This is topic Mizzou President resigns in forum General Comments at The Ornery American Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.ornery.org/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/6/16859.html

Posted by JoshCrow (Member # 6048) on :
 
University of Missouri president steps down

Well, they did it! They successfully ended racism on campus by cutting off its head, the evil president Tim "The Man" Wolfe, who was personally holding back the tide of change and beaming racism-rays from his eyes straight into the hearts of students on campus.

Now we can all rest easy. They'll find someone new. People on campus will listen a few more "sensitivity" videos, and there will be no more racism on campus. And if there is, we can always sack the next prez.

Good work, guys! I salute your bravery. Your aim was true. You are like the MLK Jr's of your generation. Let us usher in a new era of appeasing the volcano by occasionally throwing a white guy into it so we can all feel we did some social justice work.

... in other, in-no-way-related news, 10 more racists were created today reading about these events. The newfound racists report that this event has catalyzed them into their newly acquired hatred, and that they look forward to attending Mizzou some day as students.

[ November 09, 2015, 12:40 PM: Message edited by: JoshCrow ]
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 2450) on :
 
So there wasn't a problem with racism on the campus? Is not the president responsible for anything that happens on campus? I don't know if Tim Wolfe was a proper target but I don't see why it warrants this level of sarcasm.
 
Posted by philnotfil (Member # 1881) on :
 
Black players on the football team weren't happy about the official response to incidents of racism on campus and went on strike.

The president resigned today.

espn.com

quote:
President Tim Wolfe said his resignation was effective immediately. He made the announcement at the start of what had been expected to be a lengthy closed-door meeting of the school's governing board. He largely pre-empted that session in a halting statement that was simultaneously apologetic, clumsy and defiant.

"This is not the way change comes about," he said, alluding to recent protests. "We stopped listening to each other."

quote:
For months, black student groups have complained of racial slurs and other slights on the overwhelmingly white flagship campus of the state's four-college system. Frustrations flared during a homecoming parade Oct. 10 when black protesters blocked Wolfe's car, and he did not get out and talk to them. They were removed by police.

Black members of the football team joined the outcry on Saturday night. By Sunday, a campus sit-in had grown in size, graduate student groups planned walkouts and politicians began to weigh in.


 
Posted by JoshCrow (Member # 6048) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
So there wasn't a problem with racism on the campus? Is not the president responsible for anything that happens on campus? I don't know if Tim Wolfe was a proper target but I don't see why it warrants this level of sarcasm.

A president is responsible for policies - not "for everything that happens on campus". He is no more responsible for racist behavior on a campus than President Obama is for what some jackass in the USA decides to do.

If you DO feel a president is responsible for what their students do, maybe we shouldn't call them "presidents" anymore and instead we should call them "scapegoats" or maybe "effigies".

And if you don't know if Mr. Wolfe was responsible, you shouldn't support him losing his job over it - period. He could have been anyone, really. Mr. Wolfe could have been Mother Theresa or the reincarnation of MLK Jr. for all anyone knows. I doubt very much that he was actually "the problem", hence my sarcasm. I think in fact this event as it transpired creates racists, rather than combats them.

[ November 09, 2015, 12:57 PM: Message edited by: JoshCrow ]
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 2450) on :
 
If there was a problem with racism on campus, and many students seem to think there was, shouldn't there have been policies dealing with it? If there were policies and they were ineffective, is he not responsible for improving them? He may not be responsible for the actions of students but he would be responsible for the administration's response to them. Unless one assumes the students were totally irrational, they targeted the president because of what the admin did or did not do in response to the actions of students.

I don't know if he was responsible because the first thing I heard about this was the football players threatening a strike. Considering it's been a local issue for months, I was hoping the sarcasm indicated a greater level of knowledge about this.
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
The bit where Wolfe is asked to define "systemic racism" is obviously a disingenuous trap because he is cornered into the dilemma of producing their precise definition - which they will take as proof that he knows the truth and has failed to do anything about it - or of producing any other definition in which case he'll be accused of ignorance and not taking the oppression seriously enough. When he predictably presented an answer not verbatim what they wanted it happened to include the word "believe" and they jumped all over that and accused him of blaming them and their beliefs for the situation.

As with JoshCrow I am not impressed with hearing about this kind of Orwellian crypto-Soviet mindset.
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
I think a news report I heard this morning summed it up nicely. Paraphrasing but;
“Does the school like Tim enough to jepordize a (multi?) million dollar football deal?”

Loved the volcano comment Josh. [Smile]

It seems we’ve decided that a ridiculously high paid (generalizing) scapegoat is necessary for out big businesses today; and this includes our schools. They are the pressure release seal on the well oiled machine. When things go bad, the seal is sacrificed and replaced and the machine is running good (or bad) as new in no time.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
I've tried to follow the story, but the details are a little unclear as to the extent of racism and the lack of a formal response. Racism exists everywhere, and Missouri has had its share of problems and public exposure lately.

I'm sure there is racism on that campus to some degree, and I'm sure it's not addressed as aggressively as it could be, but how is it different on that campus than on others, and how serious a problem is it?

Assuming it rose to the level where the President was blocking meaningful resolution of the long-standing issue, what should the new President do and how will s/he be held accountable? I lived there for 6 years and know that this is *not* a bleeding heart liberal state.
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
Even if he was addressing it through policy AI, and I'm not sure whether he was or not, what he wasn't doing was making public statements about it and addressing the problem and generating publicity about it sufficiently enough for a vocal group, including in particular a significant portion their football team.

That alone seems to be trending towards justification for public relation hostage taking if not scapegoat firings.

The anecdotal incidents cited were quite bad in the report I heard. What a president could do to dissuade them I don't know. People put a high premium on being told convincingly everything is going to be OK.

[ November 09, 2015, 01:29 PM: Message edited by: D.W. ]
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 2450) on :
 
The students seem to believe quite strongly that Wolfe was responsible for something and not just the usual suspects from the more... activism oriented faculties. I wouldn't think a college football team was a hangout of radical social justice types.
 
Posted by JoshCrow (Member # 6048) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
The students seem to believe quite strongly that Wolfe was responsible for something and not just the usual suspects from the more... activism oriented faculties. I wouldn't think a college football team was a hangout of radical social justice types.

Well, such is the power of identity politics in the 21st century. It's hard to resist the pull.

Check out this letter from the Student Association calling for Mr. Wolfe's resignation. A surface reading wouldn't alert anybody, but a close reading reveals a lot of manipulation of language.

[ November 09, 2015, 01:55 PM: Message edited by: JoshCrow ]
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
Let's just hope that those students learn the real lesson in all this. They have power.

Now if they use that power to demand more than a figurehead who parrots what they want to hear, maybe things will change for the better.
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 2450) on :
 
I can't read the letter right now but I would assume there is some substance to the Student Association's complaint since they managed to attract support from a fair number of students.

I don't think it's fair to dismiss this as identity politics. At my university there was always someone banging on a drum (sometimes literally) for the administration to do something or for whomever to resign. It never got anywhere because almost all students had something better to do. Outrage mongering is part of the background noise at university and people aren't going to commit to something as drastic (wince) as withdrawing from football because the social activist majors have their knickers in a twist again.
 
Posted by JoshCrow (Member # 6048) on :
 
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. 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.

And of course, the most pernicious thing about it is that you cannot reason with it, because its main tool is kafkatrapping whereby a dissenting voice is evidence of the problem to begin with.

Mr. Wolfe made the right decision to step down - but not for the reasons the Student Association would agree with. I think he stepped down because he realized there was no way to fight back against a kafkatrap, and I hope people look at him now and see not some racist but in fact a reasonable person who was removed to no avail.

[ November 09, 2015, 02:27 PM: Message edited by: JoshCrow ]
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
It was a critique of a policy of radio silence in the face of demands for action.

Not saying that isn't a legit gripe, but there is no "smoking gun". The guy just failed to act when people thought he should.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Patterns within law and other institutional forces that, taken indicidually or in collusion, tend to exacerbate or to preserve racial inequities.

For example, a bridge in New York City was intentionally built at a height which prevented city busses from crossing into Harlem, thus preventing a black majority area from public transport access to a number of city jobs. The height of busses and bridges is not in itself racist, but the architect's intent was, and the effect was systemic racism.

How did I do? Do I get lynched?
 
Posted by JoshCrow (Member # 6048) on :
 
Pete - if that was the architect's intent, it was plausibly "racism", but not "systemic racism". Intent is the thing.
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 2450) on :
 
Failure to act is to implicitly support the status quo. Whether or not that is sufficient to warrant summary dismissal is another question.
quote:
In the past there was no sense of needing "safe spaces" - not because there were less racists, but because people dealt with it differently.
Or because drawing attention to safe spaces were a good way to make sure ******** showed up to cause trouble. So rather there have always been a need for safe spaces but dialogue about them changes depending on how sympathetic the authorities are perceived to be.
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
What does "safe spaces" translate to in actionable policy? Was the school negligent as far as actual physical security?

Is this rather a request to be sheltered from negative or hate speech? Did actions or words go unpunished when they crossed a line or were they dealt with but not publicly and loudly condemned?

To me this seems a group utilizing their political power because an individual refused to utilize their political power. You can't say that public relations is just nonsense feel good rubbish. It did after all just get a man fired. It is obviously an instrument of change.

Also I'd like to note that, "Failure to act is to implicitly support the status quo." is an exceedingly irritating statement to anyone who was brainwashed early on with themes of personal responsibility. Facing repercussions for things you do wrong comes with an implicit understanding (though naïve) that you aren't punished for wrong things you didn't do. I get that inaction can, in some cases be cowardly, but the theme of "You're either with us or against us" is permeating (and corrupting) nearly every aspect of our lives. But that's probably just my privilege talking. [Razz]

[ November 09, 2015, 02:48 PM: Message edited by: D.W. ]
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JoshCrow:
In the past there was no sense of needing "safe spaces" - not because there were less racists, but because people dealt with it differently.

What past are you talking about and what do you mean by "dealt with differently"?
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
I can't read the letter right now but I would assume there is some substance to the Student Association's complaint since they managed to attract support from a fair number of students.

I don't think it's fair to dismiss this as identity politics.

The letter itself makes precisely one specific reference to what Wolfe failed to do:

"We have asked the University to create spaces of healing and it has failed to do so. Every student's ability to learn is now affected and threatened by the campus climate. "

The second sentence, grammatically, implies that the simple act of failing to create safe zones (or whatever they're called) makes the campus threatening. Like hell this isn't about identity politics. How about this gem:

"Tim Wolfe [...] symbolizes the leadership of this community. This leadership has undeniably failed us and the students that we represent. He has not only enabled a culture of racism since the start of his tenure in 2012, but blatantly ignored and disrespected the concerns of the students."

So since he's a "symbol" he has to resign. A nice symbolic firing. And let's not forget he's enabled a culture of racism as well...they don't go as far as to call him a racist verbatim but they certainly imply it. It sounds me to me like this guy was basically lynched for not giving them their precious safe space. If this is the case then it's simple hostage mentality: say and do exactly what we want or there will be trouble. Crypto-Soviet control dogma: check.

quote:
Originally posted by JoshCrow:
And of course, the most pernicious thing about it is that you cannot reason with it, because its main tool is kafkatrapping whereby a dissenting voice is evidence of the problem to begin with.

For reference:

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=2122
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 2450) on :
 
See, the language is why I think there's actual substance to the complaints about the atmosphere on campus. Blathering about "spaces of healing" and "enabling a culture of racism" hardly seems likely to mobilize football players. And the timing suggests it was the football players that caused the resignation, not the SA's letter. This was apparently going on for months but the national media only noticed when the football players threatened to strike.
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
Because suddenly it was a financial issue for the school. They were on the hook for an upcoming event which would cost them in the form of a fine if the game didn't happen.

It sounds like there ARE issues on campus that are getting out of hand. The question is if firing the president is a proper response because HE SPECIFICALY was an obstruction to what needs to happen.

Was this a well targeted expression of power or a lashing out at the most visible target out of frustration?

The act of "doing SOMETHING" is seductive, regardless of if it ends up being something effective.
 
Posted by JoshCrow (Member # 6048) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by JoshCrow:
In the past there was no sense of needing "safe spaces" - not because there were less racists, but because people dealt with it differently.

What past are you talking about and what do you mean by "dealt with differently"?
I'm talking mostly about the time I grew up in (the 90's-early aughts), pre social-networking and the current wave of social justice advocacy.

By "dealt with it differently" I mean "dealt directly with the offenders" (i.e. the people who hurled the ephithets / drew the swastikas), either through confrontation or adjudication (where laws were broken) or even just managing somehow to get by despite there being jerks in the world. That was a Culture of Dignity response. We are now in a Culture of Victimhood.

[ November 09, 2015, 03:10 PM: Message edited by: JoshCrow ]
 
Posted by JoshCrow (Member # 6048) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
Blathering about "spaces of healing" and "enabling a culture of racism" hardly seems likely to mobilize football players.

See, that offends me. You think just because I'm a football player doesn't mean I can think about these things?

You, sir, are using lazy stereotypes about football players. I demand you resign, at once, for failing to create a safe space for me on this thread.
 
Posted by JoshCrow (Member # 6048) on :
 
A more detailed timeline of events.
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
quote:
October 1 -- A second "Racism Lives Here rally" is held on campus. "White silence is violence, no justice no peace," protesters chanted, according to a report by the Columbia Missourian newspaper.
quote:
Loftin issues a statement the next day, saying "racism is clearly alive at Mizzou." "What we have done is not enough. Every member of our community must help us change our culture," he said.
What we were talking about. But then there's this relating to them blocking his car trying to force him to respond, which he did not:
quote:
Head, the student body president, later posted that Wolfe "smiled and laughed" during the protest. "He laughed," Head wrote. "In our faces. This is your president. This is America. 2015."
The last part at least, is directly targeting him for something he did wrong. Assuming he was laughing AT them rather than trying to enjoy the parade despite this confrontation? No clue on the details here. Maybe he is tonedeaf and ignorant of or dismissive of those he is suppose to be serving. The coverage and demands seem to allow for any old scapegoat to be interchangeable.

[ November 09, 2015, 03:35 PM: Message edited by: D.W. ]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
"Head, the student body president, later posted that Wolfe "smiled and laughed" during the protest. "He laughed," Head wrote. "In our faces. This is your president. This is America. 2015."

That sounds like one dangerous son of a bitch. Cut from the same cloth as kkk lynchers, Robbespierre, and Pol Pot. That's a huge leap of violent logic from supposed body language. This ****er is saying pay attention to us and take us seriously or we will crucify you.

""White silence is violence''

Is there no reasonable point of origin to this story? because from what's posted here it looks like a group is protesting because college leadership has failed to grovel sufficiently and learn all the mantras.

[ November 09, 2015, 03:46 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]
 
Posted by JoshCrow (Member # 6048) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
The last part at least, is directly targeting him for something he did wrong. Assuming he was laughing AT them rather than trying to enjoy the parade despite this confrontation? No clue on the details here. Maybe he is tonedeaf and ignorant of or dismissive of those he is suppose to be serving. The coverage and demands seem to allow for any old scapegoat to be interchangeable.

I can easily imagine a school president getting out of their car in the face of an angry group and smiling and chuckling to try to de-escalate. In fact I would call it a natural (and dare I say diplomatic) human response of somebody confronted by any protesting group - you try to meet it with lightness, not your own anger or annoyance. If he had come out of his car grousing or upset - would that have been better? I submit that any response he made short of immediately surrendering would have made this Head guy upset. This is a guy who had ephithets thrown at him from some guys in a pickup truck and was so deeply affected he felt he could no longer function at school.
 
