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 4)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 16 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  ...  14  15  16   
Author Topic: Mizzou President resigns
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's meme time, apparently. Try to parse events with a little more discernment.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  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:
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?

What does that have to do with the actual facts?

A protest by definition is a public act in a public space. To cry privacy within that space is pussilanimous aggression.

Furthermore, the whole idea that the students are acting out of an individual desire for "privacy" is obviously leftwash nonsense. Obviously they are acting on a group policy.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jasonr
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for jasonr   Email jasonr   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
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.
Seriously Tom, is this what you are defending? Do you agree with this? I'm genuinely curious.
Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  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 
" 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."

So when someone says they are offended. It is 'dishonest' to say that they have taken offense?

Would you find it dishonest if I said that many Americans, myself included, took offense at 9 11? Or are you projecting that Mizou fooballers have more valid reason to feel offended than post 9*11 America?

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 Pete at Home:

So when someone says they are offended. It is 'dishonest' to say that they have taken offense?

Would you find it dishonest if I said that many Americans, myself included, took offense at 9 11? Or are you projecting that Mizou fooballers have more valid reason to feel offended than post 9*11 America?

In this context Pyr means that by assessing the protesters as taking offence is makes it sound like it's a personal, subjective feeling that motivates them, whereas in fact it's actually about a systemic oppression that they are merely bringing to light. As such, framing it as "them taking offence" (even though they themselves say they're offended) makes it sound like their purpose it to assuage their hurt feelings rather than to correct a wrong.

However, Pyr fails to see the parallel I brought up, since the mention of a religious person's view that criticizing dress is about stopping a public harm is written off as protecting one's own turf rather than protecting someone else's. It seems that the sole criterion validating protests of this sort is that they're supposedly about protecting others rather than themselves. This is funny because it actually implies that a people who speak for others should be taken more seriously than a people who speak for themselves. I should point out that this, if anything, is white privilege at its finest; "the causes we espouse are noble, but the causes you espouse are you just looking out for yourself". I should also point out that there's pretty much nothing more paternalistic and insulting to minorities than to suggest that the Ivy League white people who speak out are the ones to listen to, while the people who are supposedly oppressed can't be trusted to speak for themselves.

I know this characterization isn't at all what Pyr means or feels, but I think it's an implicit aspect of some of the protests happening now. Protests during Vietnam were about a person's own country and rights; a person spoke for himself about things that affected his 'people' (which at the time meant nation as a whole). But now people don't speak for themselves, they speak for undisclosed 'others' by proxy, taking up their supposed cause in unsolicited fashion. When the media or various white people try to participate or follow the discussion they're told it's "not for them", without for a moment considering that it may not rightfully be for the protesters themselves, either. What made it "for them", after all? But whose authority? Naturally they have a right to speak about what interests or concerns them, but claiming the moral authority to speak as the singular voice of other people - this is not something they have duly earned. But the entitlement they exhibit as the sole proprietors of their cause suggests something other than selfless work to help others. It suggest ego; it suggests being identified as a crusaders; it suggests a sort of self-importance one should not detect in those who desire to serve others.

This isn't to denigrate outright the sorts of things the protesters mention, however I do think that when a person's reasons and methods are the wrong ones the cause cannot advance through their efforts. The right people need to be in the right place for the right reasons in order to illuminate the imagination and caring of those who watch on and may in time come to see things their way. If MLK had been an egotistical rude jackass I don't think history would have gone down the same way.

[ November 10, 2015, 11:25 PM: Message edited by: Fenring ]

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 
Fenring, Pyr doesnt use words like "suggest." He says the words "take offense" are an OUTRIGHT FALSEHOOD. [DOH]
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 
If the privileged professors cant teach university students to speak for themselves, but need to be the mouthpieces, and demand that the students chase away reporters lest anyone slip up and speak for themselves rather that letting Professor speak, that sounds like a Rasputin relationship. Parasitism.

