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 3)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 16 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  ...  14  15  16   
Author Topic: Mizzou President resigns
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The vast majority of this group is formed by privileged whites.
And even people like me who find the SJW crowd tedious like bashing privileged whites! As long as they are more privileged than me.

Socially Jealous Warriors!

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  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 D.W.:
quote:
I suspect the protestors are hostile to the press because the press has often been complicit in supporting narratives that show protestors as mindless thugs. Don't you think they might feel they have reason to be cautious about giving the media access?
How has the press been complicit? I don’t consume A LOT of media. Bread crumb trails here, google news front page and NPR is the lion’s share of my media diet. From what I’ve seen the media’s reporting is negative to the protests in exactly one way.

They report the protestors response / action then are light on or leave a notable void where the justification and rational for those acts and responses should be. This can easily be seen as a slight. Surely the media is making them look like an angry mob lashing out right? But when you make an effort to look for those justifications and rational, as we are used to doing when we feel the media is pulling a fast one to push their own narrative (or just boost their ratings), we can’t find much.

This is not the action of mindless thugs. These are the actions (or result of) people flexing power, yet unsure what to do with it. Congrats to the football team realizing their own worth and influence. I hope they do something useful now that they succeeded in their first field-test of political (and/or financial) potency. I’m a bit underwhelmed that their first act was to shuffle the cards in hopes of ending up with a better politician who says the right things at the right time in front of the right people. Maybe that’s enough. At almost half a mill salary a year for the gig I say spread the wealth. Let it be a revolving door every time a point needs made. I won’t be too heartbroken about former school presidents not being able to put food on their tables.

I dont weep for Tom Wolfe. This is why I stopped believing in Organized Sports six weeks after I went to college. Saw the thuggery the bastards get away with. Wolfe helped create this beast by trying to expand the sports education machine. It's like weeping for Dr Frankenstein.
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 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
I suspect the protestors are hostile to the press because the press has often been complicit in supporting narratives that show protestors as mindless thugs. Don't you think they might feel they have reason to be cautious about giving the media access?

Did you read those accursed tweets? If not, read them. The group is hostile to the press for two stated reasons: 1) They want their 'privacy' and do not recognize the right of the press to be anywhere near them. 2) They claim this story isn't for the press, meaning they want to own and control the narrative of the events involving them.

Both of these are control mechanisms and counter to any kind of democratic spirit or free flow of information. If it was the police answering in this way these people wouldn't stand for it, but since it's them they feel entitled to anything they emotionally feel they deserve.

Anyhow how do you define "access"? If they don't want to give an interview then they don't have to. But to attempt to physically remove or banish a journalist? That's police state tactics.

quote:
I also find it telling that much of the discussion seems based on the assumption that the students don't have a legitimate grievance against the administration. As if it's unheard of for the authorities to make only desultory efforts to investigate racially motivated harassment.
Who said anything like this? You are falling prey to the logic of "you're with us or against us." I don't know why you assume that because we suggest that something is wrong with this protest style that therefore everything's wrong with it. As someone else mentioned, if they wanted to list particular grievances they could have, and whether are not there are real grievances they haven't made those clear at all. The only thing I saw about the group JoshCrow brought up is that they're upset they didn't get a safe zone. That is a policy thing (I guess). All the rest of it is vaguery or else reference to specific incidents like a drunk kid mouthing off, which is not a policy issue.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  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 TomDavidson:
Yes, yes, let's all whine about black people some more, shall we?

Wow. That's what you took away from that exchange? Or did I miss the /s tag somewhere?
Posts: 177 | Registered: Mar 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 
Can someone who not only understands what a "safe zone" is but agrees they have value try and explain it to me?

The whole concept of one seems incredibly insular and xenophobic. Avoiding just that is (I thought) one of the positives of attending higher education. I must be missing something here.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  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 
"I also find it telling that much of the discussion FAILS TO JUST ASSUME that the students have a legitimate grievance against the administration"

Fixed that for you, NH.

What I said is that if university students and faculty have a legitimate grievance, and cannot articulate that with all of the instruments of the Internet before them, then something is seriously eotten in the Show Me state.

Note that neither Tom or Al (the most privileged white males on this forum AFAIK) nor even you, the most reasonable lefty on this forum, can articulate the actual grievances, that it's hardly fair to blame Josh, me, or Fenring. (I really dont care if you blame Rafi; you can blame him for global warming and the Lincoln assassination for all I care; I wont defend him on any charge.)