Posted by JoshCrow (Member # 6048) on :
 
Pete, I assume you didn't mean ****er with an 'n', but rather, you meant ****er with an 'f'. You ought to be cautious about such things - I almost fell out of my seat in horror when I read that post.
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
Accept he refused to get out of the car. In fact they nudged someone out of the way with the car... Police cleared the area eventually I think.

No clue if the counter part of this clash of personalities was present but that brush off was a defeat of sorts. The crime of embarrassing them through dismissiveness was probably greater than any failure to enact policies.

But that's all just rambling speculation on my part.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JoshCrow:
Pete - if that was the architect's intent, it was plausibly "racism", but not "systemic racism". Intent is the thing.

My understanding is that there was direct evidence, that the architect or planner bragged inh personal correspondence that the bridge height was set to prevent bussing to Harlem.
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by JoshCrow:
Pete - if that was the architect's intent, it was plausibly "racism", but not "systemic racism". Intent is the thing.

My understanding is that there was direct evidence, that the architect or planner bragged inh personal correspondence that the bridge height was set to prevent bussing to Harlem.
Suddenly all these ADA codes make a bit more sense given that context. Who knew us architects and engineers were such an untrustworthy spiteful lot? [Razz]
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 2450) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JoshCrow:
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
Blathering about "spaces of healing" and "enabling a culture of racism" hardly seems likely to mobilize football players.

See, that offends me. You think just because I'm a football player doesn't mean I can think about these things?

You, sir, are using lazy stereotypes about football players. I demand you resign, at once, for failing to create a safe space for me on this thread.

JoshCrow, was that intended to demonstrate anything other than it's easy to caricaturize the language of social justice?
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
That sounds like one dangerous son of a bitch. Cut from the same cloth as kkk lynchers, Robbespierre, and Pol Pot. That's a huge leap of violent logic from supposed body language. This ****er is saying pay attention to us and take us seriously or we will crucify you.

This was my impression as well.
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JoshCrow:
Check out this letter from the Student Association calling for Mr. Wolfe's resignation. A surface reading wouldn't alert anybody, but a close reading reveals a lot of manipulation of language.

That letter was utter garbage, outrage and accusation without any wrongdoing.
quote:
For example, a bridge in New York City was intentionally built at a height which prevented city busses from crossing into Harlem, thus preventing a black majority area from public transport access to a number of city jobs. The height of busses and bridges is not in itself racist, but the architect's intent was, and the effect was systemic racism.

How did I do? Do I get lynched?

For example, five identical bridges are built in NYC, one that serves black majority Harlem and the others serving white majority areas. Wait, that's racist, don't you know there are less cars in Harlem that your are systematically discriminating against us by providing more value to the white neighborhoods?

What, you're also going to increase the public transit across the bridge to Harlem at the same time. Don't you know that you are being racist with your offensive conclusion that there are less cars in Harlem and more need for public transport (nevermind what I just said above).

What, you've decided to reallocate those funds into a low interest loan program to fund more cars in Harlem? Don't you know its racist to ask about income and ability to repay, and by the way it's racist to give us cars when Harlem is systematically underserved by parking garages, and this is just a way to impose additional parking fees and fines that you're disproportionately imposing in Harlem.
 
Posted by JoshCrow (Member # 6048) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
JoshCrow, was that intended to demonstrate anything other than it's easy to caricaturize the language of social justice?

Actually I thought it served to demonstrate how easily one can run afoul of them. Your comment, which I trust you felt was innocuous, was actually stereotyping football players - a very real stereotype that they deal with! I teach athletes in an engineering program, and believe me, they hear this all the time. Even you, who are ostensibly here (I think) in defense of a social justice warrior activity, could find yourself impaled on their very arguments.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
3 Lessons From University of Missouri President Tim Wolfe’s Resignation
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Indeed. NH's tendency towards reasonableness and responding to what the other side are actually saying may cause him trouble with the leftwing. And truth be told, though on this forum I struggle more with some lefties, I lost my own professorship because of a conservative jerk vice dean who was pissed I'd protested the firing of a pro choice professor. Dishonest powermongering jagoff.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
3 Lessons From University of Missouri President Tim Wolfe’s Resignation

thank you, Kate!

Josh, from my perspective Kate is kicking your butt in this argument. some of the early assertions are weak on backup but there's still enough there to mop you up here.

But I hope that students dont do the Bush mission accomplished dance. If what the Nation described really is their struggle, then Tom Wolfe is just a token victory. Neither necessary nor in the long run significant. This isnt a game won by scoring points.

[ November 09, 2015, 04:37 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
That was indeed a decent read, linked by kmbboots. Good to see the math involved.
But in what way are she and Josh even arguing?

[ November 09, 2015, 04:44 PM: Message edited by: D.W. ]
 
Posted by JoshCrow (Member # 6048) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
3 Lessons From University of Missouri President Tim Wolfe’s Resignation

From the article:
quote:
When asked about “systematic oppression,” you can’t say “Systematic oppression is when you don’t believe that you have the equal opportunity for success,” as if marginalized students are just making up the slurs, the vandalism, and the general feeling of being unsafe on their own campus.
BZZZttt... WRONG! You said "the general feeling of being unsafe on their own campus". We're sorry, but the correct words were "being unsafe on their own campus". They aren't just "feeling" it - it is real!

Gotcha! Thanks for playing, though.

[ November 09, 2015, 05:04 PM: Message edited by: JoshCrow ]
 
Posted by JoshCrow (Member # 6048) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:


Josh, from my perspective Kate is kicking your butt in this argument. some of the early assertions are weak on backup but there's still enough there to mop you up here.

I, too, do not see how Kate and I are arguing, or on what topic. I might add that one thing I liked in this article was that it rightly points out that universities are overinvested in sports (to the detriment of other things) and they reap what they sow.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
You have a point vs the pcspeak that speaks of VOP (Very Oppressed Peoples) feelings as indisputable facts.

Hope Kate responds. I'll get popcorn
 
Posted by Mynnion (Member # 5287) on :
 
I find it telling that the faculty and coach also felt that there was enough of an issue to threaten not to work.

I think there is more to all of this than we are getting in the news.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
Respond to what, exactly? I posted an article that I thought had some interesting perspective.

I don't think that there is much value in my trying to teach JoshCrow empathy.

[ November 09, 2015, 06:22 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mynnion:
I find it telling that the faculty and coach also felt that there was enough of an issue to threaten not to work.
.

It tells something, but what it tells is ambiguous. Faculty and coach could have responded to threats, and student language is consistent with that sort of extortion. NDAs with high compensation could stop dean from disclosing his side. But cant think of any way that a whole university movement could be prevented from spilling facts favorable to their side through the internet.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Is it too much to expect students and university professors to articulate the facts favorable to their side on the internet?
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Respond to what, exactly? I posted an article that I thought had some interesting perspective.

I don't think that there is much value in my trying to teach JoshCrow empathy.

If people you dont know tell you they feel unsafe but dont tell you why you are supposed to feel empathy?

I'll bet dollars to donuts I score higher on empathy tests than most people you know, Kate; I'm a bleeding heart. But sympathize with a bare text claim that unnamed people feel unsafe? That's not a case for empathy but for gullibility. Empathy is evoked through perception of facts. Subjective facts shaped by feelings. Empathy isnt about laughing or crying on cue likw some emotional porn star trying to get the money shot.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-squeaky-wheel/201103/how-test-your-empathy

And yes, I also suffer from low testosterone which accounts for my short term memory lapses, sometimes forgetting which Ornerian I am talking to, and also for my fondness for minivans [Smile]
 
Posted by JoshCrow (Member # 6048) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:

I don't think that there is much value in my trying to teach JoshCrow empathy.

It saddens me that you think this of me - one of the two pillars of my belief system concerns having empathy. The other pillar is the practice of reason to search for the truth. I have come to believe that neither of these should be practiced in the absence of the other.

Like Pete, I suspect that I understand and value empathy better than you would believe.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Some of the facts in Kate's nation article are persuasive to me:

"You cannot, as Wolfe’s supporters bragged when he was brought on in 2012, “run the university like a tech company.” You can’t raise tuition and slash funding for things like health-insurance subsidies while pushing a $72 million expansion of the school’s football stadium. When asked about “systematic oppression,” you can’t say “Systematic oppression is when you don’t believe that you have the equal opportunity for success,” You cannot, as Wolfe’s supporters bragged when he was brought on in 2012, “run the university like a tech company.” You can’t raise tuition and slash funding for things like health-insurance subsidies while pushing a $72 million expansion of the school’s football stadium."

Yeah, that jerks my knee as a bleeding heart. University as tech company? what a whore.

In this context, I do feel some outrage at his statement about systematic opression:

" When asked about “systematic oppression,” you can’t say “Systematic oppression is when *you don’t believe* that you have the equal opportunity for success,”

Systematic aint about belief. Aint about feeling. And yet the analysis in the article seems as off base and almost as dense as Wolfe's techco fantasy.

"as if marginalized students are just making up the slurs, the vandalism, and the general feeling of being unsafe on their own campus."

Ok, there are facts here, just buried in lefto bullcrap. SLURS and VANDALISM. If the writer was an empath, the emphasis would have been on details that evoke sympathy rather than gassing on the vague. Pseudostatistical fart in the direction of "generalized unease"

[ November 09, 2015, 08:57 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]
 
Posted by JoshCrow (Member # 6048) on :
 
Well, let me ask a pointed question - if there's a community out there feeling unease because of (I presume) the actions of a few individuals, wouldn't the logical course of action be to pursue the individuals?

Vandalism is a crime - there are punishments for that, and presumably a process. There sure is on the campus I work at.

Slurs - well, not illegal, but not beyond an institution's ability to discipline. I think certain slurs are obvious enough that reasonable people could agree to what they are, although others walk a finer line.

I get the distinct impression that this is about more than merely prosecuting such behaviors, though. I presume that what this community wants is not really 'justice' for specific wrongdoings, but conformity and some official, unambiguous acknowledgement of their status as victims, with the moral high ground that accompanies that.

Pete - you say you felt some outrage at the president's comment. Consider that being able to question someone else's narrative, even of their own pain, is not merely a right but an essential element of finding truth. If you encountered a soldier with PTSD, who was suffering because of acute stresses on their life, would you conclude that the best treatment for them was to honor their PTSD-generated feelings and remove them from all stressors? or would a better treatment be for them to learn how to handle inevitable stressors that come with their condition? Is one of those responses somehow less "empathic" than others? Both come from a place of caring about their problem - but one approach is governed by a desire to soften the person's experiences and the other by a desire to improve their resilience.

Changing the world vs. changing the man/woman. It's not always obvious which to choose. Sometimes you can't do the former, so it's fine to think about the latter.
 
Posted by JoshCrow (Member # 6048) on :
 
For those wanting more proof that there is something rotten going on in here, have a look at how journalists at the scene are being treated. Is this what "liberalism" means and looks like now?
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
JoshCrow's example had a letter attached to it. Let's look at another recent example - this one at Yale - with a very short video to watch instead:

https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/3s4y41/the_kind_of_little_pricks_that_american/

I've done an unusual thing for Ornery in linking to another forum like Reddit, but this will allow you to both click on the video easily and also to sort comments by "Best" and to find the text of the offending email maybe three pages down, after some top comments that are fairly thoughtful.

The shrill tone of the protester, the silencing effect of the message that no one had anything valid to say but her, and the formulation of her statements as outright demands all make the protester sound like a lunatic to me. As some of the Redditors mention, if she's that upset about the Halloween email it means she needs care from a mental health expert. It's not that it's not valid for her to be upset in some sense at the content of the email; it's the degree to which some people claimed it incapacitated them and make them unable to live properly.

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.
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JoshCrow:
For those wanting more proof that there is something rotten going on in here, have a look at how journalists at the scene are being treated. Is this what "liberalism" means and looks like now?

Oh god those tweets...so painful to read. The thinking that goes into such comments are so alien to me that it's actually somewhat scary.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
"Pete - you say you felt some outrage at the president's comment. Consider that being able to question someone else's narrative, even of their own pain, is not merely a right but an essential element of finding truth. If you encountered a soldier with PTSD, who was suffering because of acute stresses on their life, would you conclude that the best treatment for them was to honor their PTSD-generated feelings and remove them from all stressors? or would a better treatment be for them to learn how to handle inevitable stressors that come with their condition? Is one of those responses somehow less "empathic" than others? Both come from a place of caring about their problem - but one approach is governed by a desire to soften the person's experiences and the other by a desire to improve their resilience."

Agreed on a right to question one"s narrative, and the Nationis wrong to gripe on that, but that wasnt my gripe.

His interjection of "feel" into that sentence is a mockery of the very possibility of objectivity. If asked what systematic oppression means, he should either have refused to answer the question, or cited a source quote. Not mocked the question. If a cop was accused of mishandling rape cases, and publicly defined rape as "when YOU FEEL that a guy has stuck his dick in you without your consent, my first reaction would be "fire this nimrod.'
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Good night. Left wing totalitarians. "what's so hard about doing what we want'?

Bastards. It's a public space, created by public money, and they create a public controversy within that space, and then demand to control journalism within that space under the name of "privacy"?

Kudos for finding this in a NYT article, hardlly a conservative paper ....

It certainly makes me dubious about their claims about slurs and vandalism, let alone the reasonableness of their "feelings" of unsafeness.
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
His interjection of "feel" into that sentence is a mockery of the very possibility of objectivity. If asked what systematic oppression means, he should either have refused to answer the question, or cited a source quote. Not mocked the question.

I suspect he phrased it like that not to suggest that oppression is a matter of belief (as in, something you just choose to believe, like a fantasy) but rather to use "belief" in the context where a person has some data available and forms a belief that they think fits the facts. Another word for this is hypothesis, but linguistically "belief" fits as well. Taken in this light his statement would mean "I know your assessment of the facts is that you don't have equal opportunities," which is very different from just groveling to them and stating unequivocally (as they wanted) that they don't have equal opportunities. His version allows for the possibility that they're right about their assessment, or wrong, but if you take away the word "believe" then it becomes an absolute fact that is incontestable.

Let's get to the point, Pete, these people were not going to tolerate any kind of statement that allowed for even the possibility that their assessment was wrong or exaggerated.

[ November 10, 2015, 01:44 AM: Message edited by: Fenring ]
 
Posted by jasonr (Member # 969) on :
 
quote:
JoshCrow, was that intended to demonstrate anything other than it's easy to caricaturize the language of social justice?
I actually struggle to even imagine what a caricature of social justice discourse would look like. The type of thinking on display here is a grotesque farce, the very decinition of caricature.

Like Fenring and Joshcrow, this kind of thinking is alien to me. I have an easier time understanding the thought process of a suicide bomber.

The only consolation is that these social justice types always eat each other sooner or later. Their mental disease is terminal.
 
Posted by Rafi (Member # 6930) on :
 
quote:
Like Fenring and Joshcrow, this kind of thinking is alien to me. I have an easier time understanding the thought process of a suicide bomber.
I'm find this interesting. It should not be alien to any of you. We have seen this over and over again in the 20th century and such thinking is entirely predictable.
 