Get a camera in there, fast.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jasonr
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for jasonr   Email jasonr   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Fenring I think you are giving Pyr too much credit here.
Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  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:
Today the board announced a series of initiatives to be implemented over the next 90 days to address the racial climate on its campuses, including:
A first-ever Chief Diversity, Inclusion and Equity Officer will be appointed for the UM System. Accountability and metrics will be established for the position going forward;
A full review will be initiated of all UM System policies as they relate to staff and student conduct;
Additional support will be provided for students, faculty and staff who have experienced discrimination and disparate treatment.
Additional support will be provided for the hiring and retention of diverse faculty and staff;

Check that last one. What does all this say? This:
quote:
tells us what to expect as a result of the board’s newfound commitment to “diversity” and “inclusion.” Henceforth, no heterosexual white males will be hired by the University of Missouri, and whenever any student complains of having “experienced discrimination and disparate treatment,” a scapegoat will be fired immediately to appease the Gods of Social Justice. A thorough purge of the faculty and administration is to be expected, and woe be unto anyone on campus who complains about this scorched-earth campaign of bloodthirsty vengeance to eliminate “systemic racism.
Yes, whole lotta good still needs to be done to remove the systemic problem at Mizzou. Whole lotta good.
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 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 
I'll take that bet. $100 says Mizzou hires at least one heterosexual white male in the next ten years. (I'm being generous, here, since the claim is "ever".)
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, no wager was offered and the word "ever" was not used as you claim but let's not let the meaning of this cloud your...whatever that is.

A heterosexual white male will likely be hired provided they pass the ideological purity test. It'll be a very American thing.

Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 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 
The word "henceforth" was used without qualifiers. I suppose there's an implied "as long as this policy is in effect," there.

quote:
A heterosexual white male will likely be hired provided they pass the ideological purity test.
I predict that the first heterosexual white male they hire will not be administered any type of purity test at all.
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 
Setting aside Tom's concerns about ideological sexual and "racial purity," it would be nice to get someone to run Mizou like a university instead of a tech company. You know, actually teach kids and help them meet their potential, prepare them to function in the world.

Wonder how the hiring stats from Mizou are going to go next year?

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  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:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
The word "henceforth" was used without qualifiers. I suppose there's an implied "as long as this policy is in effect," there.

quote:
A heterosexual white male will likely be hired provided they pass the ideological purity test.
I predict that the first heterosexual white male they hire will not be administered any type of purity test at all.
The SJW mob collected two scalps on this one. Do you really think the people hired will not be asked about these events? Really? It defies logic that they won't.

They will be asked and they will need to present their ideas to address the "systemic racsim", whether it's systemic or not. The answer will be very carefully scrutinized.

Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 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:
Do you really think the people hired will not be asked about these events? Really?
It would be nonsensical if they were, except for some very specific positions. Do you think people being hired by Volkswagen are being asked how they feel about emissions testing?

quote:
They will be asked and they will need to present their ideas to address the "systemic racsim"...
You are far less cynical and/or more trusting than I am. I do not, for example, believe for one minute that the mainly symbolic changes listed above will be implemented with anything like sincerity or binding authority.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In Missouri, the Downfall of a Business-Minded President

After Missouri’s Leadership Exodus, Hard Questions Loom on Race, Power, and Culture

White Missouri professor shames black students for heeding violent threats: “If you give into bullies, they win

[ November 11, 2015, 01:59 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]

Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  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 kmbboots:
In Missouri, the Downfall of a Business-Minded President

A decision to shut down a particular press and upgrade a sports facility? That's it?

That's all this article could muster on a guy who we're all supposed to be glad is gone? Because that's essentially the only facts presented against him in the entire piece! You'd think there would be something more, honestly. If "chasing down big donors" is supposed to be a bad thing - well, enjoy your higher tuitions if a president does NOT do that.

Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  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:
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.
Which was outright wrong (and mostly an external assertion imposed on people working for civil liberties in order to limit the scope of their effectiveness, not an actual claim of any movement itself. Individual expressions of prejudice are products of a system that teaches people to behave that way. It's just a symptom, not the fundamental problem, and it won't go anywhere until the system is changes so that it doesn't teach and reinforce such prejudices.

quote:
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.
Not retreat, to rally. To carve out a place where they can talk and act freely instead of having to encode their speech and behavior to satisfy the demands of others (at which point they can be safely ignored or demonized when they get out of line)

You're talking as if safe environments for discussion and expression are an end goal, not an important step on the path to healing the damage that prevents them from fully engaging.

You wouldn't tell someone who broke their leg that the best way to deal with it was to run marathons until it healed- you'd start by setting the bone, applying a cast, and providing them with appropriate PT until they were healed and walking again before expecting them to train to run. You'd provide them a safe space to heal until they had built the strength necessary to move up. Similar goes for any form of PTSD. If you want people to heal, you don't expect people to just have to such up and deal with stimuli that are harmful to them- you create and environment where they can have full control over their exposure to them until they've had a chance to work through the damage and feel more confident in choosing to reintegrate into situations where they have less control.

quote:
This is difficult for most people, and *certainly* harder for black people (which is why gangsta-culture was so much insecurity made manifest),
Gangsta culture was a direct reaction to attempt to brand black people as criminals. It was an active and intentional movement to subvert the attempt to push a degrading identity onto them by taking control of that identity and transforming it into a source of security and pride.

quote:
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.
No. Just the opposite. Once it's internalized (which it is, out of the box) the only way to overcome it is to face it honestly and find ways to shut down the ways that society makes you a victim. As you do that, you overcome the cultural elements of victimhood that have been pushed onto you. If you just try to ignore it and pretend that you're not infected, then you end up abused, dead, or otherwise socially crippled.

you're getting the order of events completely backwards here. Victimhood predates putting a name to whats going on by generations. The identity comes from being a victim. The only way to overcome that is to honestly understand what's going on and work to mitigate the ways in which you're being abused so you can act without ongoing risk of being punished for it.

quote:
"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).
This is actively at odds with this:
quote:
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.
your first claim is certainly noble, but it's belied when you turn around and try to dictate to them how to behave. That's not treating them as equals, that's reinforcing their subservient position.

To paraphrase a story snippet I heard recently, because I couldn't track down the original text/source- One civil rights advocate in the pre civil war south realized the depth of the overall problem when they say a woman treating the wounds of her daughter, who had resisted an attempt by the owner to rape her. But instead of offering any kind of verbal comfort or expressing horror at her treatment, all she would say was "I told you you shouldn't have sassed the master"

I put that here because it's relevant on to points- first that "victim culture" long predated giving a name to it, nevermind the steps being taken to address it, but also the fundamental dysfunction in saying "I care more about how you express your resistance to oppression than I do the acts of oppression that you're subject to"

This also touches on exactly why the media got such a cold shoulder- until it can demonstrate in good faith that it's more interested in understanding and reporting on the problems than it is in sensationalizing the reaction to them, then the people protesting have every reason to do what they can to protect themselves from such intrusions that distract from and diminish what they're doing.

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're talking as if safe environments for discussion and expression are an end goal, not an important step on the path to healing the damage that prevents them from fully engaging"

Safe environments for discussion and expression are an end goal of the first amendment, and should be an end goal of anything that calls itself a university.

To speak of discussion and free expression as if these are no more than means to and end, and can be dispensed with when inconvenient, is a hallmark of a progressive totalitarian disease.

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 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:

White Missouri professor shames black students for heeding violent threats: “If you give into bullies, they win

What a cowardly, craven piece. I disagree with this so much I don't know where to begin. It is literally an invitation to let racists and bullies intimidate and scare people out of going to school. This piece boils my blood - it is advocating a shades-drawn, closed-off, cowardly society.

Don't let pieces like this stand unchallenged. Cowardice is not something to be learned at college.

Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So you agree with the first professor? Would you had students actually been shot?
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  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:
To carve out a place where they can talk and act freely instead of having to encode their speech and behavior to satisfy the demands of others

ahahah, hohohoho... good one. You mean like they did when they asked Tin Wolfe to define "systemic oppression" and then denigrated him for the wrong speech? THAT kind of "talking freely"? Really!