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If one looks at Ferguson, the press only shows up for the riot and it ignores the months of protests and years of incidents that lead up to it. The media is crap at portraying issues that don't neatly fit readily available narratives.
quote:
Did you read those accursed tweets? If not, read them. The group is hostile to the press for two stated reasons: 1) They want their 'privacy' and do not recognize the right of the press to be anywhere near them. 2) They claim this story isn't for the press, meaning they want to own and control the narrative of the events involving them.
Because they don't trust the press. I'm not saying they're correct, I'm saying it's understandable. The press is only emblematic of the free flow of information if it's committed to truth and accuracy. And the police are and should be subject to decidedly different rules than the public.
quote:
Who said anything like this? You are falling prey to the logic of "you're with us or against us." I don't know why you assume that because we suggest that something is wrong with this protest style that therefore everything's wrong with it. As someone else mentioned, if they wanted to list particular grievances they could have, and whether are not there are real grievances they haven't made those clear at all. The only thing I saw about the group JoshCrow brought up is that they're upset they didn't get a safe zone. That is a policy thing (I guess). All the rest of it is vaguery or else reference to specific incidents like a drunk kid mouthing off, which is not a policy issue.
JoshCrow opened the thread with pure dismissiveness. I think claims about flexing power and suggestions of totalitarianism imply a lack of sufficient cause for the actions of the students.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  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 
quote:
I think claims about flexing power and suggestions of totalitarianism imply a lack of sufficient cause for the actions of the students.
Not a lack of cause. A questioning of action.
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  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 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
Hmmm, denouncing someone who lives and breathes to make faux-political attacks on groups with grievances that he hates passionately is a sign of bad behavior? But what is Tom doing wrong by pointing out Rafi G's demented mental apparatus, exactly?

That's not what Tom did. Tom speaks to Rafi, me, fenring and Josh as if we were all part of the same machine.

N0ote I still believe that you and Rafi are the same physical being, Al, but I do your persona the courtesy of speaking to you differently. I do not appreciate Tom treating me like I'm spouting Rafi's point of view. I suspect that whoever created the Al construct, created the Rafi/G# construct specifically to spoof Tom Davidson as Tom's right wing reflection. I could have so myself if I had the patience time and masochism to stare into the void that is TomD.

Un****ingbelievable. Although I will grant you that Rafi G does sound a bit like my older brother.
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 D.W.:
quote:
I think claims about flexing power and suggestions of totalitarianism imply a lack of sufficient cause for the actions of the students.
Not a lack of cause. A questioning of action.
This. We don't want outside press detailing our methods when we know our cause is righteous.
Posts: 177 | Registered: Mar 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
"I also find it telling that much of the discussion FAILS TO JUST ASSUME that the students have a legitimate grievance against the administration"

Fixed that for you, NH.

It the failure to assume that is telling. I don't see why we should assume rebellion against authority is unwarranted. Futhermore, I think the cooperation of disparate groups of students (the SA and football team strike me as natural enemies frankly) and the scope of the threat made by the football team (while football players can be as concerned about social justice as any gender studies or international development major, they seem to have more pressing concerns and way more to lose) provide sufficient reason to believe the administration has erred. Things just don't go this far in the offline world if it's just the usual suspects.

quote:
Can someone who not only understands what a "safe zone" is but agrees they have value try and explain it to me?

The whole concept of one seems incredibly insular and xenophobic. Avoiding just that is (I thought) one of the positives of attending higher education. I must be missing something here.

Regarding xenophobia, voluntary segregation has long been a response to oppression and some people believe it retains its value even in a free society. I'm always going to want a "safe space" where I can just assume everyone is gay even if homophobia disappears tomorrow.

My impression of a safe space is on where certain aspects are controlled in order to allow for more open expression and relaxation of defensive habits. Restrictions on speech and behavior are imposed to encourage people to feel safe and allow them to explore ideas and concepts which are usually oppressed and marginalized. These are not, and cannot be, public spaces but rather specialized private spaces where admittance is voluntary and conditional on a willing to respect the rules of the space. If they work they have immense value.

If they don't work, they turn into passive-aggressive or aggresse-aggressive tone-policed hell-holes barren of useful thought or expression. It gets worse when the attempt is made to force public spaces into safe spaces since the language and methodology can end up in Maoism-land about two seconds after it runs into serious disagreement.
quote:
This. We don't want outside press detailing our methods when we know our cause is righteous.
My impression was they didn't want the outside press because the outside press is corrosive to meaningful discussion. The last the students need is for this to turn into culture war election fodder. The easy part's done and they don't need someone trying to spin the next phase into something digestable enough for the evening news.