Posted by Rafi (Member # 6930) on :
 
quote:
The only consolation is that these social justice types always eat each other sooner or later. Their mental disease is terminal.
That is true, it's terminal. But it's whit they eat first along the way that should worry you. They eat each other last.
 
Posted by JoshCrow (Member # 6048) on :
 
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"?

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...

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.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
Yes, yes, let's all whine about black people some more, shall we?
 
Posted by Rafi (Member # 6930) on :
 
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.
The goal has been and remains the latter. This is always the means to totalitarianism and, with just a little historical perspective, the intent has been obvious.

Here's something else in 20 years these kids will be in influential positions. You will have them gerrymandered into office, running media outlets, dictating your thoughts and actions. How's that gonna work out for us?
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
Yes, let us continue to mong some fear about the motivations and rationales of people we just said we don't understand, find more alien than suicide bombers, and consider incoherent. They're incoherent, but they've got a master plan.

*rolls eyes*
Dudes, do you not understand how badly this sort of thing makes you come off? I mean, seriously?
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Yes, yes, let's all whine about black people some more, shall we?

Tom recolors the world to suit his racist outrage scheme. First he pretends a latin man is white, now a nordic blond professor is "black." what happened to Clinton was pure racism too. I mean he was raised by a single mother and all. How black is that? No wonder KKKeneth Starks name starts with a k.

It's racist to expect university students and faculty to act like educated people when they are in a public space they have claimed for their own.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
Ah, Pete, if you want to whine exclusively about the white professor, go right ahead. It doesn't make you look bad at all.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
His interjection of "feel" into that sentence is a mockery of the very possibility of objectivity. If asked what systematic oppression means, he should either have refused to answer the question, or cited a source quote. Not mocked the question.

I suspect he phrased it like that not to suggest that oppression is a matter of belief (as in, something you just choose to believe, like a fantasy) but rather to use "belief" in the context where a person has some data available and forms a belief that they think fits the facts. Another word for this is hypothesis, but linguistically "belief" fits as well. Taken in this light his statement would mean "I know your assessment of the facts is that you don't have equal opportunities," which is very different from just groveling to them and stating unequivocally (as they wanted) that they don't have equal opportunities. His version allows for the possibility that they're right about their assessment, or wrong, but if you take away the word "believe" then it becomes an absolute fact that is incontestable.

Let's get to the point, Pete, these people were not going to tolerate any kind of statement that allowed for even the possibility that their assessment was wrong or exaggerated.

Well.if he was already sucking up to them to that degree then he deserves to be fired. The place sounds like a bleeding hole sucking taxpayer money out into a vaccuum. Football player entitlement meet power to the people. "how hard is it for you people to just do what we say?" wow. What a glorious manifesto for human progress. What a capstone for our ublic education system. Toss away freedom of the press, accountability to the people... The public space has become the private space of the fooball player groupies.

King Wept. Douglass wept. Tubman wept.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Ah, Pete, if you want to whine exclusively about the white professor, go right ahead. It doesn't make you look bad at all.

Dont have data so she's the only face I have seen from the vid. The quotes I responded to are text, which has no race.

Are you claiming that "how hard is it for you people to just do what we want" is a somehow black sort of stupidity and I "look bad" for saying that such thought should not govern a university?

Screw how it looks. Do you ever give a floundering **** about right and wrong. Tom? for you would rape and murder be ok as long as you managed to LOOK good doing it?

And for a few months you actually had me convinced yhou werent a nihilist.

[ November 10, 2015, 09:26 AM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Yes, let us continue to mong some fear about the motivations and rationales of people we just said we don't understand, find more alien than suicide bombers, and consider incoherent. They're incoherent, but they've got a master plan.

*rolls eyes*
Dudes, do you not understand how badly this sort of thing makes you come off? I mean, seriously?

So bringing up points that appear problematic makes someone a "whiner"? And pointing out that the methods a group is using are problematic makes people "come off badly" (I assume by this you mean bigoted)? The only conclusion is that any response to groups such as we're describing other than total compliance and agreement is that we're bad and whining. Do you not see how this line of thought parallels that of the protesters?

I would suggest that however much you may agree with their messages or ideas, that does not have to translate into also validating their methods and rhetoric. I, personally, would denounce in a second someone who believed all the things I believed and behaved how these people behave. Likewise I'd stand by someone who disagreed with me about everything and was a bastion of honor.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
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?

AI: Please see your email. -OrneryMod

[ November 10, 2015, 06:41 PM: Message edited by: OrneryMod ]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Dont you understand, Fenring? Tom is speaking for the New Generation. There is no need for logic or coherent thought or reasoning. New is better. Old thinking people are just bigots who need to shut up, bend over, drink the pepsi and do what they are told.

Pete: Please see your email. -OrneryMod

[ November 10, 2015, 06:44 PM: Message edited by: OrneryMod ]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
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.

Pete: Please see your email. -OrneryMod

[ November 10, 2015, 06:46 PM: Message edited by: OrneryMod ]
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 2450) on :
 
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?

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.
 
Posted by JoshCrow (Member # 6048) on :
 
This thread was much better before personal attacks poured into it...
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
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. .

Yes. I absolutely respect their right to be hostile to the press. I also think that college students and professors should be expected to act hostile to the press wiithout acting like mindless thugs. Just as I am hostile to Tom without acting like a mindless thug. Even Tom manages to convey his hostility anyone who dares convey a message that he disagrees with, without acting like a mindless thug. I think he pulls off the Smug DMV employee face quite effectively.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
quote:
Originally posted by JoshCrow:
For those wanting more proof that there is something rotten going on in here, have a look at how journalists at the scene are being treated. Is this what "liberalism" means and looks like now?

Oh god those tweets...so painful to read. The thinking that goes into such comments are so alien to me that it's actually somewhat scary.
As best I can tell, Tom's rationale for implying that you are racist for criticizing the tweets goes like this: the stupidity of the tweets suggests that the tweeters are black therefore you are racist for whining about them. Being anti stupid is systeemically racist
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by jasonr (Member # 969) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Yes, yes, let's all whine about black people some more, shall we?

I'm amused at your implication that black people are at the vanguard of social justice movements. The vast majority of this group is formed by privileged whites.
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
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!
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by ScottF (Member # 6897) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
"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.)
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 2450) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by ScottF (Member # 6897) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 2450) on :
 
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]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
"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.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
"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.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
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.!
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
"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 ]
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
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?"
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
I think my use of that reference makes it obvious that I am specifically not holding it up as a positive example.
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Rafi (Member # 6930) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
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. ]
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
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?"
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by JoshCrow (Member # 6048) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Rafi (Member # 6930) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
It's meme time, apparently. Try to parse events with a little more discernment.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by jasonr (Member # 969) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
" 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?
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Fenring, Pyr doesnt use words like "suggest." He says the words "take offense" are an OUTRIGHT FALSEHOOD. [DOH]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by jasonr (Member # 969) on :
 
Fenring I think you are giving Pyr too much credit here.
 
Posted by Rafi (Member # 6930) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
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".)
 
Posted by Rafi (Member # 6930) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Rafi (Member # 6930) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by JoshCrow (Member # 6048) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
"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.
 
Posted by JoshCrow (Member # 6048) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
So you agree with the first professor? Would you had students actually been shot?
 
Posted by JoshCrow (Member # 6048) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by JoshCrow (Member # 6048) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
"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.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
"
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.
 
Posted by JoshCrow (Member # 6048) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
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. ]
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
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.

When a point is based on false premises, it's impossible to address that point without implicitly accepting the false premise. So yes, I will continue to challenge your lack of understanding when you demonstrate it instead of going down an irrelevant rabbit hole.

It seems that I'm pretty clearly pointing you your lack of understanding here, since you've gotten the message; I'm not sure what's vague about it.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:

Is there a sale on straw? You've erected quite a strawman there..

It's quite possible, since social security doesnt cover all my meds, that you are a figment of my imagination. I confess that I have in my history created false sigs that had more depth than the persona you show here, and that I have the skill and perversity to have created you as a false persona or straw man. I have created D&D nonplayer characters who make you look flat and mangaesque in comparison. But I honestly believe that you are a real person. Sadly I have known actual university professors who never stray from the flat singleminded, emotionally frigid and empathically dead sort of arguments that you offer here. I am 99% sure that you have independent existence and are not a straw man of my invention. If I discover otherwise I will promptly I promise to promptly report myself to the moderator who remin ded me only yesterday that creating false personas is a breach of Ornery's rules.

You actually have me worried now. I have to admit that you are fast becoming such a nemesis that if you did not exist, I might have been compelled to invent you ...

Sigh

/jk
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
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.
No they don't. As an outsider to this issue, it's _your_ responsibility to educate yourself if you want to understand it, not their job to bow you your whims. If hey were asking you for help it would be one thing, but they're not talking to you, they're talking to the people involved with and that have some bearing on their situation.

If you care to understand, then make the earnest effort to investigate and understand. If you don't care to understand and instead just want to dictate to them how they should behave to please you instead of just staying out, then you're clearly taken a stance that their interests here are subservient you your desires.
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
You lack understanding!

So enlighten me...

No! You obviously lack understanding.

[Smile]
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
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.
He very explicitly did, at a point well past where any even basic understanding of the concept would have made it clear that hanging the entire concept on belief rather than the actual way the system is structured is actively demeaning and belittling. And again, you're taking the statement here in isolation, and not as the last straw in a situation that had been building and for a while because he wasn't addressing it.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
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?
_.

But that's obviously not what he was doing. The rioters (because that's what they are when they use violence without explanation like the Boston Tea Party) consistently cliam the right to "create" reality and feel things into existence. Here the poor spineless son of a bitch was just trying to parrot back to them what he thought they wanted. I agree he should be sacked for the statement. For trying to bend right and wrong to the will of the mob.

Systemic racism has nothing to do with whether the victims "feel" oppressed. The most oppressed people are the ones who have been conditioned to truly, truly love Big Brother.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
You lack understanding!

So enlighten me...

No! You obviously lack understanding.

[Smile]

Conservatives do this emperor's new clothes crap too. Some of them in my family. Such mindless authority abuse is a crime aagainst humanity.
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
What violence are you referring to Pete? Surrounding his car and refusing to move?
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
You lack understanding!

So enlighten me...

No! You obviously lack understanding.

[Smile]

Hey if someone actualyl asks a clear question that show an honest desire to better understand a given situation, I'll take my best hack at it if I can, but ultimately going to the sources and digging up the answers to those questions is your responsibility here, not mine.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
What violence are you referring to Pete? Surrounding his car and refusing to move?

That's one. What they did with the press is another.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
The rioters (because that's what they are when they use violence without explanation like the Boston Tea Party) consistently cliam the right to "create" reality and feel things into existence.
Making such vague and inaccurate accusations isn't doing much for my confidence that you're actualyl asking any earnest questions to try to understand the situation, but rather seem to be trying to impose the narrative that you want to be addressing to the situation.
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
I'm already a horrible person for participating in these discussions to the level I do while at work.

Despite how fruitless some of our discussions on this site appear to the participants I readily admit I lean heavily on the participants here to flush out nuisance in current events or debunk prevailing BS someone is pedaling.

If it makes you feel good to pull the, "I know something you don't know" routine, I won't grudge you that small pleasure. I may still poke fun at you for the childish act though as that is sometimes how I entertain myself.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
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 imagine they meant a forum that didn't necessarily need to be tied to a specific location. Heck, it could be a weekly meeting where ever reasonable space was available, but the important defining characteristic would be that they could control oppressive factors that would prevent them from feeling prevented from speaking freely or otherwise subject to potential harm.

But given the nature of the danger that was evident here, it wouldn't be unreasonable if they were even asking for a dedicated administrative office where they could come to find a place where they were safe from such threats and could be sure that their concerns were actually heard and acted on rather than disappearing into the shuffle of a system that doesn't respect them.

quote:
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.
I thought our context here was pointing out the damaging nature of the Pocahontas costume earlier, but if you want to talk about this situation, you seem to be crossing over the fact that the football players at the core of it that forced action were black. they weren't the white players taking up the cause. Ar you basing you assertion that white people were the driving force here on anything aside from media depictions that happen to feature white people?
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
The rioters (because that's what they are when they use violence without explanation like the Boston Tea Party) consistently cliam the right to "create" reality and feel things into existence.
Making such vague and inaccurate accusations isn't doing much for my confidence that you're actualyl asking any earnest questions to try to understand the situation, but rather seem to be trying to impose the narrative that you want to be addressing to the situation.
Making such vague and inaccurate accusations against me, as you have always done when you disagree with me, does little to persuade me you care to know where I stand. Much easier to impose on me some pre-cut stereotype that you got from fellow believers.


Feel free to borrow my less wordy, more cutting version.

Also, It was Tom, not me, that introduced the Boston Tea Party comparison to this thread. And I bet you dollars to whatever politically correct professors use for donuts this season, that if we trowl Google for comparisons of the Mizou movement to the Boston tea party, that most of the writers will have meant it as a freaking COMPLIMENT.

[ November 11, 2015, 03:44 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
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.
You seem to be conflating intelligence with ignorance here. And even more resting on the false assumption that pure intelligence can somehow substitution for education and experience.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Also, It was Tom, not me, that introduced the Boston Tea Party comparison to this thread. And I bet you dollars to whatever politically correct professors use for donuts this season, that if we trowl Google for comparisons of the Mizou movement to the Boston tea party, that most of the writers will have meant it as a freaking COMPLIMENT.
And I was talking about what you said, regardless of the parallel. The Tea party comparison is completely irrelevant to what I said, especially because the level of force involved amounts to refusing to move or allow someone who was asked to leave to pass by a point where they weren't welcome.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
That said, had they actualyl attacked anyone, as you're suggesting they did, then they they'd certainly be best off communicating whatever the intended message was tot their intended audience, as well as to any law enforcement that has jurisdiction, but they still wouldn't actively own anything to anyone that wasn't directly affected by their actions or part of their intended audience.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Thank you for engaging part of what I said.

What about surrounding a person's vihicle and not. Letting them leave?

I have not watched the video to see whether it occurred in a public space like a college pavillion, or an arguably private space like a college dorm. If the latter then I will acknowledge that you are not BSing. But your use of passive voice as if to avoid mentioning facts dispositive to whether the protesters had a reasonable expectation of privacy. That's a typical tactic of those in power to use language to shift blame and responsibility from where it belongs. See Revising Prose by Richard Landham.
 
Posted by JoshCrow (Member # 6048) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
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, 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.

Did you just basically silence me from expressing any opinion on this topic (lest I be "dictating" what someone should do, as you say)? Are you comfortable saying this topic should therefore not be discussed by anyone who disagrees with your position?

[ November 11, 2015, 04:30 PM: Message edited by: JoshCrow ]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Well of course I acknowledge that the temporary forceful detention of trapping someone in their car is FAR less egregious than butning half someone's skin off. Just like pinching a stranger's ass on a crowded subway is less egregious that Serbian rape camps. I thought that went without saying.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Thank you for engaging part of what I said.

What about surrounding a person's vihicle and not. Letting them leave?

I have not watched the video to see whether it occurred in a public space like a college pavillion, or an arguably private space like a college dorm. If the latter then I will acknowledge that you are not BSing. But your use of passive voice as if to avoid mentioning facts dispositive to whether the protesters had a reasonable expectation of privacy. That's a typical tactic of those in power to use language to shift blame and responsibility from where it belongs. See Revising Prose by Richard Landham.