OMG, this is like Fox News using "Fair and Balanced" as their motto.

Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  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 
When someone disparages "victim culture" they see the following.

A: I will treat you the same as everyone else because I'm not a racist.

B: No, you need to treat me differently because, even if you strive to treat me the same, others will not, and have not. By refusing to acknowledge the adversity I have faced by treating me "the same as everyone else" you are insulting me and suggesting that all is well because YOU aren't causing the problem.

The person has made being a victim part of their identity. They no longer want to be treated "the same". It's not that they are wrong in describing their situation but this seems to a lot of people as incompatible with ever reaching a state where race truly doesn't matter. The "best case scenario" under a victim culture seems to be a system build on shame, privilege and resentment on a long term pendulum.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  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 kmbboots:
So you agree with the first professor? Would you had students actually been shot?

Yes to the first question 100%.

Had students been shot - no. I would presume students would need time to process such a tragedy. If I had an exam scheduled I would almost certainly cancel or postpone it if a shooting had just occurred.

But this isn't that. This is a Yik Yak post by someone who a) isn't even a student and b) is now in custody.

[ November 11, 2015, 02:17 PM: Message edited by: JoshCrow ]

Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  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:
However, Pyr fails to see the parallel I brought up, since the mention of a religious person's view that criticizing dress is about stopping a public harm is written off as protecting one's own turf rather than protecting someone else's.
No, the difference is one of personal distaste and actual harm. You're also misrepresenting the issue as being one raised by others, when the only participation of the others is to repeat the complaints of those that are asking for the attacks on them to stop, because, as you'r representation makes clearly evident, the initial requests to stop doing it are completely ignored, and treated as if they didn't exist in favor of pretending that the only people that matter are the allies who are helping repeat the message. you're not even willing to acknowledge that marginalized people are trying to voice their own concerns here in order to give white people a greater significance in the matter.

quote:
What made it "for them", after all? But whose authority? Naturally they have a right to speak about what interests or concerns them, but claiming the moral authority to speak as the singular voice of other people - this is not something they have duly earned.
Except this is not true. Allowing for some degree of opportunists that you'll find anywhere something significant is happening, the people involved, have, in fact asked those with the original concern what they can do to help, and listened respectfully to their issues and needs. The complaints aren't coming out of nowhere- they're coming out of listening to and responding to what the people being affected have asked for instead of just insisting that they need to suck up the attacks and deal with them.

You seem to be treating your ignorance of what's going on as evidence that nothing has happened rather than actually making an effort to understand the issues and dig deeper than the media sensationalizing the elements of the protests that create the narrative that you're taking for granted since it appeals to the majority and thus brings in more advertising money than actually challenging the public to question its assumptions would.

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 
"hen in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

I have seen it repeatedly flung around here that those criticizing the students are "assuming" that the students and faculty have no righteous cause. On the contrary, I find them disgraceful because with all the privileges and opportunities at their disposal (as university students in the electronic age) they have dismally failed to articulate their cause to the world, and seem to feel entitled to be treated as heroes for no other reason than being young and loud.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JoshCrow:
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
So you agree with the first professor? Would you had students actually been shot?

Yes to the first question 100%.

Had students been shot - no. I would presume students would need time to process such a tragedy. If I had an exam scheduled I would almost certainly cancel or postpone it if a shooting had just occurred.

But this isn't that. This is a Yik Yak post by someone who a) isn't even a student and b) is now in custody.

I mean, would you still hold that opinion if someone had been shot on the way to your class? If you think that there isn't a real danger from those threats, you haven't been reading the news. We have regular drills now on how to deal with active shooters.
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  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 seem to be treating your ignorance of what's going on as evidence that nothing has happened rather than actually making an effort to understand the issues"

You seem to be resorting to the emperor's new clothes fallacy by blathering about our ignorance rather than articulating some FACT to dissuade us. This tactic of using shame to shut down a discussion rather than simply answering a factual question has was the tool of oppressors long before your faction cme into privilege.