...

That was rude, wasn't it? Is that who I am? Am I rude? [/Ten]

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 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 
"f one looks at Ferguson, the press only shows up for the riot and it ignores the months of protests and years of incidents that lead up to it. The media is crap at portraying issues that don't neatly fit readily available narratives"

I believe you. You make an excellemt defense for their hostility towards the press.

That neither explains not justifies their behaving like entitled thugs.

A good mitigation would be if these were starving concentration survivors or uneducated masses in some godforsaken village. But there is no excuse for university students and tenured professors conveying their hostility in such thuggish ways.

"How hard is it for you people to just do what we want?" that is not the lan guage of Martin Luther King. It sounds more like the words of Bull Conor.

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 
"I don't see why we should assume rebellion against authority is unwarranted"

The only person here making authority based arguments is TomD, who avoids facts and reasoning like an open sore.

Please quote where anyone assumes that rebellion against authority is unwarranted. What I see in the articles is the students faculty and fooballers asserting their own brand of authority. So I ask for the basis of their authority, and in return I get Tom sneering that asking questions makes me some sort of racist, and your repeated implication that I am assuming that they have no respectable cause.

My argument, again is not that they have no good cause. My argument is that they cannot articulate that cause, then they should find some space other than a University to occupy.

Tiananmen students got a coherent message out despite a hostile totalitarian government with tanks. And they didnt have ubiquitous smart phones and utube.

If you cant say anything coherent, you havent said anything at all.

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 
I havent cared about a football game since players broke my dorm mates' teeth during a drunken street prowl and the u did jack nothing. But I predict that BYU kicks missouri's ass and that the Missouri players claim that the refs, the audience, the press and(or the laws of Newtonian physics are racist.!
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 
"The last the students need is for this to turn into culture war election fodder"

Then they shouldnt have assaulted reporters and spewed that Maoist crap about the public space being theirs. Educated persons should be expected to manage strategic hostility without pissing on the first amendment and talking like Bull Connor with hemorrhoids.

But for hell's sake, NH, if you are aware of a message then by all means share. I'm not assuming they dont have one. I am angry they have failed to share it with all the privileges and opportunities they have. Sorr. If you occupy a public space supported by fed funds, you owe the People an explanation.

[ November 10, 2015, 12:56 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If it was the police answering in this way these people wouldn't stand for it...
Two points:

1) The police are both public servants and public representatives of government, and as such owe a duty to the public that private citizens do not.

2) The issue here that's causing the kerfluffle is all about "safe spaces." I personally consider that sort of battle to be largely tilting at windmills, especially once the right wing gets wind of it (because they cannot -- are in fact congenitally unable to -- understand the issue). But the "please don't clog up this space with media and potentially hostile inquiry" comes from the same space as "we don't feel safe on this campus."

There are lots of legitimate criticisms to be made here, of course. But given that I think the people need to be seizing more and more public spaces for more and more reasons, the fact that this particular group is doing it for a reason that I think is ultimately inconsequential doesn't much concern me.

The press is trained to deal with hostile subjects; they are not entitled to cooperation from private individuals. Those private individuals risk looking bad when they don't cooperate, which is the stick the media use when you won't take their carrots. Far, far more problematic than the press treatment here, as far as I'm concerned, is the way the faculty conflated their anger with the aggressively anti-collaborative "pro-business" president (brought in specifically to weaken faculty rights, etc.) with student dissatisfaction regarding minority treatment and recognition. I think it was a very cynical move by some faculty that will ultimately fail to get the attached movements what they want (and have been fighting for for months, in this case), but succeeded in getting rid of an executive hostile to academia.

I'm thrilled to see successful, large-scale student uprisings, though. We need far, far more of them.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  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 NobleHunter:
Because they don't trust the press. I'm not saying they're correct, I'm saying it's understandable. The press is only emblematic of the free flow of information if it's committed to truth and accuracy. And the police are and should be subject to decidedly different rules than the public.

This is one of those times when I'm not sure why people bring notions like truth and honesty into a discussion about the press. No one in history ever thought the press had anything to do with truth or honesty, and suddenly this is some sort of ideal we try to pretend they meet. The purpose of the press is to allow private individuals to be exposed to real events and report of them. Whether those individuals are honorable or virtuous has nothing to do with it, because there's no law stating that the 1st amendment only applies to the virtuous. The press is the press, and as citizens (and journalists) they have certain rights. Those rights don't end when someone else doesn't like them.