Do you mean when students stopped the president's car? It was during the Homecoming parade. Here is more information:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/tim-wolfe-homecoming-parade_56402cc8e4b0307f2cadea10

[ November 11, 2015, 04:45 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
To be fair, when one of the criticisms of the whole situation has been ambiguous reporting and not having "the full picture", claims of violence tend to raise eyebrows. The "detention" of someone being violence feels like the forum equivalent of Facebook clickbait. [Razz]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
"
I have not watched the video to see whether it occurred in a public space like a college pavillion, or an arguably private space like a college dorm. If the latter then I will acknowledge that you are not BSing."

Originally this was lack of cell data, but then Tom started calling me and others racist for my response to text utterances which as far as I knew came from the Nordic blonde professor who was the only face I had seen in the mess. So I've forgone viewing of any pics and am judging this on text, just to frustrate Tom.

Also, Pyr, if you really had read the thread before leaping in, you might have noticed I was initially persuaded by the Nation article until other facts came in.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
To be fair, when one of the criticisms of the whole situation has been ambiguous reporting and not having "the full picture", claims of violence tend to raise eyebrows. The "detention" of someone being violence feels like the forum equivalent of Facebook clickbait. [Razz]

I am not saying they should be prosecuted for it. I am simply calling bullcrap on the claim that I dont have the right to ask why the students did it. It's a very mild use of force, I concede. But if you exercise force in public you dont get to cry that your reasons are private and none of anyone's business.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Thank you for engaging part of what I said.

What about surrounding a person's vihicle and not. Letting them leave?

I have not watched the video to see whether it occurred in a public space like a college pavillion, or an arguably private space like a college dorm. If the latter then I will acknowledge that you are not BSing. But your use of passive voice as if to avoid mentioning facts dispositive to whether the protesters had a reasonable expectation of privacy. That's a typical tactic of those in power to use language to shift blame and responsibility from where it belongs. See Revising Prose by Richard Landham.

Do you mean when students stopped the president's car? It was during the Homecoming parade.
Thank you for bringing to light a relevant fact. But they publicly cite the president's failure to come out and meet with them during that event as cause for his termination. So since they cite their blocade as a public act, rather than a private prank, they owe the public an explanation.

This is a pretty basic principle I have stood for, for decades. Arguing that policed have an obligation to explain temporaqry detentions. And that a cop has no private right against being recorded while arresting or interrogating a suspect. During the Bush administration, most liberals agree with me. Does that change now that Obama's in office?
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
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.
You seem to be conflating intelligence with ignorance here. And even more resting on the false assumption that pure intelligence can somehow substitution for education and experience.
So you're admitting that you have no knowledge that this group has any special relationship with oppressed people or any special expertise on the subject (which you obviously claim you have)? If you do have that knowledge then please provide the source. If you don't then you must admit you have no basis for saying they're talking about some specialized knowledge about which I'm ignorant.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
This is a pretty basic principle I have stood for, for decades. Arguing that policed have an obligation to explain temporaqry detentions. And that a cop has no private right against being recorded while arresting or interrogating a suspect. During the Bush administration, most liberals agree with me.
That's because they empowered public officials, so the public has the obligation to audit their use of power and hold them accountable. That's not comparable to disempowered students using protest measures to gain attention from those with power.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Thank you for engaging part of what I said.

What about surrounding a person's vihicle and not. Letting them leave?

I have not watched the video to see whether it occurred in a public space like a college pavillion, or an arguably private space like a college dorm. If the latter then I will acknowledge that you are not BSing. But your use of passive voice as if to avoid mentioning facts dispositive to whether the protesters had a reasonable expectation of privacy. That's a typical tactic of those in power to use language to shift blame and responsibility from where it belongs. See Revising Prose by Richard Landham.

Do you mean when students stopped the president's car? It was during the Homecoming parade. Here is more information:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/tim-wolfe-homecoming-parade_56402cc8e4b0307f2cadea10

wonderful link, Kate. Yes, those facts are very persuadive. from your link I also found this page, which contains specific details of egregious racist harassment on campus:

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5640be14e4b0411d3071a7e8

(rolls eyes at Pyr and Tom for their outrage that I didn"t just side with the students and faculty without hearing the facts)

Under the facts of the article, I concede that the protesters there acted reasonably and that president's driver (clipping one protester) did not. It also sounds like the protesters were admirably peaceful under duress.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Thank you for engaging part of what I said.

What about surrounding a person's vihicle and not. Letting them leave?

I have not watched the video to see whether it occurred in a public space like a college pavillion, or an arguably private space like a college dorm. If the latter then I will acknowledge that you are not BSing. But your use of passive voice as if to avoid mentioning facts dispositive to whether the protesters had a reasonable expectation of privacy. That's a typical tactic of those in power to use language to shift blame and responsibility from where it belongs. See Revising Prose by Richard Landham.

Do you mean when students stopped the president's car? It was during the Homecoming parade.
Thank you for bringing to light a relevant fact. But they publicly cite the president's failure to come out and meet with them during that event as cause for his termination. So since they cite their blocade as a public act, rather than a private prank, they owe the public an explanation.

Like this one? Letter to the Missouri System Board of Curators
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
This is a pretty basic principle I have stood for, for decades. Arguing that policed have an obligation to explain temporaqry detentions. And that a cop has no private right against being recorded while arresting or interrogating a suspect. During the Bush administration, most liberals agree with me.
That's because they empowered public officials, so the public has the obligation to audit their use of power and hold them accountable. That's not comparable to disempowered students using protest measures to gain attention from those with power.
I disagree. Gandhi and MLK disagreed. Anyone who exercises force owes the public an explanation for their actions. You think private actors who feel disempowered have the right to use force without explaining their actions? Tell that to the parents of Trayvor Martin.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
So you're admitting that you have no knowledge that this group has any special relationship with oppressed people or any special expertise on the subject (which you obviously claim you have)?


I'd say that the black football players clearly understand what it's like to be black on campus, and clearly demonstrated that they have some idea of how to get attention since they successfully did it.

quote:
If you do have that knowledge then please provide the source. If you don't then you must admit you have no basis for saying they're talking about some specialized knowledge about which I'm ignorant.
I have the basis that they're out there doing it, while you're sitting here armchair quarterbacking them and making claims that they don't know what they're doing rather than giving them the basic default credit that everyone should get that they have at least as much an understanding of what they're doing as you do, absent explicit evidence otherwise.


The difference here isn't in the amount of evidence or understanding that we have, bu rather than you're asserting that they don't know what they're doing and are incompetent and not starting from the more equitable assumption that they must know what they're doing absent pressing evidence otherwise.

I don't feel that I should have to provide evidence for an equitable default assumption, while I think that if you want to denigrate them as you have been doing, you should provide some evidence to back that claim instead of just asserting that they're bad because they're not acting the way you wan them to.

And that's not even getting into how you're applying a very ambiguous "they" here that seems to be intended to let you point to some other unspecified part than the football players (and previously jumped from the specific example of Pocahontas to a vague reference to someone involved with the protest)
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Thank you for engaging part of what I said.

What about surrounding a person's vihicle and not. Letting them leave?

I have not watched the video to see whether it occurred in a public space like a college pavillion, or an arguably private space like a college dorm. If the latter then I will acknowledge that you are not BSing. But your use of passive voice as if to avoid mentioning facts dispositive to whether the protesters had a reasonable expectation of privacy. That's a typical tactic of those in power to use language to shift blame and responsibility from where it belongs. See Revising Prose by Richard Landham.

Do you mean when students stopped the president's car? It was during the Homecoming parade.
Thank you for bringing to light a relevant fact. But they publicly cite the president's failure to come out and meet with them during that event as cause for his termination. So since they cite their blocade as a public act, rather than a private prank, they owe the public an explanation.

Like this one? Letter to the Missouri System Board of Curators
Yes. Exactly. Delighted to hear that these protesters are not the masked unaccountable thugs that Tom and Pyr came to defend.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
This is a pretty basic principle I have stood for, for decades. Arguing that policed have an obligation to explain temporaqry detentions. And that a cop has no private right against being recorded while arresting or interrogating a suspect. During the Bush administration, most liberals agree with me.
That's because they empowered public officials, so the public has the obligation to audit their use of power and hold them accountable. That's not comparable to disempowered students using protest measures to gain attention from those with power.
I disagree. Gandhi and MLK disagreed. Anyone who exercises force owes the public an explanation for their actions. You think private actors who feel disempowered have the right to use force without explaining their actions? Tell that to the parents of Trayvor Martin.
And now you're shifting the goal posts, explicitly ignoring what I said above to make a false claim. I said that have an obligation to communicate with their intended audience. What makes you such a huge VIP in the University that they need to make the extra effort to account for trying to talk to you instead of focusing on getting their desired message to their desired recipients. You may as well be upset that people you don't know in a restaurant half way across the world aren't pasuing their conversation to randomly decide to text you about what they're up to. MLK and Gandhi were addressing national audiences, these students were only speaking within the context of their community, so your desire to force yourself into their conversation isn't sufficient to justify then having to bow down and capitulate you your irrelevant demands.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Yes. Exactly. Delighted to hear that these protesters are not the masked unaccountable thugs that Tom and Pyr came to defend.
Your begging the question there. You've been the one attacking them as such. I have very directly been saying otherwise, and my entire point is that it's demeaning and shows a lack of willingness to actually understand the situation when you make that assertion without evidence.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
Bear in mind that most of this would have been clear to the people who have been dealing with this for months. We are only just now seeing bits of it and those bits only because the football team got our attention.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
(rolls eyes at Pyr and Tom for their outrage that I didn"t just side with the students and faculty without hearing the facts)
Criticism that you chose to come out of the gate disparaging them and inventing attacks on them them instead of making an effort to understand the situation and their message is not outrage for not supporting them. Granting them the basic human decency of assuming that they have a complaint they're trying to make to the university isn't siding with them, it's just basic decent human treatment of others.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Under the facts of the article, I concede that the protesters there acted reasonably and that president's driver (clipping one protester) did not. It also sounds like the protesters were admirably peaceful under duress.
I't a good thing that Kate had special access to the internet to get you that information. Or wait, was it sitting out there waiting for you to find it if you had just chosen to investigate the situation before making things up about their behavior?

It would have been one thing if you had started off asking how they conducted themselves in that situation, but you asserted as a baseline that they'd been acting out of line without evidence to support that fact, despite the fact that the basic, proper assumption should be that they acted as best they could in a given situation.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
I do have easier access to most of this stuff when I am at the office. I know that, at home, it isn't nearly as easy. Especially things like the Chronicle of Higher Ed which isn't a publication that everyone gets.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
This is a pretty basic principle I have stood for, for decades. Arguing that policed have an obligation to explain temporaqry detentions. And that a cop has no private right against being recorded while arresting or interrogating a suspect. During the Bush administration, most liberals agree with me.
That's because they empowered public officials, so the public has the obligation to audit their use of power and hold them accountable. That's not comparable to disempowered students using protest measures to gain attention from those with power.
I disagree. Gandhi and MLK disagreed. Anyone who exercises force owes the public an explanation for their actions. You think private actors who feel disempowered have the right to use force without explaining their actions? Tell that to the parents of Trayvor Martin.
And now you're shifting the goal posts, explicitly ignoring what I said above to make a false claim. I said that have an obligation to communicate with their intended audience. What makes you such a huge VIP in the University that they need to make the extra effort to account for trying to talk to you instead of focusing on getting their desired message to their desired recipients. You may as well be upset that people you don't know in a restaurant half way across the world aren't pasuing their conversation to randomly decide to text you about what they're up to. MLK and Gandhi were addressing national audiences, these students were only speaking within the context of their community, so your desire to force yourself into their conversation isn't sufficient to justify then having to bow down and capitulate you your irrelevant demands.
In spite of your systematically racist assumption that the protesters didnt care what I and the rest of the world care, Kate has shown that they did care, and did answer these answers to my satisfaction. So as usual, you are wrong on the facts as well as in your basic philosophy, if it can be called such.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
I do have easier access to most of this stuff when I am at the office. I know that, at home, it isn't nearly as easy. Especially things like the Chronicle of Higher Ed which isn't a publication that everyone gets.

Then I will endeavor to stay on your good side, oh Great One. [Smile]
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
[Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
"I't a good thing that Kate had special access to the internet to get you that information"

You mean you and TomD dont have such access? puhleeze.

I used to have such access. Now I get the information by getting ihto arguments with people who have such access. LR is quite forthcoming. Tom is more like Sinbad's monkeys. You have to throw rocks at him until he throws coconuts back.

If you know an easier way I could have gotten the info, let me know.

If I had more access than a limited cell connection, I would create a site, put the info up
and create key links to bump it in the search engines. But my skills are 12 years out of date. Bet Tom could do those kids' cause a lot of good in less time than he spent on this thread wishing more of this stuff would happen on colleges.

Less noise, more message.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
I think this quote by Pyr deserves special notice:

quote:
What makes you such a huge VIP in the University that they need to make the extra effort to account for trying to talk to you instead of focusing on getting their desired message to their desired recipients.
[DOH]

If those protesters have friends like you, Pyr, who needs enemas?
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
I'd say that the black football players clearly understand what it's like to be black on campus, and clearly demonstrated that they have some idea of how to get attention since they successfully did it.

This is your answer to why you think the protesters know what they're talking about? If so, then you are directly implying that if the black football team had not gone on strike then whatever white people were involved with the protest would have been full of it. Is this accurate? You'll say it isn't, but I'm curious why. Unless you can show me that he black footballers wrote the letter we read and directly tutored the other protesters on the facts of the situation you're going to have to do better than to just name some black people involved in the protest. I'm really curious why you're so sure they are experts in some field I'm apparently ignorant in. Note again that this point is in the context of you claiming that their thought process is so beyond me that I'm unqualified to comment on it.

quote:
quote:
If you do have that knowledge then please provide the source. If you don't then you must admit you have no basis for saying they're talking about some specialized knowledge about which I'm ignorant.
I have the basis that they're out there doing it, while you're sitting here armchair quarterbacking them and making claims that they don't know what they're doing rather than giving them the basic default credit that everyone should get that they have at least as much an understanding of what they're doing as you do, absent explicit evidence otherwise.
So the only difference between them and me is that they're still in college and I'm not? Are you suggesting that unless I go back to college I won't be qualified to speak on these matters? Has it ever occurred to you that the purpose of going to college is to learn things, and that you come out knowing more than when you went in, or than you stand halfway through your program? Has it also occurred to you that I finished college many years ago and that these protesters are still in college, which by any sane calculus should mean that I know more than they do? Unless they are such prodigious learners that they can learn in 2 years what I learn in 15.

And another thing - you say I'm armchair quarterbacking while they're out there doing stuff. Did you stop to wonder whether I...did anything in college myself? Or after it? You don't know jack about my background, it's funny you attribute more expertise to a bunch of undergrads you don't know than to someone older who reads a lot.


quote:
The difference here isn't in the amount of evidence or understanding that we have, bu rather than you're asserting that they don't know what they're doing and are incompetent and not starting from the more equitable assumption that they must know what they're doing absent pressing evidence otherwise.
This is really an outrageous reversal of history. YOU are the one who told ME that I'm too ignorant to fruitfully participate in a discussion about this, and that I just don't understand what the protesters are saying. When I ask why you think they know so much more than I do your answer is to tell me I'm the one saying they don't know what they're talking about! Your logic has become quite infamous in my mind, I'll tell you. You tell me I'm ignorant and when I ask you to back it up you accuse me of calling others ignorant. Wow.

quote:
I don't feel that I should have to provide evidence for an equitable default assumption,
Oh I knew full well you wouldn't, I was just calling your bluff that you knew anything at all in particular about these protesters other than what you've read in a few articles like we have. But you're going to bat for them on principle just because they say the kind of stuff you're into. That's fine, but giving them more benefit of doubt because they're on your team than you give anyone here is about as partisan as it gets and I'd enjoy it if you owned up to that.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
"I't a good thing that Kate had special access to the internet to get you that information"

You mean you and TomD dont have such access? puhleeze.