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 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:

quote:
"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).
This is actively at odds with this:
quote:
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.
your first claim is certainly noble, but it's belied when you turn around and try to dictate to them how to behave. That's not treating them as equals, that's reinforcing their subservient position.

Do you understand the difference between offering advice and dictating behavior? What does the former look like to you, and how is that not what I did?
Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  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're talking as if safe environments for discussion and expression are an end goal, not an important step on the path to healing the damage that prevents them from fully engaging"

Safe environments for discussion and expression are an end goal of the first amendment, and should be an end goal of anything that calls itself a university.

To speak of discussion and free expression as if these are no more than means to and end, and can be dispensed with when inconvenient, is a hallmark of a progressive totalitarian disease.

Is there a sale on straw? You've erected quite a strawman there. Try responding to what I said, not stuff you made up that it would be more convenient to respond to.

One of the most visible problems here is that the University did not make even a token effort to establish safe environments for people suffering from bias to speak. And even that basic notion has been treated dismissively here, as if it wasn't a basic responsibility to establish such, never mind the simplest and most effective thing they could have easily done to begin to address the issues.

Your invention that I said that should be "done away with" at any point- the point is that, with time and effort they can be expanded to include all of society as the various ways the system punishes them from trying to speak freely are mitigated overcome.

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 
Pyr, you may want to read Pete's and my statements a little more carefully. You have failed to respond to any points we actually made. You are just restating your position and answering our objections but vaguely saying we don't understand.
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 
quote:
One of the most visible problems here is that the University did not make even a token effort to establish safe environments for people suffering from bias to speak. And even that basic notion has been treated dismissively here, as if it wasn't a basic responsibility to establish such, never mind the simplest and most effective thing they could have easily done to begin to address the issues.
Is this campus seen as "unsafe" in a way that makes it stand apart from any other collage campus? (This week's threat may indicate it is so, but is campus security or the local law enforcement lax, dismissive or inadequate?)

Do other schools carve out areas for this and police them with some sort of security that will escort out and guard against instigators interrupting them?

[ November 11, 2015, 02:33 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:
Do you understand the difference between offering advice and dictating behavior? What does the former look like to you, and how is that not what I did?
The former begins with being asked for advice by someone who trusts your experience and feels that your perspective may add value. Unsolicited advice, especially that which contains implicit threats, is, at best, degrading- putting the knowledge and capabilities of the one being corrected into question, but more generally a way to try to passively dictate the behavior of others.

I mean, you advice here seems to be fundamentally ignorant of the fact that protests and attempts to try to address the issues in ways that follow it have been tried, and were routinely ignored of otherwise negated. It was only when they stopped trying things that don't work, despite promises that "No really, we won't pull the football away this time" that the issue got attention and action.

I mean, I get the general impulse. BEing taught that your opinion is always valuable, that you're smart enough to figure things out on your own and come up with good solutions. But you're not giving the people involved the credit that they're at least as smart as you here, that they haven't already considered these factors and, based on their experience, decided to so something else that they know to be more effective.

If you can think of it, they can think of it too, especially given that they have more hands on experience with their particular situation. At that point you should be asking and investigating what they found that possibility to be unworkable instead of implicitly asserting that they're just clueless about their own situation.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
My assumption, when students or faculty talk about creating "a safe space" they are not referring to a geographic location.

From what I understand, the university has been lax about responding to harassment and threats.

Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  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:
"hen in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

I have seen it repeatedly flung around here that those criticizing the students are "assuming" that the students and faculty have no righteous cause. On the contrary, I find them disgraceful because with all the privileges and opportunities at their disposal (as university students in the electronic age) they have dismally failed to articulate their cause to the world, and seem to feel entitled to be treated as heroes for no other reason than being young and loud.