As far as the protesters' feeling being 'understandable', people don't seem to have much of a problem with the press until the camera is in their face and at their home. Strange how things are no big deal when it's someone else. Also I wonder that you should offer any defence at all of a group whose members issue statements regarding a journalist such as "I'm gonna need some muscle over here." (to deal with the journalist) That is some low-grade stuff to be championing.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
No one in history ever thought the press had anything to do with truth or honesty...
Well, to be fair, there WAS a period where journalism schools taught their students that the press had a duty to the public that was sacrosanct, and even had them take oaths similar to the Hippocratic Oath. There were even discussions about limiting press passes to journalists who passed an exam and met ethics guidelines, to regulate the profession in the way that doctors and lawyers are regulated. For a variety of reasons, this fell apart completely two decades ago, and we have now entered an era where professionally-trained journalists working for large media outlets are less trusted than random individuals with a webpage.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  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'm thrilled to see successful, large-scale student uprisings, though. We need far, far more of them.

I'm thrilled to see people begin to recognize that dependency goes both ways and the slave owns the master just as much as the master owns the slave. We knew this already in the world of debts (owe someone a million and he owns you, owe someone a billion and you own him), but the message many people had in the 60's about power structures being largely a delusion have yet to sink in with most people. The population of the U.S. has yet to recognize that they have exponentially more power than these students in every facet of life, but what they lack is agreement or organization. But the model for rallying together to become the new authority is a fine one to establish. It actually should be the basis for a republic anyhow, it's just been forgotten.

I am not thrilled, however, to see the spilling over of the dual feeling of power and powerlessness exhibited by these protesters (and many others I've seen caught on video) where they have been reduced to the level of savages. There is an intellectual basis for challenging authority and for undermining power structures that aren't as fixed as they appear, but when the driving force behind rebellion is frenzy rather than clarity - as jasonr put it, they will just end up eating each other and gaining nothing. Quite honestly these protesters have embarrassed themselves and done harm to the notion of progress. I don't think they're false flag protesters set up to ruin the image of social justice, but they may achieve the same thing in the long run.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
when the driving force behind rebellion is frenzy rather than clarity
That will almost always be the case, though. I mean, hell, look at the original Tea Party; that was not an act of clarity. Can you imagine if someone had stopped to film the tarring and feathering of guards and tried to ask one of the men doing it, "Hey, what has this dock worker done to deserve having half his skin burnt away?"
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  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 TomDavidson:
quote:
when the driving force behind rebellion is frenzy rather than clarity
That will almost always be the case, though. I mean, hell, look at the original Tea Party; that was not an act of clarity. Can you imagine if someone had stopped to film the tarring and feathering of guards and tried to ask one of the men doing it, "Hey, what has this dock worker done to deserve having half his skin burnt away?"
If you think that group torture mob action by a bunch of white privileged males pretending to be native Americans is a positive action for social movements to model after, you are too deep in the Kool Aid for me to reach.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think my use of that reference makes it obvious that I am specifically not holding it up as a positive example.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  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:
quote:
when the driving force behind rebellion is frenzy rather than clarity
That will almost always be the case, though. I mean, hell, look at the original Tea Party; that was not an act of clarity. Can you imagine if someone had stopped to film the tarring and feathering of guards and tried to ask one of the men doing it, "Hey, what has this dock worker done to deserve having half his skin burnt away?"
And this is why the oligarchs eventually always win. When an emotional impetus such as frenzy is the fuel for the fire not only are the proceedings savage but they are short-lived. Passions fade and the cause is forgotten, and those with the capability for long-term planning and patience will always subvert everything given the chance. This is why clarity in rebellion should at least be encouraged, even if it hasn't been the norm. And by the way I'm not even speaking against having strong feelings carried along with one's clarity; anger and sadness can be strong motivators. But when the cause itself is merely the venting of anger and sadness then nothing will be achieved other than hysteria and melodrama. Some people in the revolutionary period may have been savage, but luckily the founding fathers were philosophers and made sure that the revolution wasn't for nothing.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 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 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
No one in history ever thought the press had anything to do with truth or honesty...
Well, to be fair, there WAS a period where journalism schools taught their students that the press had a duty to the public that was sacrosanct, and even had them take oaths similar to the Hippocratic Oath. There were even discussions about limiting press passes to journalists who passed an exam and met ethics guidelines, to regulate the profession in the way that doctors and lawyers are regulated. For a variety of reasons, this fell apart completely two decades ago, and we have now entered an era where professionally-trained journalists working for large media outlets are less trusted than random individuals with a webpage.
See? he knows HOW to discuss facts, reasoning, ethics, and morality; he simply insists that they dont apply to contemporary events, and that all morality at the present depends on appearances and affiliation.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  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 
quote:
but luckily the founding fathers were philosophers and made sure that the revolution wasn't for nothing.
And possibly as Tom suggests this happened here as well. It was decided by some the prez had to go and this was the perfect vehicle?