What does it matter? You're the one who wanted to know, that makes it your responsibility to find the information. I'm not your personal reference librarian, even if I do point out that you're making false accusations that demonstrate that you've failed to actually research the issue before wading in and attacking them without any basis for your inventions.

quote:
I used to have such access. Now I get the information by getting ihto arguments with people who have such access. LR is quite forthcoming. Tom is more like Sinbad's monkeys. You have to throw rocks at him until he throws coconuts back.

If you know an easier way I could have gotten the info, let me know.

And for me, you'll find me most receptive if you ask specific, respectful questions. I'm not going to feel it worth the effort to find time to do your research for you if you start off with hostile accusations that suggest that you're not actually interested in learning, but rather suggest that you're more interested in grinding an axe.

Likewise, demanding that it have a responsibility to educate you isn't going to go far, and will just incline me to point out that you are the only one with a responsibility to educate yourself.

quote:
Bet Tom could do those kids' cause a lot of good in less time than he spent on this thread wishing more of this stuff would happen on colleges.
Maybe, maybe not, but unless he's asking for your advice or opinion on what to do here, that's a completely irrelevant derailment that shifts the conversation away from the ideas he's trying to discuss to one where you're dictating to him how to use his time.
 
Posted by jasonr (Member # 969) on :
 
Hey Tom, where did you go? Where are you hiding? Nothing to say about any of this, hmmm?? Surely you have an opinion. Why so silent?
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
What should I have an opinion on, based on the last couple of pages?
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
This is your answer to why you think the protesters know what they're talking about?

No, it's the evidence that you asked for- clear proof that people affected are at the center of the issue. Your stepping from the claim made to an unevidenced extrapolation based on your assertions, not based on any actual facts.

quote:
If so, then you are directly implying that if the black football team had not gone on strike then whatever white people were involved with the protest would have been full of it. Is this accurate? You'll say it isn't, but I'm curious why.
No, it would just mean that there wasn't an easy answer and that one would have to do research before levelling the kinds of accusations against them that they weren't acting in cooperation with the people that have been trying to raise these issues for a long time and that they weren't acting in line with what has been found to be effective ways of escalating an issue that has failed to get any traction through less confrontational means. MY point was not that I had any specific information, beyond what's been said here or in reporting on the issue, but rather that you had no evidence to back your accusations
and were instead engaging in harmful and demeaning speculation, despite the fact that you had no evidence to support the accusations that you were making, where the basic standard for earnest engagement and an honest attempt to understand is to assume that they're acting with at least equivalent intelligence and forethought to yourself and then investigate why they believed that course of action to be reasonable, not to make blind, demanding accusations and then expect other people to prove such speculation wrong.

The emptiness of your accusation is the evidence of your ignorance here, not any special knowledge I have of the situation, as all I'm doing is giving the basic benefit of the doubt that people in such a situation should get instead of having unfounded accusations flung at them.

quote:
Unless you can show me that he black footballers wrote the letter we read and directly tutored the other protesters on the facts of the situation you're going to have to do better than to just name some black people involved in the protest.
Why do they need to have learned how to protest from a specific group of people rather than just be asked of have an offer to join them accepted? Again, you're asserting a narrative and then asking others to do the work of proving or disproving it, not asking why they may have thought that something was reasonable and actually working to understand where they're coming from. I could throw out possibilities, to be sure, but those aren't really relevant to my point, which is that you have no basis for the accusations that you're making.

quote:
I'm really curious why you're so sure they are experts in some field I'm apparently ignorant in. Note again that this point is in the context of you claiming that their thought process is so beyond me that I'm unqualified to comment on it.
Not that it's beyond you, that you are not showing any evidence of making an effort to understand it and instead making accusations based on that lack of understanding. Again you're confusing pointing out your clearly evidenced ignorance with speaking to your intelligence. In fact one of the downfalls of trying to rely purely on intelligence in the way that we tend to be socialized to apply it it that it tempts to to manufacture details based on the assumptions you want to make instead of acknowledging where you're ignorant and refraining from making assumptions or accusations until you've fully studied the issue.

quote:
So the only difference between them and me is that they're still in college and I'm not?
No. The difference is that they're living in that place and time and in the events that have occurred around them, and thus are the de facto primary witnesses here, while you're not there and are showing more interest in demonizing them than trying to understand them.

[quote[ Are you suggesting that unless I go back to college I won't be qualified to speak on these matters? [/quote]
No, I'm saying that sowing some evidence of trying to understand the situation rather than demonize it would demonstrate good faith, whereas you're demonstrating ignorance by attacking them instead of seeking to understand them, and you're implicitly impugning their intelligence and good faith by suggesting that you know more about what they are and should be doing than they do based on pure assertion.

quote:
Has it ever occurred to you that the purpose of going to college is to learn things, and that you come out knowing more than when you went in, or than you stand halfway through your program? Has it also occurred to you that I finished college many years ago and that these protesters are still in college, which by any sane calculus should mean that I know more than they do? Unless they are such prodigious learners that they can learn in 2 years what I learn in 15.
Except we're not talking about general information- we're talking specifically about knowledge of what's going on around them and what they're experiencing and trying to accomplish than you do, especially given that you're making a point of trying to attack them not asking questions that demonstrate respect and an earnest intent to learn what they're trying to say.

quote:
And another thing - you say I'm armchair quarterbacking while they're out there doing stuff. Did you stop to wonder whether I...did anything in college myself? Or after it? You don't know jack about my background, it's funny you attribute more expertise to a bunch of undergrads you don't know than to someone older who reads a lot.
Does it matter? Unless you're saying that you were working on issues in the same place and roughly same time as they are and were among people teaching you similar protest techniques or even having an understanding of what they may or may not have done.


quote:
This is really an outrageous reversal of history. YOU are the one who told ME that I'm too ignorant to fruitfully participate in a discussion about this, and that I just don't understand what the protesters are saying.
Something that was made manifestly evident by your choice to attack their method of protest instead of sticking to what they're actually trying to say as what's actually relevant, not making random unfounded accusations that serve to discredit their message without actually addressing the substance.

quote:
When I ask why you think they know so much more than I do your answer is to tell me I'm the one saying they don't know what they're talking about!
If you know what they're talking about then why aren't you discussing that instead of inventing attacks on them?

quote:
You tell me I'm ignorant and when I ask you to back it up you accuse me of calling others ignorant. Wow.
You actively did. You presented them as being dishonest, as not protesting properly, as being primarily external actors presuming to take it upon themselves to represent others regardless of their desires. You've made a battery of accusations here without evidence instead of having the decency to respect and try to understand what they're saying before attacking them while completely ignoring the message that's the actual important part of what they're doing.

quote:
Oh I knew full well you wouldn't, I was just calling your bluff that you knew anything at all in particular about these protesters other than what you've read in a few articles like we have. But you're going to bat for them on principle just because they say the kind of stuff you're into. That's fine, but giving them more benefit of doubt because they're on your team than you give anyone here is about as partisan as it gets and I'd enjoy it if you owned up to that.
I'm not going to bat for them. I'm just not starting off by attacking them without evidence. Giving them the basic benefit of the doubt that they should be entitled to if we want to claim to be respecting them and treating them equitably, while you're demonstrating exactly the kind of behavoir that leads them to want to establish safe zones where that can feel free to express their concerns and work to improve their lot without being subject to constant demeaning attacks that reinforce their secondary status instead of showing an earnest desire to understand their issues.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
What should I have an opinion on, based on the last couple of pages?

The last couple pages contain the most fact. Fact is what reasonable people base opinions on.


I bring facts to the table in the areas where I am fact rich. I doubt there is anyone here more knowledgeable in crim law or the Bible or the LDS church. I expect others to do the same. Share freely what they know. If someone hoards holds out, or plays priestcraft games (since you are ignorant I wont tell you) then I tease them about it. Be useful or be considered useless. I have no use for fact free opinions and posturing.
 
Posted by Rafi (Member # 6930) on :
 
They got another one.
quote:
Dr. Dale Brigham, considered one of the most beloved professors at the University of Missouri, has been forced to resign after initially refusing to cancel an exam for students who claimed to feel "unsafe."

"If you don't feel safe coming to class, then don't come to class," Dr. Brigham told his students. "I will be there, and there will be an exam administered in our class," he continued, imploring his students to stand up to the bullies on campus. "If you give into bullies, they win. The only way bullies are defeated is by standing up to them."

Yep, lots of good being done. So much more good to do.

Speaking of...

Mizzou Student Body President: The KKK has a 'Confirmed' Presence on Campus And I am Working With the MUPD, State Troopers, and the National Guard on the Threat

Mizzou Student Body President Alec Lewis later: sorry - I was full of sh1t.

[ November 12, 2015, 12:45 AM: Message edited by: Rafi ]
 
Posted by Rafi (Member # 6930) on :
 
Now at Ithaca.
quote:
Members of the campus community walked out Wednesday "for all the injustices students of color face on this campus and other colleges nationally. With University of Missouri's president stepping down, we demand Rochon to do the same as it is vital to fight against both covert and overt racism in all places of education and empowerment," according to the event Facebook page.

Gotta get'em all. It's the only way to satisfy the mob.
 
Posted by jasonr (Member # 969) on :
 
quote:
What should I have an opinion on, based on the last couple of pages?
Just curious what you think of Pyr's line of argument. I don't know for sure but I suspect you think alot is BS although you may agree with some if its ends. You already kind of tipped your hand earlier when you called some of the protests tilting at windmills.
 
Posted by JoshCrow (Member # 6048) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rafi:
They got another one.
quote:
Dr. Dale Brigham, considered one of the most beloved professors at the University of Missouri, has been forced to resign after initially refusing to cancel an exam for students who claimed to feel "unsafe."

"If you don't feel safe coming to class, then don't come to class," Dr. Brigham told his students. "I will be there, and there will be an exam administered in our class," he continued, imploring his students to stand up to the bullies on campus. "If you give into bullies, they win. The only way bullies are defeated is by standing up to them."


This coulda been me. I can totally see myself expressing that opinion with an exam.

However, the story seemingly got the facts wrong - he submitted a resignation, and the administration refused. Ergo, he was forced NOT to resign.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
The last couple pages contain the most fact.
No. They just contain links to the most facts you didn't already know. That's not really the same thing.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
Just curious what you think of Pyr's line of argument. I don't know for sure but I suspect you think alot is BS although you may agree with some if its ends.
Yeah, I do.
I sympathize very strongly with the intent, but I think the means are ultimately counterproductive, and especially dislike the idea that "safe spaces" can be institutionally established and maintained for the use of those whose deviations from the norm fall into officially recognized categories. I understand completely the (mostly valid) line of thinking that leads to this action, but I fear that it feeds into the further infantilization of college students (and even minorities in general); there is a distinction between people not being confronted about their differences and people demanding that society take steps to minimize the occasions on which they are confronted with their differences.

The worst thing is that the arguments for this kind of separation are nuanced and fairly complicated and require a great deal of high-level sociological understanding, which means that the vast majority of people engaging in those arguments -- on either side -- aren't equipped to do so. Which means that they invariably devolve into "why should we have to ask for something that's our right?" and "why is this your right?" back and forths, which in turn inevitably escalate into the usual accusations of "insensitivity" versus "whining."

I worry that the trigger warning/safe space emphasis you see in many activist circles -- which is generally applied quite well in those circles, although outsiders might be baffled and/or bemused by how much more complicated it appears to make interactions -- makes integration with general society much harder, and unless the intent is to not interact with general society (something that might in fact be implied by some of the "safe spaces" rhetoric) it'll wind up being counterproductive.

TL;DR: I think many of the criticisms of this kind of activism are justified, but rarely justified by the mocking, belittling, "these young thugs are too stupid to know what they're demanding" spin that most of their critics apply. In other words, they're engaging in stupid behavior that is both less stupid and stupid in different ways than, say, Fox News would want people to believe.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
The last couple pages contain the most fact.
No. They just contain links to the most facts you didn't already know.
Not true. I came to this thread tabula rasa. Have read no facts other than what has been presented and linked here.

Your posts and Pyr's are fairly fact free and largely consist of attacking Ornerians for failing to just assume that the students were the good guys. Your fact-empty sneers and the responses and queried of myself and other moderates like Fenring and Josh make up most of the earlier thread. I do appreciate your finally bringing your goods to the table in that last post, though.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
Yeah, I know what you think, Pete. You don't need to keep blathering.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Yeah, I know what you think, Pete. You don't need to keep blathering.

I know that you think that you know what I think, sugar plum. That's been the main obstacle to communication for 14 years.

In case you missed it. Thanks again for your penultimate post. That was worth reading. Wish you posted more of that thoughtful sincere stuff.
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
There's no way to respond further to Pyr's replies to me as each one in turn is a simple reiteration that I don't understand, don't understand, don't understand. When every attempt to discuss the matter results in being told I'm ignorant there's obviously no discussion being had. I'd just like to point out for the record that Pyr's only basis for calling me ignorant is that I don't take the protester's claims and methods as face value (meaning, agree with them) and discuss them as if they've already been established as legitimate. I'd also like to point out that any attempt to inquire about why Pyr assigns them so much credit is replied to only with the statement that I don't understand and am leveling unfounded accusations at them, even though he blatantly admits he knows no more about them than I do. Since my comments have been based on what I've read - just like his - the conclusion must be that we disagree on what the facts mean. But in Pyr's world there is no disagreement, there is one person being absolutely right and the other being ignorant and deceitful. And thus ends the conversation [Frown]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
[nods to Fenring] even though I came around to Pyr's view on this protest, he continues to hurl the same invective to me for not just bowing to his authority and opinion before I had the facts to judge for myself. "Good thing" Kate was willing to look it up this time, he says, but I should have just assumed he was right. He has the same access that Kate has, but cant be bothered to lay out the facts for us and do our "homework." We should be grateful that he condescends to take the time to just tell us what to think. That whole question authority thing only applies when conservatives are the authority.

[ November 12, 2015, 10:02 AM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
Just curious what you think of Pyr's line of argument. I don't know for sure but I suspect you think alot is BS although you may agree with some if its ends.
Yeah, I do.
I sympathize very strongly with the intent, but I think the means are ultimately counterproductive, and especially dislike the idea that "safe spaces" can be institutionally established and maintained for the use of those whose deviations from the norm fall into officially recognized categories. I understand completely the (mostly valid) line of thinking that leads to this action, but I fear that it feeds into the further infantilization of college students (and even minorities in general); there is a distinction between people not being confronted about their differences and people demanding that society take steps to minimize the occasions on which they are confronted with their differences.

The worst thing is that the arguments for this kind of separation are nuanced and fairly complicated and require a great deal of high-level sociological understanding, which means that the vast majority of people engaging in those arguments -- on either side -- aren't equipped to do so. Which means that they invariably devolve into "why should we have to ask for something that's our right?" and "why is this your right?" back and forths, which in turn inevitably escalate into the usual accusations of "insensitivity" versus "whining."