That, of course, assumes that they're doing this to satisfy you by speaking in ways that you're interested in hearing. It's not their obligation to demonstrate anything to you. They're doing this for themselves and their environment, not to put on a good show for you.
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 
Thanks kmbboots. If correct that helps clear things up a lot. That sounds like a reasonable request where what I was imagining sounds like some twilight zone episode of inviting in oppression to combat it.
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:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
To carve out a place where they can talk and act freely instead of having to encode their speech and behavior to satisfy the demands of others

ahahah, hohohoho... good one. You mean like they did when they asked Tin Wolfe to define "systemic oppression" and then denigrated him for the wrong speech? THAT kind of "talking freely"? Really!
When they asked him a basic question to show that he'd made any effort to understand the problems and he responded by, effectively implying that they might be making them up?

It's pretty clear that he felt very free to say whatever he wanted to in that moment, without any concern for accuracy or even demonstrating that the'd made an effort to understand the problems that he's been asked many times to understand and address.

If this had been an isolated incident, as is sort of implied by your complaint, then it may have been forgivable, but you're glossing over the fact that this was just the latest in a long string of slights and disrespect, the aggregate of which lead to a stronger response than had previously been mustered.

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:
"hen in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

I have seen it repeatedly flung around here that those criticizing the students are "assuming" that the students and faculty have no righteous cause. On the contrary, I find them disgraceful because with all the privileges and opportunities at their disposal (as university students in the electronic age) they have dismally failed to articulate their cause to the world, and seem to feel entitled to be treated as heroes for no other reason than being young and loud.

That, of course, assumes that they're doing this to satisfy you by speaking in ways that you're interested in hearing. It's not their obligation to demonstrate anything to you. .
I respectfully disagree. Whennever one human being uses physical force to secure their rights, they owe other humans an explanation. That's been the rule of human progress since 1776. If they dont respect that then I am their enemy, because they threaten humanistic principles which I hold sacred. I respect no private right for unexplained use of force in public spaces.

Doesn't mean that the dont have some righteous causes. Most villains in history had *some* righteous cause. Only the ignorant and brainwashed say otherwise.

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 Pyrtolin:
BEing taught that your opinion is always valuable, that you're smart enough to figure things out on your own and come up with good solutions. But you're not giving the people involved the credit that they're at least as smart as you here, that they haven't already considered these factors and, based on their experience, decided to so something else that they know to be more effective.

And here we're back to Kafkatrapping. Either agree with us, of if you don't you need to recognize that you shouldn't think you are able to understand these things. So you're guilty of ignorance or abetting in any scenario other than when you give in utterly and agree. This is, to borrow Pete's phrasing, the hallmark of a fundamentalist extremist.

quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
My assumption, when students or faculty talk about creating "a safe space" they are not referring to a geographic location.

From what I understand, the university has been lax about responding to harassment and threats.

No, they are talking about a geographic location. What they wanted was a 'safe zone', which is a physical premises where certain kinds of speech and presumably triggers are banned. It's not a generic term implying they want the campus to be safer in general, although they want that too.

I'd like to invite Pyrtolin to do the due diligence to back up his claims about the authority of the protesters coming from the fact that they've listened to the individuals who tried to speak for themselves and were ignored and are helping them to be heard. Please show me any kind of evidence that the offended or oppressed parties specifically solicited the aid of these protesters (in Missouri) and requested they speak as their spokesmen on this subject. This can include the black club where the drunk kid barged in and mouthed off; it can include the guy who was shouted at from a van of losers; or anyone else that has been used as an example of the rampant racism on campus. You claim they have a special authority on this subject due to their special relationship with those abused; it's so special that people like us - whose primitive intellect wouldn't understand alloys and compositions and things with molecular structures - can do naught but sit by and have the truth explained to us.

So back this up, why don't you, with evidence that this group actually has the credentials you say they do.

[ November 11, 2015, 03:00 PM: Message edited by: Fenring ]

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 Pyrtolin:
When they asked him a basic question to show that he'd made any effort to understand the problems and he responded by, effectively implying that they might be making them up?

Not so fast, bucko. I already addressed Orwellian interpretation of what he said. He never implied they were making it up, that is a hogwash response meant to undermine his ability to provide any answer other than what they demanded.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 16 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  ...  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