Don't have the info to know if that's a valid hypothesis or not. Apologies if I totally misread your post on this page Tom.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  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 TomDavidson:
I think my use of that reference makes it obvious that I am specifically not holding it up as a positive example.

Sorry I missed that before posting my last.

OK, Tom, I give you benefit of the doubt. Assume you meant that incoherent thuggish mob behavior does not in itself prove that there is not a legitimate underlying cause. If that's your point I agree completely. I've been part of university protest. And specifically took part in order to make sure the message was clear.

Hey hey ho ho these brainless jingles have got to go.

2,4,6,8, their writters didnt wanna desegregate.

[ November 10, 2015, 02:17 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:
Another comment made the good point that no one takes it seriously when religious people are offended by certain kinds of dress (they are usually villified for making that belief known) whereas social justice types feel fully entitled to police Halloween costumes that offend them on other grounds.
Catching up no this, but I wanted to highlight this wonderful false equivalence- you're equating personal offense and harm by misrepresenting people who point out the way that certain outfits promote harmful stereotypes of other cultures and otherwise amount to dancing on the graves of people that we've persecuted in the past.

It would be one thing if you were talking about people degrading a given religion by dressing up in a mockery of its attire. Heck, it would even put you on reasonable ground if you were talking about religious objections to people dressing up specifically to intimidate or humiliate religious people.

But you're equating being offended because you don't have the power to force others to conform to your personal standards with actively harmful and damaging options, which is a very dishonest way to degrade the arguments being made in the latter case.

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:
Catching up no this, but I wanted to highlight this wonderful false equivalence- you're equating personal offense and harm by misrepresenting people who point out the way that certain outfits promote harmful stereotypes of other cultures and otherwise amount to dancing on the graves of people that we've persecuted in the past.


You only think this is so because you presume a priori that religious people who are offended at certain kinds of dress don't also think it perpetuates certain kinds of harm. Or if they do think so you think they're wrong. Either way being offended at something that you think is a problem for society or individuals is common to both scenarios and yet 'religious sensitivity' isn't recognized as a valid source of dress policing but 'cultural sensitivity' apparently is. I'm not advocating for or against either, but it is incoherent to support one and not the other.
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:
Originally posted by JoshCrow:
The idea of "black spaces" is also an affront to racial progress. It's almost as if, having been freed from the constraints of segregation, you demand the right to return to your very prison! Wasn't the point to NOT have "black spaces"?


No. The point is to achieve equitable treatment for all people. SO if we get to the point were most of US society isn't a white space, then sure, there won't be any need to to carve out spaces where people who aren't white can feel like they're not being silenced, but we're a long way off from that.

You're making the mistake of asserting that they're not imprisoned anymore when they in fact are, and are trying to create even small spaces where they're somewhat free of those prisons, even if, for the time being, they have to appeal to the majority to make an effort to create them instead of being equally free to create them on their own terms as the majority is.

quote:
It speaks to a broader incoherence - we're not supposed to "see race": except when we're supposed to. We're not supposed to see gender: except when we're supposed to. Etc...

That's incoherence that has been injected by people who benefit from making it incoherent. You're injecting those now instead of actually making an effort to understand the issues and what's being asked for. If you can dismiss people trying to call attention to problems as being incoherent or otherwise not serious, then you can easily dismiss them as being unworthy of the effort to actually understand them.