I worry that the trigger warning/safe space emphasis you see in many activist circles -- which is generally applied quite well in those circles, although outsiders might be baffled and/or bemused by how much more complicated it appears to make interactions -- makes integration with general society much harder, and unless the intent is to not interact with general society (something that might in fact be implied by some of the "safe spaces" rhetoric) it'll wind up being counterproductive.

TL;DR: I think many of the criticisms of this kind of activism are justified, but rarely justified by the mocking, belittling, "these young thugs are too stupid to know what they're demanding" spin that most of their critics apply.

Well said and agreed.

quote:
In other words, they're engaging in stupid behavior that is both less stupid and stupid in different ways than, say, Fox News would want people to believe.
OK, that was more than well said, that was brilliant. I havent seen fox since August when visiting Parents, but I am familiar enough with their metastupidity thay I think I can predict exactly how they have ****ed up this story.
 
Posted by JoshCrow (Member # 6048) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
Just curious what you think of Pyr's line of argument. I don't know for sure but I suspect you think alot is BS although you may agree with some if its ends.
Yeah, I do.
I sympathize very strongly with the intent, but I think the means are ultimately counterproductive, and especially dislike the idea that "safe spaces" can be institutionally established and maintained for the use of those whose deviations from the norm fall into officially recognized categories. I understand completely the (mostly valid) line of thinking that leads to this action, but I fear that it feeds into the further infantilization of college students (and even minorities in general); there is a distinction between people not being confronted about their differences and people demanding that society take steps to minimize the occasions on which they are confronted with their differences.

The worst thing is that the arguments for this kind of separation are nuanced and fairly complicated and require a great deal of high-level sociological understanding, which means that the vast majority of people engaging in those arguments -- on either side -- aren't equipped to do so. Which means that they invariably devolve into "why should we have to ask for something that's our right?" and "why is this your right?" back and forths, which in turn inevitably escalate into the usual accusations of "insensitivity" versus "whining."

I worry that the trigger warning/safe space emphasis you see in many activist circles -- which is generally applied quite well in those circles, although outsiders might be baffled and/or bemused by how much more complicated it appears to make interactions -- makes integration with general society much harder, and unless the intent is to not interact with general society (something that might in fact be implied by some of the "safe spaces" rhetoric) it'll wind up being counterproductive.

TL;DR: I think many of the criticisms of this kind of activism are justified, but rarely justified by the mocking, belittling, "these young thugs are too stupid to know what they're demanding" spin that most of their critics apply. In other words, they're engaging in stupid behavior that is both less stupid and stupid in different ways than, say, Fox News would want people to believe.

Well said, Tom.
 
Posted by jasonr (Member # 969) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
Just curious what you think of Pyr's line of argument. I don't know for sure but I suspect you think alot is BS although you may agree with some if its ends.
Yeah, I do.
I sympathize very strongly with the intent, but I think the means are ultimately counterproductive, and especially dislike the idea that "safe spaces" can be institutionally established and maintained for the use of those whose deviations from the norm fall into officially recognized categories. I understand completely the (mostly valid) line of thinking that leads to this action, but I fear that it feeds into the further infantilization of college students (and even minorities in general); there is a distinction between people not being confronted about their differences and people demanding that society take steps to minimize the occasions on which they are confronted with their differences.

The worst thing is that the arguments for this kind of separation are nuanced and fairly complicated and require a great deal of high-level sociological understanding, which means that the vast majority of people engaging in those arguments -- on either side -- aren't equipped to do so. Which means that they invariably devolve into "why should we have to ask for something that's our right?" and "why is this your right?" back and forths, which in turn inevitably escalate into the usual accusations of "insensitivity" versus "whining."

I worry that the trigger warning/safe space emphasis you see in many activist circles -- which is generally applied quite well in those circles, although outsiders might be baffled and/or bemused by how much more complicated it appears to make interactions -- makes integration with general society much harder, and unless the intent is to not interact with general society (something that might in fact be implied by some of the "safe spaces" rhetoric) it'll wind up being counterproductive.

TL;DR: I think many of the criticisms of this kind of activism are justified, but rarely justified by the mocking, belittling, "these young thugs are too stupid to know what they're demanding" spin that most of their critics apply. In other words, they're engaging in stupid behavior that is both less stupid and stupid in different ways than, say, Fox News would want people to believe.

That sounds about right. It would be more productive next time if you started by saying what you actually thought up front. Your current style of drive by sniping at adversaries (while leaving others unscathed and unquestioned) seems... Partisan.
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
Page 6 sounds about par for Ornery anymore. [Smile]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Par? Page 5.was orgasm and this page is cuddles and afterglow.

Pages 1-4 were par for Ornery these days. [Frown]
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
I also liked Tom's reply that everyone is quoting, and my only potential disagreement with it is that I'm not so ready to say I sympathize with the intent. The intent, in fact, is part of what I'm interested further to explore. Let's not forget that the stated intent, and even what some protesters really believe their intent is, are not necessarily the same thing as the real driving force behind the psychology of today's activism. It might be a sign of progress, but I also think it's possible that it's a sign of degradation.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
quote:
Par? Page 5.was orgasm and this page is cuddles and afterglow.
Do you ever think about a topic without sexualizing it?
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
quote:
Par? Page 5.was orgasm and this page is cuddles and afterglow.
Do you ever think about a topic without sexualizing it?
Often. I always try to produce the best possible metaphor or analogy. Not being frigid or repressed, I use sexual metaphors when appropriate.

I challenge you to come up with an analogy that is as on point, as easy to visualize and memorable as what I said.

Go on, I dare you. Tray to restate the essence of what I meant regarding the change in tone from p1 thru 4, v s p5. V. P6. Betcha cant do it without thinking of orgasms and cuddling.

[ November 12, 2015, 11:31 AM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
Well, since I'm a man just using the word orgasm makes me think of it, however briefly. As to metaphors, I would expect everyone on this august forum to naturally think of a battle to the death between Shakespeare and Bach, watched over and moderated perhaps by Kim Kardashian. Why can't we all get it on -- I mean, get along?
 
Posted by JoshCrow (Member # 6048) on :
 
I'm just struggling with the idea that my OP was an enraged booty call.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
[nods to Fenring] even though I came around to Pyr's view on this protest, he continues to hurl the same invective to me for not just bowing to his authority and opinion before I had the facts to judge for myself. "Good thing" Kate was willing to look it up this time, he says, but I should have just assumed he was right. He has the same access that Kate has, but cant be bothered to lay out the facts for us and do our "homework." We should be grateful that he condescends to take the time to just tell us what to think. That whole question authority thing only applies when conservatives are the authority.

No,. My point is that you shouldn't have come out of the gate disparaging the protestors by assuming they were wrong as you did, and aiming them with insults and made up accusations at them.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
Ew. BTW, am I the only woman left here?
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Ew. BTW, am I the only woman left here?

Are you speaking from the heteronormative assumption that all orgasms and afterglow involve a woman, or from a Victorian prefeminist ethos where one mujst never mention sex in mixed company?

[Smile]

[ November 12, 2015, 12:08 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 2450) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JoshCrow:
I'm just struggling with the idea that my OP was an enraged booty call.

Only for some one who's really, really into sarcasm.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
"t you shouldn't have come out of the gate disparaging the protestors by assuming they were wrong as you did, "

I didn't . I responded to facts as they became available, changing my position and tone appropriately with the body of available facts. If you had read as much of the thread as you claimed. ... Why am I even talking to you? You've pledged your explicit intent to remain useless to anyone here and to being no facts or experience to the table. Shoo. Off my leg.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JoshCrow:
I'm just struggling with the idea that my OP was an enraged booty call.

No, you started a fight which led to surprise makeup sex.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
Well, since I'm a man just using the word orgasm makes me think of it, however briefly. As to metaphors, I would expect everyone on this august forum to naturally think of a battle to the death between Shakespeare and Bach, watched over and moderated perhaps by Kim Kardashian. Why can't we all get it on -- I mean, get along?

There's the Al I love and remember. Welcome back, buddy.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
There's no way to respond further to Pyr's replies to me as each one in turn is a simple reiteration that I don't understand, don't understand, don't understand.
Heck, you even admit it, but yes you still see fit to attack and degrade them instead of trying to understand them.

quote:
When every attempt to discuss the matter results in being told I'm ignorant there's obviously no discussion being had.
You haven't actually attempted to discuss the matter, you've just drummed up a series of attacks that you task someone else with debunking, despite having no basis for the attacks, but instead actively relying on your lack of understanding as justification to insult and degrade them.


quote:
I'd just like to point out for the record that Pyr's only basis for calling me ignorant is that I don't take the protester's claims and methods as face value (meaning, agree with them) and discuss them as if they've already been established as legitimate.
So not insulting them and demonizing them because you don't understand them is tantamount to agreeing with them? Heavens forbid you show them even a little bit of basic respect even if you suspect that you might disagree with them. You're copping to a pretty horrific attitude here, though it makes it clear why you try to lean of false accusations that I nad other people are taking a black or white "With them or against them" attitude, since that's effectively what your doing by equating basic respect and decency toward people that you might disagree with with unqualified support.

quote:
I'd also like to point out that any attempt to inquire about why Pyr assigns them so much credit is replied to only with the statement that I don't understand and am leveling unfounded accusations at them, even though he blatantly admits he knows no more about them than I do.
So, you're pretty much saying yo'u're starting out with the bias that they're wrong and justifying dismissing and insulting them based on your lack of knowledge? You're right- I don't know much more than you do. The difference here is that I'm not willing to use that ignorance to denigrate them as you are, but rather starting from the basic assumption that anyone you claim to view as an equal should get, that they are reasonably intelligent and doing the best that they can given their situation.

quote:
Since my comments have been based on what I've read - just like his - the conclusion must be that we disagree on what the facts mean. But in Pyr's world there is no disagreement, there is one person being absolutely right and the other being ignorant and deceitful.
"Deceitful" is a nice random attack here. You haven't based your attacks on facts; you've based your attacks on prejudiced assumptions. My disagreement here isn't on any facts of the situation at all, but based on your chose to justify attacking them and insulting them despite your similar lack of knowledge. It doesn't take any special knowledge of the situation to admit my ignorance and thus reserve judgement and treat them in fair and equitable manner by giving them the benefit of the doubt instead of launching judgemental attacks on them that only serve to distract from whatever message they may be trying to express.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
C'mon, Pyr. Come in out of the cold, drop.the cloak of vanity and come join the big naked group hug.

[ November 12, 2015, 12:24 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 2450) on :
 
Corpus Christie, Pete. Might you consider that your willingness to resort to sexual metaphors inhibits communication?
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
So not insulting them and demonizing them because you don't understand them is tantamount to agreeing with them? Heavens forbid you show them even a little bit of basic respect even if you suspect that you might disagree with them. You're copping to a pretty horrific attitude here, though it makes it clear why you try to lean of false accusations that I nad other people are taking a black or white "With them or against them" attitude, since that's effectively what your doing by equating basic respect and decency toward people that you might disagree with with unqualified support.

You're conflating two separate things, one of which is agreeing with their statements of fact, and the other of which is respecting them. In fact, even the idea of respecting them can involve respecting how they act, as people, and respecting the sort of position they bring to the table. I haven't really addressed my respect for the sort of position they bring to them table, which leaves respect for them as people and agreement with their statements of fact. I don't see much evidence that they bring significant facts to bear or have any sort of detailed analysis of facts that go above and beyond the vagueries of "racism has to stop." They didn't even bother outlining why they think there is significant racism and abuse on campus other than mentioning a few very isolated incidents. As for respect for them as people, this is the primary source of my distaste for them as both the tone of the letter as well as the treatment of the journalist strike me as being immature and possibly petulant. Their conversational tone with the ex-Prez was at best rude. I also don't like that their ideal is to remove people who don't speak their lingo. Maybe this will help their cause, maybe not, but I don't like it on principle. They realized the power they could bring to bear and they made it work, but it's entirely another matter to assess whether using one's power bluntly is a good thing in all cases.

For the rest of your reply, let's face it: you do agree with them, do you not? Why not drop the sanctimonious platitudes for a minute and just say what you really think? People were overjoyed when Tom just did this, and I'd be overjoyed if you were to follow suit. It's all too easy to snipe positive comments others make and to avoid making any of your own about the facts at hand. Maybe a lot of people these days think they're Socrates; I don't know.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
Corpus Christie, Pete. Might you consider that your willingness to resort to sexual metaphors inhibits communication?

Certainly. Offer evidence that this occurs, and I will consider it. My counter-evidence is exhibit Al. While he protesteth too much at my secual metaphor, it has led to an understanding not previously there.

It doesnt reach Pyr, but in the last year I have yet to see any appeal that gets him to try to connect to another human being. Dont know how to make contact there but Darwin help me, I keep trying.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Ew. BTW, am I the only woman left here?

Are you speaking from the heteronormative assumption that all orgasms and afterglow involve a woman, or from a Victorian prefeminist ethos where one mujst never mention sex in mixed company?

[Smile]

No and no and ew. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 2450) on :
 
It certainly seems to affect kmbboots. It'd affect me but I'm not really trying to communicate since the thread descended into ornerian naval gazing.

ETA: I actually cross-posted with kmbboots for added accuracy.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
quote:
Ew. BTW, am I the only woman left here?
If you're the only one here who claims to be a woman, then for operational purposes, yes. However, we all know that some here could be sexualized droids. We just don't know how many...
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
am on the HCG diet now so between that and low testosterone, I'm hormonally female.I was declared an honorary woman after some of my activism in the 1990s but I think they rescinded my certificate when same sex marriqage replaced rape awareness as the college thing. Plus I didnt like the Vagina monologues. And my significant others have always been female and hetero. I consider myself male, but judge for yourselves.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
It certainly seems to affect kmbboots.

If Kate said this line was actually makin g her uncomfortable, I would desist for a week and try to be more sensitive around her; I owe her that much. But I dont know that's what she means when she said ew. I cant see her face, dont know if she was smiling and amused, as many folks are when they say ew.
 
Posted by JoshCrow (Member # 6048) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
It certainly seems to affect kmbboots.

If Kate said this line was actually makin g her uncomfortable, I would desist for a week and try to be more sensitive around her; I owe her that much. But I dont know that's what she means when she said ew. I cant see her face, dont know if she was smiling and amused, as many folks are when they say ew.
I'm not an expert on female emotions but I think the [Roll Eyes] icon indicates bemusement.

On a related note - how do we get more women on Ornery?
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
I just think it is icky in this context. It doesn't rise to the level of discomfort. And you don't "owe" me anything.

I use the [Roll Eyes] by itself (without an accompanying smile to convey what I would with an eyeroll in person. Irritation, annoyance, and a teensy bit of contempt. Not contempt for the person (usually) but for the post.

[ November 12, 2015, 01:04 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/11/10/university-of-missouri-president-tim-wolfes-very-telling-resignation-speech/

Is a good breakdown of elements of the situation through the lens of what Wolfe said, or conspicuously did not say, in his resignation speech.
 
Posted by JoshCrow (Member # 6048) on :
 
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/11/12/controversial-u-missouri-professor-may-keep-job/75642556/

Heh, heh... they picked a black replacement president in the interim.

No kiddin'.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
I just think it is icky in this context. It doesn't rise to the level of discomfort. And you don't "owe" me anything.

