome.

you actualyl stepped back and asked some good questions, but then doubled down on defending uniformed attacks on the protestors themselves instead of keeping the focus on respectful discussion of the issues.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
You remind me of what my parents were told in Cameroon when they witnessed a young man and women were being stoned to death. They looked at the scene with horror and then came under attack by the mob, had to escape. Explanation: it was rude and oppressive for them to look as if they didn't just assume that those that started the stoning had good cause. So either join in, or pretend you see nothing and drive away.

Except, of course, that I'm actually stand up to you and the rest of the mob who are throwing stones here instead of treating the protestors justly and respectfully.
I say they should make their grievances more accessible to public search engines and you call that "throwing stones" and "mob" behavior

You really aren't much of an ally to these students. If I were one of them I would be thanking Kate, and embarrassed by your defense. Your patronizing coddling does their cause more damage than my "stones"

[ November 24, 2015, 02:06 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I say they should make their grievances more accessible to public search engines and you call that "throwing stones" and "mob" behavior
In as much as you are part of the mob trying to tell them what to do and smearing them for not doing it your way, absolutely.

Now if you said "It would have been helpful to me if they had put things in these places" instead of stiff to the effect of "They need to do this" or "They're wrong for not doing this" then you put yourself on firmer footing.

The first admits that it's your preference and puts no judgment or requirement on them for not meeting your standards. The latter two attack them or otherwise assert implied authority over them such that you are justified in making such demands.

And the habit of doing that is not limited to the protestors- in fact, on this particular subject I've been objecting to a few places where people have tried to tell others to look things up for them to debunk their assertions rather than respectfully asking for more information before jumping to making unfounded attacks.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Your patronizing coddling does their cause more damage than my "stones"
Seriously, you thing asking for evidence before someone makes accusations is "coddling"?
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Your patronizing coddling does their cause more damage than my "stones"
Seriously, you thing asking for evidence before someone makes accusations is "coddling"?
No, Pyr. Based on evidence at hand people made assessments they thought were reasonable (whether they were in fact reasonable is irrelevant for now). You claimed outright that they were wrong and didn't understand, and that they needed to find more evidence to back up their comments. But since their comments were based on facts on the ground, it would be onerous on you to provide contrary facts which showed that the initial comments were missing some information. But instead of actually providing evidence to back up your claim you tell people that you have to do their homework for them and that their lack of research is the reason they're wrong. Sorry to tell you this, but you're the one whose lack of research is showing in this thread. Asking you for evidence to back up your claims isn't asking you to do our homework, it's asking you to do your homework. You've said multiple times you'll get around to it eventually but can't afford the time because you keep having to deal with our ignorant comments. Well actually you don't have to do any such thing. You can go spend a week researching and come back. Do you think this will bother anyone?

I can't explain how Pete missed the bit about the swastika, but otherwise those of us who've offered comments have read as much as we can find on the subject (at least I have, and I trust the others have too).

[ November 24, 2015, 03:18 PM: Message edited by: Fenring ]

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm sorry- where is your evidence that the students asking the president intended the question to be an unanswerable trap, since that's an unfounded assertion that you made over and over?

Where was your evidence that they were mostly white protestors taking up someone else's cause, since that's an accusation that you tried to level and were debunked on?

Where's the evidence of violence that people were using to accuse the protesters of misbehaving based on?

quote:
Based on evidence at hand people made assessments they thought were reasonable (whether they were in fact reasonable is irrelevant for now).
Except they were not reasonable because they included assumptions and speculation beyond the actual information that was available. That's not an assessment based on evidence, that's selectively confirming ones biases in the absence of evidence, then asserting the biases as facts.

A reasonable assessment does not invent evidence that wasn't presented, it admits that it doesn't have enough information to render judgement when important facts, particularly relating to the context of events that occurred, are unknown.

quote:
. But instead of actually providing evidence to back up your claim you tell people that you have to do their homework for them and that their lack of research is the reason they're wrong.
Not wrong. Ignorant. Their lack of research and evidence to back speculative claims they're making is evidence of ignorance, and they should be finding actual evidence to back the claims, not asking others to do research to debunk them.

quote:
Asking you for evidence to back up your claims isn't asking you to do our homework, it's asking you to do your homework.
Except I've avoided making claims about anything aside for behavior here, and what claims I've made have been based on evidence that was presented here or basic facts of the situation of racial relations in the US. When I've speculated, I've done my best to make it clear that I was guessing and qualified my assumptions with conditional statements to highlight their speculative nature.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 16 pages: 1  2  3  4  ...  14  15  16   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1