What's being asked is that people work toward equitable treatment of everyone regardless of race, sex, etc... Not that anyone is blind to them, but just the opposite- that everyone make the effort to see where they play into inequitable treatment and behave in ways that account for and help to heal the harms that exist.

quote:
It seems like the intent is no longer what I originally imagined - a post-tribal society. Instead the goal is a society of powerful tribes whose power derives from their victimhood.
If you want to achieve the former, then you have to adress the facts that create the latter. As long as there are people who continue to be made victims then the best they can to is find some way to gain power from that to fight back. You can either double down on oppression- crush out their will and ability to call attention to the harm being done to them, and dismiss their concerns as invalid as you seem to suggest we do, or you can work to correct the harms such that they no longer have a need to appeal to their state to gain some measure of power and push back against the societal factors that oppress them.
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 Fenring:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
Catching up no this, but I wanted to highlight this wonderful false equivalence- you're equating personal offense and harm by misrepresenting people who point out the way that certain outfits promote harmful stereotypes of other cultures and otherwise amount to dancing on the graves of people that we've persecuted in the past.


You only think this is so because you presume a priori that religious people who are offended at certain kinds of dress don't also think it perpetuates certain kinds of harm. Or if they do think so you think they're wrong. Either way being offended at something that you think is a problem for society or individuals is common to both scenarios and yet 'religious sensitivity' isn't recognized as a valid source of dress policing but 'cultural sensitivity' apparently is. I'm not advocating for or against either, but it is incoherent to support one and not the other.
Nope, you can keep trying to miscast what I'm saying, but that doesn't make you right. They may be right that there is some manner of harm that people acting in ways they disapprove of do harm to themselves, but they have no business dictating the behavior of others on that basis, regardless of their personal offense.

There's a world of difference between that and dishonestly miscasting criticism of actions that actually harm others as the person leveling such criticism as simply "being offended"; it amounts to projecting your personal sense of offence at being criticized for the action you're taking against others onto the person pointing out the harm.

Wearing clothes, on your own terms, that don't happen to conform to a particular religion's standards is not taking an action against that religion. Wearing an outfit that mocks or degrades another culture is an active action against that culture. And while it can be done in a respectful way among cultures that are operating on equal terms, the message is inherently disrespectful when taken by one that has a history of persecuting the other.

People doing things that you don't like isn't persecution, if if you find it offensive. People actually harming you is, and it's trying to equate the two is an active form of harm to those that are actually being harmed.

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 ScottF:
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Yes, yes, let's all whine about black people some more, shall we?

Wow. That's what you took away from that exchange? Or did I miss the /s tag somewhere?
Well, let's see. Was the conversation more focused on trying to figure out what the problems under contention were and ways they could have been addressed, or was it more focused on drumming up ways to dismiss the concerns because they weren't up to the standards of their critics? Was more effort here put into trying to understand what the safe spaces they were asking for were and they they felt they were important, or on ways to say that thy were absurd to ask for them?

It seems like there's farm more "whining" about how they didn't follow the rules of their betters well enough, or ask for the things that the people here think they should be asking for (or even have the problems that they're approved to have) than there is any serious attempt to actualyl understand what's going on and why they felt motivated to action.

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 
It's hilarious that you've doubled down on your premise that costumes that offend people on a cultural basis "actually harm you" whereas costumes that offend people on a religious basis are merely offensive to them and that's it. Is this really how narrow your view of religious objection is? I can assure you that when a religious person has a problem with certain kinds of dress it's for the real effects of that dress on the individuals and on the culture. You can disagree or say they're wrong (and in some cases even hypocritical) but other than this you have no leg to stand on in trying to somehow paint these as totally different scenarios.

Incidentally I don't know how you define "taking an action against." What the heck does it mean to take an action against a religion by wearing certain clothes? Unless the clothes have text on them that verbatim says "down with X religion" I don't know what this even means. The same goes for "taking action against a culture." Do you think wearing a Pocahontas costume, aside from the already foolish suggestion that it is offensive to people from Native American culture, is simultaneously taking positive action against their culture? What action is this, pray tell? Does it 'oppress' them?

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Wolfe was targeted, as one protest group put it, because he was "'not completely' aware of systemic racism, sexism, and patriarchy on campus." I love the "not completely." It reminds me of the old rule about totalitarian revolutions: first, you go after the counter-revolutionaries, then you go after the insufficiently enthusiastic. So Wolfe had to be removed for failing to show immediate and total compliance toward their political agenda.
Yup.
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 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 
At first, some of us here had no idea WTF the contentions were. Judging by the coverage, I think it's safe to assume the media were honestly oblivious as well. The targeted outrage SEEMED out of line with simple inaction, but obviously there was a lot of smoke, for a long time, so best start reporting because there must be fire.