I understand that. I was trying to oversimplify the cycle of gratitude, respect, and reciprocity to our resident materialist magician, who argues that (1) material resources can be endlessly like Jesus' loaves and fishes but (2) that knowledge information, human empathy, and understanding are finite resources, which must be hoarded and never distributed from the have-nots.


quote:

I use the [Roll Eyes] by itself (without an accompanying smile to convey what I would with an eyeroll in person. Irritation, annoyance, and a teensy bit of contempt. Not contempt for the person (usually) but for the post.

Thank you for the footnote. I was reading [Roll Eyes] as bemused encouragement, after you used it in isolation to respond to my "Great OneL post. Irritation is a type of actual discomfort as I see it, and I'd even more motivated to avoid causing actual discomfort (including irritation) to someone I respect, than to budge a millimeter for someone who uses speaks of their "comfort" to manipulate me. OTOH sexual references are ... An old trick and I am a middle aged dog. But I will try to think of alternate analogies.

[ November 12, 2015, 02:06 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]
 
Posted by jasonr (Member # 969) on :
 
quote:
On a related note - how do we get more women on Ornery?
More fashion and shoe related topics? Talk about love more?
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
[Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
How about open non-judgmental discussions on important topics related to family, community, health, the economy, state, national and global concerns? Let's not lose sight of other issues of equal importance to everyone, like whether the Patriots will go undefeated, why and what can be done about it.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/11/10/university-of-missouri-president-tim-wolfes-very-telling-resignation-speech/

Is a good breakdown of elements of the situation through the lens of what Wolfe said, or conspicuously did not say, in his resignation speech.

thanks, Pyr. I note the commentator Lopez references what he =thinks= the students said in their letter. I Am personally going to do what I can to get the *actual* student letter circulated.
Will hit facebook at the library, and will send an fb message to two female Ornerians on my friends list, let them know Kate needs female company here.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jasonr:
quote:
On a related note - how do we get more women on Ornery?
More fashion and shoe related topics? Talk about love more?
[DOH]
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
quote:
On a related note - how do we get more women on Ornery?
The same way we get any new traffic. You pretty much have to share a link with someone directly, hope they aren't terrified or disgusted or bored and decide to chime in.

It's not like our host is promoting this page much.

July 31, 2014
The American Disease
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
How about open non-judgmental discussions on important topics related to family, community, health, the economy, state, national and global concerns? Let's not lose sight of other issues of equal importance to everyone, like whether the Patriots will go undefeated, why and what can be done about it.

I'm freshly back into the dating scene and stunned at the proportion of Christian women who are deep into sports and porn. Currently seeing my first Atheist.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 945) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
quote:
Par? Page 5.was orgasm and this page is cuddles and afterglow.
Do you ever think about a topic without sexualizing it?
Often. I always try to produce the best possible metaphor or analogy. Not being frigid or repressed, I use sexual metaphors when appropriate.
There's such a thing as a healthy level of compartmentalization. And I think the audience reaction ought to inform your definition of appropriate. [Smile]
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
You're conflating two separate things, one of which is agreeing with their statements of fact, and the other of which is respecting them. In fact, even the idea of respecting them can involve respecting how they act, as people, and respecting the sort of position they bring to the table.


And by actively judging and disrespecting the latter, despite a lack of evidence to support that criticism, you are actively poisoning the well for the former. You are de facto attacking their behavior based on your assumptions about it instead of respectfully asking why they might have felt motivated to act that way and actually researching their motivations instead of casting stones at them because they're not towing the line of your personal standards, which would, in effectively, allow you to go ion ignoring them, not even realizing that you don't know how bad their situation is.

We've even seen the outright falsehood that MLK was seen or treated any differently in his day reiterated here as a way to implicitly discredit them, despite the fact that they're following essentially the same patter of public action that makes other uncomfortable enough to actually pay attention instead of continuing to ignore them. When you put such historical revisionism aside, what they're doing is perfectly in line with protest actions in the past when all other methods of discourse had failed.

quote:
I haven't really addressed my respect for the sort of position they bring to them table, which leaves respect for them as people and agreement with their statements of fact. I don't see much evidence that they bring significant facts to bear or have any sort of detailed analysis of facts that go above and beyond the vagueries of "racism has to stop." They didn't even bother outlining why they think there is significant racism and abuse on campus other than mentioning a few very isolated incidents.
On what basis. Below, you say that you've only read the letter they sent and decided to judge them for giving a cold shoulder to journalists looking to sensationalize what was going on. This is what I mean by saying that you're making judgments based on ignorance rather than reserving judgment until you understand the facts of the situation. You're asserting that the fact that you're completely ignorant as to what complaints they've been trying to raise over time, how long they've been trying to raise these complaints, what tactics they've already exhausted and instead asserting because they didn't go out of their way to reiterate what people already familiar with the context should know in a letter to people familiar with the context that none of those other things exist, when the reasonable basic assumption should be that people driven to this point have already tried other methods and are taking the only option left to be heard.

quote:
As for respect for them as people, this is the primary source of my distaste for them as both the tone of the letter as well as the treatment of the journalist strike me as being immature and possibly petulant.
And you think that your knee jerk reaction to that; something that actually got you to pay attention to what they were doing, should be reason to dismiss their efforts? That you shouldn't start by asking why they had to go that far to get your attention instead of using it as justification dismiss them?

quote:
Their conversational tone with the ex-Prez was at best rude.
So? That has no bearing on there message, it's just a way for you to dismiss them for not playing to your sensibilities.

quote:
I also don't like that their ideal is to remove people who don't speak their lingo.
On what basis do you make that assertion? You have some evidence that this was their ideal, never mind the implicit degradation in miscasting anything relevant here as "their lingo" This is an unfounded, irrelevant attack that carries implicit degradation as a bit of icing on the cake, not any sign of sincere interest in trying to understand them.

HE delivered and insulting misrepresentation of a concept that it was a fundamental responsibility of his job to be familiar with and working to address, even if he hadn't been under pressure for a while to actively address it. You assert, without any evidence to supoprt the accusation that there was no right answer to the question, and handwave away from the fact that the issue wasn't that he didn't hit a perfect home run by giving a clear and fully nuanced definition, but that his answer was so egregiously wrong and insulting that it demonstrated complete incompetence with regard tot he issues.

quote:
Maybe this will help their cause, maybe not, but I don't like it on principle.
That's fine. It's not a justification to attack them or disrespectfully dismiss them. you're not supposed to like what they did. Their goal isn't do bow down to you and play by the rules that you want to impose on them, especially because acting in the ways you approve of result in no actions and a constantly worsening situation.

I'll pull this quote from the article I posted to more clearly articulate why King say such "creative tension" as being essential to being heard:
quote:
Rather than address the substance of the students' concerns or the structure that put the students in the position that they felt they had to engage in protests, the president is criticizing them for protesting loudly and, I guess, shutting down their football games. And right there, you see the kernel of the problem on this campus. The university president fails to understand the circumstances the students are contending with and essentially dismisses them or, until his resignation, his obligation to listen to them and address them because the students did not ask nicely, they were not dressed in their Sunday best.

In some ways, this kind of fundamental misunderstanding is understandable.

There is a stereotype of African Americans being threatening, and that is embodied in the president’s language, his use of words such as “intimidation.” There is also revisionist myth making about civil rights protests that asks or at this point virtually allows some of us to only look back on them in this odd way. You hear people say things like "look how neatly dressed they were, they were so polite."

It's a complete revision of how King was perceived in the 1950s and 1960s. [He was seen as a communist, an agitator — the man creating protests and therefore problems where they did not exist before.] But what all this mythical talk about polite and dignified protest really does is say, "you see when people act nicely we will respond. We will also be kind. That is all it takes. But if you are intimidating, then we have no obligation at all."

Notice, he starts [this section] by asking, "How did we get here?" Then he says "we stopped listening," and "intimidating each other" took over. This is a way of saying the problem in our society right now and on this campus is some people are resorting to coercive tactics, to loud protest, to pressure — rather than what this president sees as legitimate recourse.

There are two things going on here: People who represent the dominant interest in society, people who are completely at peace with the status quo that is nevertheless built from deeply entrenched hierarchies can react to protest by saying you folks are being rude. And as a result, they cannot or do not have to try to envision the legitimacy of the complaints. Then, the people who are struggling for change are left with no alternative but to engage in creative pressure tactics and protest. This is what MLK called creative tension when he was responding to the question, "Why protest?"

quote:
They realized the power they could bring to bear and they made it work, but it's entirely another matter to assess whether using one's power bluntly is a good thing in all cases.
Indeed, which is why it's active evidence of the degree of the problem that he were driven to take that act to gain any traction on the issue, unless you care to provide evidence that this came out of nowhere without a long leadup.

quote:
For the rest of your reply, let's face it: you do agree with them, do you not? Why not drop the sanctimonious platitudes for a minute and just say what you really think? People were overjoyed when Tom just did this, and I'd be overjoyed if you were to follow suit. It's all too easy to snipe positive comments others make and to avoid making any of your own about the facts at hand. Maybe a lot of people these days think they're Socrates; I don't know.
I don't find any grounds to disagree with them. Their pursuing action on a very legitimate issue that's pervasive throughout our society, all the reporting on the matter makes it clear that it was particularly bad and not being effectively addressed on campus. They had tried for a long time to go through official channels to get some kind of action, and finally resorted to an exercise of power to gain notice and make it impossible to ignore them. I think it's sad that it came to what it did, and had the administration been willing to listen to them and work with them to fix the situation, if would never had to go so far, but ultimately they had to make the choice to invite such judgmental, knee-jerk reactions as you're demonstrating here to gain traction and make it clear that it was not okay to go on ignoring them.

Even if I did disagree with them or find their position unjustified, I still would not use that as an excuse to launch judgmental accusations of their behavior, since that's purely an irrelevant distraction from the question of why they feel they need to act that way in order to be hard and try to gain some traction toward change, for the same reason that I don't make cracks about Boehner's skin color, Trump's (or Sanders's) hair, etc... those kind of personal attacks and knee jerk reactions are poisonous to reasonable discussion and only serve to allow the real issues at play to be dismissed.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
quote:
Currently seeing my first Atheist.
To help you get started with that, the word is not capitalized. If you think it should be in this case, she must be quite impressive.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Very. She is also a Yoga Instructor. And when I speak passionately about politics or religion, She Laughs. I thank God for my Atheist muse.The sunrise has not looked the same since She Mooned me.

[ November 12, 2015, 02:20 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
quote:
Par? Page 5.was orgasm and this page is cuddles and afterglow.
Do you ever think about a topic without sexualizing it?
Often. I always try to produce the best possible metaphor or analogy. Not being frigid or repressed, I use sexual metaphors when appropriate.
There's such a thing as a healthy level of compartmentalization. And I think the audience reaction ought to inform your definition of appropriate. [Smile]
The discussion tone seems to have lightened since I used it. But I have very poor judgment for what's socially appropriate. I should have been a King's fool in another age.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Very. She is also a Yoga Instructor. And when I speak passionately about politics or religion, She Laughs. I thank God for my Atheist muse.The sunrise has not looked the same since She Mooned me.

Well, good luck with that (really). Bear in mind that few of us get to be the king's fool, but many have been the fool of our queen. As He might have said, "Alas! It ain't the same thing."

I think I'm done with this digression.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Then I will get to the point. We share the rudiments of a common language, and on paper most of us share ties to a common country, but few of us share a common view of what America means. We have no common religion, phi9losophy or founding text except for the declaration of independence. The constitution means different things to us, and some of us deny even its authority. I can talk SHakespeare with you but dont want Pyr to bark at me about dead white males. There are very few formative experiences we share. Sex is an eaasy accessible text for all of us. I"m not into fecal abalogies.
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/11/10/university-of-missouri-president-tim-wolfes-very-telling-resignation-speech/

Is a good breakdown of elements of the situation through the lens of what Wolfe said, or conspicuously did not say, in his resignation speech.

These guys do a really good job of reading a lot into what is a very short and simple speech. The speech says little more than that both sides failed to communicate properly with each other, and that he takes full responsibility for the communication breakdown. But that doesn't stop the commentators from deconstructing every sentence for spectres of oppressive evil thoughts. Check out this gem:

quote:
The second thing you hear in this president's language — and what I suspect we will hear a lot more of in coming days from other people — is this: There is this idea that protest is something that blacks do because they are antisocial and disruptive and difficult.
Anyone who could read the transcript of that speech and come away with this conclusion is straight up race-baiting, period. This is hate mongering and no less than an attempt to further villify someone who's already lost his job and is being gracious about it. Pathetic.
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
Even if I did disagree with them or find their position unjustified, I still would not use that as an excuse to launch judgmental accusations of their behavior, since that's purely an irrelevant distraction from the question of why they feel they need to act that way in order to be hard and try to gain some traction toward change, for the same reason that I don't make cracks about Boehner's skin color, Trump's (or Sanders's) hair, etc... those kind of personal attacks and knee jerk reactions are poisonous to reasonable discussion and only serve to allow the real issues at play to be dismissed.

A lot of talk about how non-judgemental you are and finally this, the truth. You believe, in the end, that me pointing at what I see as problems in the behavior of these protesters is in the same vein as if you were to mock the physical characteristics of Boehner or Trump. You think me disliking their methods and attitude is the same as disliking their skin color. And really this equivocation makes a kind of sense, because the reaction to criticism of groups like this is very much like what one would expect if one was making personally disparaging remarks about someone's looks; you treat it like a personal attack on their identity. And that is why identity politics tends to take on such a extreme bent - because everything about it becomes personal and offensive, and there is no ability to have a discussion without some party involved being upset, offended, and feeling like they're being personally attacked or abused/oppressed.

I'll only mention but not address your repeated ends-justify-the-means outlook that goes along with your position. I'm sure you'd say something like 'it's ok when it's oppressed people doing it.'
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
The speech says little more than that both sides failed to communicate properly with each other, and that he takes full responsibility for the communication breakdown.
Which is a false and discrediting accusation, as the commentators point out. The people making the complaints tried for a long time to communicate and were ignored, the action they took was a response to the administration's failure to listen, not a failure to communicate properly on the side of the people eventually moved to protest.

quote:
Anyone who could read the transcript of that speech and come away with this conclusion is straight up race-baiting, period. This is hate mongering and no less than an attempt to further villify someone who's already lost his job and is being gracious about it. Pathetic.
Ah, and here you double down on snide and discrediting attacks instead of actually making any effort to understand the issues at hand. I'm happy to wait for you to show any evidence at all that you're willing to approach the issue non-judgmentally and earnestly work to understand it before I move past pointing out how your judgmentalism and dismissive accusations here make it not worth the effort to try to go deeper.