Then, the contentions settled to one quote and an accusation of a smile and a diagnoses of what that smile meant. Also we get a request/demand for "safe spaces" which were ignored. Lastly a demand for the president to step down. Anything else (that I've seen or read relayed) has been passionate and demanding statements without substance, delivered in such a way that you are either an idiot or a racist for daring to ask for clarification on what that substance is.

So yes, there is some whining that people aren't following rules. The rules of making some damn sense. Much like our other discussions related to race on this forum however if you must be SOLD on the validity of the cause, you have already outed yourself as an enemy...

You act like it's a sabotage scheme to dismiss concerns when a lot of us actually have no God damn idea what people are talking about or want half the time. (And we have the sneaking suspicion that there is a good reason that's the case.)

[ November 10, 2015, 04:51 PM: Message edited by: D.W. ]

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 JoshCrow:
Well, if you'll recall my last thread was on the Culture of Victimhood (which dovetails with identity politics). In the past there was no sense of needing "safe spaces" - not because there were less racists, but because people dealt with it differently.


Which is to say, people who didn't feel safe speaking shut up and kept their concerns to themselves, letting those that they felt threatened by claim that there was no problem, since no one (worth listening to) was complaining.

quote:
Now, we have "racism without racists", which they call "systemic racism" and it is essentially the act of a disaffected group claiming the moral high ground and using their power (and it IS powerful, as D.W. notes) to do things that are, in my view, actively working against racial harmony.

Only if you define "harmony" as oppressed races knowing their place well enough to not bother you with complaints about their mistreatment that you don't want to hear. You can get harmony by smashing those that object to your control of the situation into silence or by letting them voice their concerns and making an effort to work to a point where not one is suffering from inequity, but the latter means taking responsibility for playing a part in the process while the former is much easier because you can blame those that are suffering for acting like victims instead of knowing their place and not complaining about it, except in the ways that you allow them to.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  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 
Yes, I want oppressed races to know their place. That's right next to me, the middle aged white guy, not retreating to a "safe place" where the mean people aren't allowed.

Maybe me shouting "**** you" to the passing truck of ******** shouting nigger at my friend walking beside me won't matter much but it seems a better alternative to retreating into insularism.

But, I don't suffer from systemic racism fatigue. The only "safe place" I need is my home when I want to unwind for the day after an occasional stressful day at the office.

The demographics of that campus are such that an "us vs. them" mindset would be terrifying if left to fester. While the internet may lead you to believe otherwise, humanity isn't composed ENTIERLY of evil ********. They need to show their white classmates what they put up with, not separate themselves so it can continue unobserved by most of the school.

It's not like any rational person is going to defend someone who smears feces on a wall to make a swastika. Those trucks full of racists are not representational of the rest of the white students. But you'll never know that if your only contact is by those who go out of their way to antagonize you because the majority are respecting your "safe space" or don't feel welcome.

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:
It's hilarious that you've doubled down on your premise that costumes that offend people on a cultural basis "actually harm you" whereas costumes that offend people on a religious basis are merely offensive to them and that's it.
And there you go again. Minimizing expressions of harm by trying to misrepresent them as "taking offense". As long as you keep repeating that outright falsehood I imagine you're going to stay confused here. I know it's more convenient to mischaracterize the objections as "taking offense" but it's completely dishonest to do so.

quote:
I can assure you that when a religious person has a problem with certain kinds of dress it's for the real effects of that dress on the individuals and on the culture.
But it's people acting with regard to _their own_ culture, not mocking someone else's culture. So they're free to have, and even express concerns, but the fact that they don't like it a personal problem. They aren't being hurt by not getting to have their way by force.

quote:
You can disagree or say they're wrong (and in some cases even hypocritical) but other than this you have no leg to stand on in trying to somehow paint these as totally different scenarios.
You see no difference between me pinching myself because I choose to do so, even if you disapprove, and me pinching you because I choose to do so, even if you disapprove?

You may find it offensive that I choose to pinch myself, for whatever reason, but that doesn't matter so long as I'm not doing it just to offend you. On the other hand, it would be very dishonest for me to ignore your request for me to stop pinching you and claim that you should just "stop being so offended" by it.

quote:
Incidentally I don't know how you define "taking an action against." What the heck does it mean to take an action against a religion by wearing certain clothes? Unless the clothes have text on them that verbatim says "down with X religion" I don't know what this even means.
Indeed. Though I'm sure you could imagine ways to mock religious garb that might effectively send the same message. A simple search for anti-semitic images could probably give you a good idea of how one might mock and degrade someone whose Jewish by caricaturing traditional religious garb.

quote:
The same goes for "taking action against a culture." Do you think wearing a Pocahontas costume, aside from the already foolish suggestion that it is offensive to people from Native American culture, is simultaneously taking positive action against their culture?
You're the one suggesting that we mischaracterize it as merely being offensive, so perhaps you shouldn't falsely put that accusation in my mouth.

But you don't see how someone might be more than a little hurt when others, in the context of generations of actively suppressing a culture, actively taking kids away from parents to destroy their cultural identity, language, etc..., decide to make a parody of that culture that they've oppressed for so long by gathering up a bunch of stereotypical remnants of that culture, with no sense of history, understanding, or even dignity, and use them for their own self-aggrandizement? I mean, how many people "dressing up as Pocahontas" are even making an effort to accurately represent the historical figure, and how many are just dropping the name in the process of grabbing whatever stereotypical Native American clothing elements? (And thus also perpetuating the stereotypes that normalize doing so) CAn you not see that there's a large degree of inherent harm in saying "The main value we want to allow your culture to have is letting us drop a famous name while we steal what we think is cool for the sake of a costume?"

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:
But, I don't suffer from systemic racism fatigue. The only "safe place" I need is my home when I want to unwind for the day after an occasional stressful day at the office.
And what if you could never go home? If you had to live every day "at the office" with your boss watching over you, except perhaps when you went to the bathroom, but even ten you knew that your time there was being judged. Wouldn't you maybe want to carve out a safe place, like your home, where you knew you could be free of that for even a little while?

Wouldn't you feel a bit put upon if your boss suddenly decided that he could come to your house any time he wanted and take over because he was the boss?

[ November 10, 2015, 05:32 PM: Message edited by: Pyrtolin ]

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  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 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:

Which is to say, people who didn't feel safe speaking shut up and kept their concerns to themselves, letting those that they felt threatened by claim that there was no problem, since no one (worth listening to) was complaining.

On the contrary, back some time ago there was the quaint idea that the problem of racism could be attributed to the actions of individual racists. Now the problem has diffused into "everyone", which is not without a grain of truth to it, but also essentially means there is no way to combat it except to retreat into a "safe space". And, I suppose, get some random people in power fired for not having solved racism.

quote:

Only if you define "harmony" as oppressed races knowing their place well enough to not bother you with complaints about their mistreatment that you don't want to hear.

"Their place" is beside me - as an empowered human being unafraid to laugh at myself, unconcerned with society labeling me, and free of tribal identity constructions (forced or voluntary).

quote:

You can get harmony by smashing those that object to your control of the situation into silence or by letting them voice their concerns and making an effort to work to a point where not one is suffering from inequity, but the latter means taking responsibility for playing a part in the process while the former is much easier because you can blame those that are suffering for acting like victims instead of knowing their place and not complaining about it, except in the ways that you allow them to.

Except that in responding the way they have, they are reinforcing (rather than reducing) racism. I do not want them to "be silent" about their experiences - quite the contrary, I think it is appropriate to discuss and revisit the issue frequently, because racism is so pernicious. It is an error, however, to expect progress to come by the application of force on the external world. The one thing that people have true control over is their own perceptions of the world. We don't control our bodies, our friends, our families, other people... but we DO control how we interpret events.
If someone were to leave (for example) a swastika on my door... well, I would likely call the police and hope that person would be caught. But if someone simply made a comment about Jews in my earshot, or even a comment about my beliefs personally, I would probably not lose a whole lot of sleep over it.

The reason is simple - my self-worth is already established and rock-solid. It is unshakable. This is difficult for most people, and *certainly* harder for black people (which is why gangsta-culture was so much insecurity made manifest), but it's not going to become more possible for them if they embrace their own identities as "oppressed". Once you internalize that, the game is over.

I don't have answers, Pyr, as to how to improve the chances of black people to see themselves free of being "othered" by non-blacks. I spend a lot of time in introspection and even I can barely comprehend my own racism, which I carry with me and must guard against intellectually. But I can tell you this - no good is going to come of what we're seeing here.

I can't tell you what a solution looks like, but I can tell you what it doesn't look like. It frustrates me too, so you know.

Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
MU police have sent out a email declaring that "hurtful speech", whatever that is, should be reported and while not a crime is subject to discipline if the perp is a student.

Welcome to the new world order.

Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 16 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  ...  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