You are, very well, exhibiting exactly the kind of dismissive and dehumanizing attitude here that made eventually pushed them to move to a more effective manner of protest, so gratz on being a perfect model of the bias the needed to overcome to be heard.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
. You believe, in the end, that me pointing at what I see as problems in the behavior of these protesters is in the same vein as if you were to mock the physical characteristics of Boehner or Trump.
Absolutely. PLocingt he behavoir of other as you're trying to do is actively oppressive to them. It's not something you do yo an equal. The only thing they did "wrong" here was to actually get your attention, instead of letting you go on ignoring the issue as you had been before, despite running through the entire battery of more polite and acceptable ways to raise their concerns. They spoke up loud enough to be heard and you are, in effect, coming down on them for being "uppity" in the modern form of that accusation instead of actually making an effort to investigate an understand their issues. I mean, you even went as far to appeal to the grossly prejudicial notion of "race-baiting" which only exists to silence and discredit people trying to raise concerns about the way they're mistreated.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
I'll only mention but not address your repeated ends-justify-the-means outlook that goes along with your position. I'm sure you'd say something like 'it's ok when it's oppressed people doing it.'
That is, indeed the core nature of civil disobedience. You can't change the status quo without taking actions that actually disrupt it enough to allow change to happen. I mean it wouldn't make much sense for people that aren't suffering from oppression to engage in it on their own behalf, because they don't actually need a change in the status quo in the first place.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
(And talk about kafka traps- your attacks mean, effectively, that they couldn't have done anything right in this situation except to be sure to act in a way that would continue to allow you to ignore them until and unless you decided that you might have something to gain by giving them a hand. )
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
Since Pete like such metaphors so much-
They're like someone whose being harassed by a flasher in the middle of the night, and tried various ways of asking him to go away and leave them alone, so they finally scream and make a racket to get other people wake up and help them. And you wake up, see what's going on, and instead of actually caring about the problem, you start yelling at them because they violated noise ordinances, woke you up in the middle of the night, and even tricked you into looking at a guy with his pants down, saying that they should have handled the problem quietly by nicely asking the guy to leave them alone.
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
I rest my case.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
The Missouri Tigers and the Hidden History of Black College Football Activists
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
Race and the Free-Speech Diversion

"The freedom to offend the powerful is not equivalent to the freedom to bully the relatively disempowered."

I do have some access that is not available to everyone. I have a lot of friends and colleagues who are professors and who are bringing a lot to the table that I get to see and you might not.

[ November 12, 2015, 05:09 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
Got some extra http's in your link km.
 
Posted by JoshCrow (Member # 6048) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
I rest my case.

Logic Level: Pyrwellian.
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JoshCrow:
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
I rest my case.

Logic Level: Pyrwellian.
Is this a reference to the flasher analogy? I posted my response before that was up, I guess there was a brief posting delay between them which put his up first. My comment wasn't a response to that but to the comments previous to it. It was my way of saying that Pyr's comments were just repetitions of what I had pointed out already and there was nothing more to say.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
Got some extra http's in your link km.

Thanks. It works now.
 
Posted by JoshCrow (Member # 6048) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
Is this a reference to the flasher analogy? I posted my response before that was up, I guess there was a brief posting delay between them which put his up first. My comment wasn't a response to that but to the comments previous to it. It was my way of saying that Pyr's comments were just repetitions of what I had pointed out already and there was nothing more to say.

Haha, no, just a way of saying you're wasting your time. His argument really is just "you don't understand" over and over.

I mean, our last exchange on this thread he basically told me I shouldn't express an opinion about what the black community should do to combat the problem - because doing so would be "dictating" (as if I could tell people what to do) and patronizing (because surely these ideas occurred to them - as if 'they' represented a perfectly reasoned hive-mind or something). He basically told me to shut up or agree with him, and when I called him on it he didn't respond, so I took that to be accurate reading of his opinion..

[ November 12, 2015, 05:25 PM: Message edited by: JoshCrow ]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
Since Pete like such metaphors so much-
They're like someone whose being harassed by a flasher in the middle of the night, and tried various ways of asking him to go away and leave them alone, so they finally scream and make a racket to get other people wake up and help them. And you wake up, see what's going on, and instead of actually caring about the problem, you start yelling at them because they violated noise ordinances, woke you up in the middle of the night, and even tricked you into looking at a guy with his pants down, saying that they should have handled the problem quietly by nicely asking the guy to leave them alone.

For the record, I neither like nor carelessly throw around analogies to rape, exhibitionism, or other sex offenses. Not shaming you for using them, but please dont cite me for precedent. I do try to avoid careless reference to images likely to trigger PTSD.

Speaking to your analogy, there are key facts missing. If you are in the flasher's house, she has a right to take her clothes off in her own house, so if you wake up the neighborhood yelling about it, you might find neighbors unsympathetic
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
So, what, black people that don't like being mistreated should leave the white people's university/country instead of trying to protest abuse?
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Haha, no, just a way of saying you're wasting your time. His argument really is just "you don't understand" over and over.
No, my argument is that you're attacking without any evidence to substantiate the accusations and not making any effort to understand.

quote:
I mean, our last exchange on this thread he basically told me I shouldn't express an opinion about what the black community should do to combat the problem - because doing so would be "dictating" (as if I could tell people what to do) and patronizing (because surely these ideas occurred to them - as if 'they' represented a perfectly reasoned hive-mind or something). He basically told me to shut up or agree with him, and when I called him on it he didn't respond, so I took that to be accurate reading of his opinion..
I'll go back and find that since I apparently missed it.
 
Posted by JoshCrow (Member # 6048) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Haha, no, just a way of saying you're wasting your time. His argument really is just "you don't understand" over and over.
No, my argument is that you're attacking without any evidence to substantiate the accusations and not making any effort to understand.
"Evidence"? This is about feelings and morality. It's not an argument about "what is", it is about "what ought to be". This is about values in conflict with each other.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JoshCrow:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
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, 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.

Did you just basically silence me from expressing any opinion on this topic (lest I be "dictating" what someone should do, as you say)? Are you comfortable saying this topic should therefore not be discussed by anyone who disagrees with your position?
No. Not even remotely. I criticized your oppressive approach to the issue. THat's only silencing if you choose to be silent in response instead of further discussing the matter.

But to be clear, you're not actually expressing your opinion on the topic, you're attacking the protesters for not conforming to your will. You're actively implying that they're foolish and don't know what they're doing because you happen to disagree with it, and asserting your superiority by choosing to tell them how to behave to appease you.

You're free to do that, but they're free to ignore such an ignorant attitude or even call you out on how that kind of attack on them is insulting and dismissive. And you have the benefit of being on the side of the status quo, so you actually have the power to harm them by allowing others to dismiss them, while they only power their words have in regard to you is the possibility that you might actually chose to listen and choose a less offensive approach, one that actually treats the as reasonable equals and seeks understanding rather than to undercut and denigrate them.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JoshCrow:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Haha, no, just a way of saying you're wasting your time. His argument really is just "you don't understand" over and over.
No, my argument is that you're attacking without any evidence to substantiate the accusations and not making any effort to understand.
"Evidence"? This is about feelings and morality. It's not an argument about "what is", it is about "what ought to be". This is about values in conflict with each other.
How does that justify the kind of judgemental demonization of their actions that you've chosen to engage in? I'd full agree- make it about what out to be; what can be done in the future to avoid forcing them to take such drastic steps just to get people to pay enough attention to make change, rather than about how upset you are that they actually made it so you couldn't keep ignoring them.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JoshCrow:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Haha, no, just a way of saying you're wasting your time. His argument really is just "you don't understand" over and over.
No, my argument is that you're attacking without any evidence to substantiate the accusations and not making any effort to understand.
"Evidence"? This is about feelings and morality. It's not an argument about "what is", it is about "what ought to be". This is about values in conflict with each other.
Don't you think that black students ought to be able to study free from harassment and threats? Don't you think that a university president ought to be held accountable when he fails to address this responsibility?
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Pyr, when you heard my analogy of orgasm and sfterglow cuddling, did you somehow assume that referred to a nonconsensual sexual battery? Denial of the basic idea of consenting adults might explain some of your hostility to anything I say ... Dude, I didnt even have sex on my honeymoon because my ex didnt feel ready, and didnt give her a bad time about it either. I was the only male asked to speak at the first Take Back the Night in Provo Utah. I'm myself a survivor. Sorry if my enthusiasm for talking about sex seems slutty to you, but I certainly do not trivialize or downplay sexual violence.
 
Posted by JoshCrow (Member # 6048) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:

But to be clear, you're not actually expressing your opinion on the topic, you're attacking the protesters for not conforming to your will. You're actively implying that they're foolish and don't know what they're doing because you happen to disagree with it, and asserting your superiority by choosing to tell them how to behave to appease you.

What makes you think you can tell me what my motivation is? Did you know that's not allowed on this forum? There's a reason. I am reporting this post.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:

ow does that justify the kind of judgemental demonization of their actions that you've chosen to engage in? I'd full agree- make it about what out to be; what can be done in the future to avoid forcing them to take such drastic steps just to get people to pay enough attention to make change, rather than about how upset you are that they actually made it so you couldn't keep ignoring them.

You arent being consistent. You tell me they dont care what I think, and then you say they have a right to make it so they cant be ignored. All I said is that if they force me to pay attention to them then they have a duty to explain why they made the commotion. Kate showed that they did explain. And still you try to shame me with strange half baked analogies. If you wake me up screaming for help and I come over asking what the matter is, and you say go away, I am creating a safe space in the middle of a public road and cant be, I am going to walk away saying what a fruitcake. That doesnt make me Dr Evil; I'm making a reasonable inference based on available facts. if more facts come in later, I revise my assessment.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Pyr, when you heard my analogy of orgasm and sfterglow cuddling, did you somehow assume that referred to a nonconsensual sexual battery? Denial of the basic idea of consenting adults might explain some of your hostility to anything I say ... Dude, I didnt even have sex on my honeymoon because my ex didnt feel ready, and didnt give her a bad time about it either. I was the only male asked to speak at the first Take Back the Night in Provo Utah. I'm myself a survivor. Sorry if my enthusiasm for talking about sex seems slutty to you, but I certainly do not trivialize or downplay sexual violence.

I haven't noticed you downplaying sexual violence; I just think that the way you slather it into conversations is distasteful and crude.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
"
No. Not even remotely. I criticized your oppressive approach to the issue"

How can an opinion tentatively offered on an obscure forum numbering a doxen males and one patient and ever wise female [Wink] be "oppressive"?
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Pyr, when you heard my analogy of orgasm and sfterglow cuddling, did you somehow assume that referred to a nonconsensual sexual battery? Denial of the basic idea of consenting adults might explain some of your hostility to anything I say ... Dude, I didnt even have sex on my honeymoon because my ex didnt feel ready, and didnt give her a bad time about it either. I was the only male asked to speak at the first Take Back the Night in Provo Utah. I'm myself a survivor. Sorry if my enthusiasm for talking about sex seems slutty to you, but I certainly do not trivialize or downplay sexual violence.

I haven't noticed you downplaying sexual violence; I just think that the way you slather it into conversations is distasteful and crude.
I understood what you said, Kate, and havent made such analogies since you clarified what you meant by the rolling eye emoticon. What I said here was to Pyr, who made a flasher analogy and said this was Pete's sort of analogy.

That is the reason my paragraph starts Pyr comma. Rather than Kate comma.

[ November 12, 2015, 06:19 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
I also don't think that you need to conform to my personal tastes either. Just letting you know what I think of it.

I know. I was backing you up on the sexual violence part.

[ November 12, 2015, 06:19 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
I also don't think that you need to conform to my personal tastes either. Just letting you know what I think of it.

I know. I was backing you up on the sexual violence part.

Ah. Thank you, Kate.That means a lot to me.
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
I've been thinking more about the situation at Mizzou. Like Tom, I was initially pleased that the students had recognized their own power and leveraged it in order to be taken seriously, notwithstanding what I thought about the other details we've discussed. But something I couldn't put my finger on was bothering me, and last night I realized what it was. It seems that the linchpin of the protest - which got them their desired result - was the football team. People like Pyr no doubt feel that the fact that it was the black members of the team helped to legitimize the authenticity of the protesters' claims. But upon reflection I wonder whether the recognition of how much power the football players have is a good thing. After all, one thing we decry in society overall is the undue influence on politics that powerful parties have. We like to think of the democratic system as being "one person one vote", and when lobbyists wield significantly more relative power than average voters this upsets people.

Well it seems that things are no different on Mizzou campus, since the football players were the power that brought the house down. From now on when the administration or faculty want to make changes or enact policy they'll always have to keep in mind not to upset their sports teams. It won't be that big a deal to them - just like it wasn't for the last several months - if some 'ordinary' students are upset about something, but the sports teams will have to be kept happy at all costs. This turns the athletes into the equivalent of college lobbyists, where their wishes are going to be given priority over and above their peers just because of the money and power in the college that they bring to bear. In this case some of the athletes championed a cause that perhaps liberals can relate to. But what if it had been the other way around and the football players had gone on strike to champion an anti-liberal cause? That's kind of hypothetical but hopefully you get the gist of what I'm saying. It's kind of good that they realized what kind of power they actually had, but I'm suggesting it's probably not a good thing that the athletes have that kind of relative power in the first place. I guess it's kind of ironic in this case since the ex-Prez was bolstering the athletics there.

If one is going to take away something from these events, I fear that the real story here is that when you want something to get done you go to those with power and arrange for them to side with you. This sounds kind of "duh" in a sense, but it seems to reinforce the power-structure mentality wherein the first order of business is to obtain powerful allies and/or money to leverage. With those people in your pocket you can proceed to get what you want. I'm concerned that this too closely parallels what goes on in Washington, and that the message these protesters will walk away with is to make alliance with oligarchs or whoever can throw their weight around to get your side to win. The protest mentality of the 60's was for the 'little people' to band together, but I guess here they learned that you need some big guns too.

I don't mean to denigrate the black football players, by the way; their power in this situation is somewhat incidental to the fact that they happen to be good at a sport. The university system itself is what gives them this power. But it's always the system that gives anyone in particular power over others, and just like in real life this situation illustrates that not all students are made equal.

[ November 13, 2015, 11:24 AM: Message edited by: Fenring ]
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
Welcome to the world, Fenring.

Meanwhile, from a campus where students are not protesting...
quote:

With the increasingly troubling events that have been occurring on many college and university campuses, it is critical that the Northwestern University community come together to ask difficult questions, identify and confront campus and societal injustices, and continue to try to make Northwestern a place where each of us is genuinely welcomed, supported and empowered.

Today (Friday, Nov. 13), from 7:30 p.m. to 9 p.m. at Lutkin Hall on the Evanston campus, the next in a growing list of opportunities to gather together and learn from one another will take place. Jabbar Bennett, Associate Provost for Diversity and Inclusion, and Patricia Telles-Irvin, Vice President for Student Affairs, will lead a dialogue about the recent developments across the country affecting Black and often-marginalized students on college campuses.

Next week on Monday at noon in Norris University Center, and Friday at 5 p.m. in Guild Lounge of Scott Hall, there will be two more listening sessions regarding the Black House. Students and other members of the Northwestern community are encouraged to participate. The goal is to receive feedback from all interested parties and for Northwestern to be as inclusive and transparent as possible. After the listening sessions are concluded, the Black House Facility Review Committee will make recommendations based on this dialogue to Vice President Telles-Irvin.

The newly formed Task Force on the Black Student Experience, the extension of our Sustained Dialogue program, and the creation of the Student Enrichment Services office are but a few of the efforts we have been making to ensure that we provide the best experience possible for everyone.

While we have been addressing some of these concerns as well as other important national issues on our campus, it is clear that we have to do more. We will. We not only invite your input and suggestions on how we can best do that, but we need your ideas and we greatly value them. If we are to create the Northwestern we all deserve, it will be by working together.

Morton Schapiro
President and Professor


 
Posted by JoshCrow (Member # 6048) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Don't you think that black students ought to be able to study free from harassment and threats? Don't you think that a university president ought to be held accountable when he fails to address this responsibility?

To the first question - absolutely they ought to.

To the second - no, because it is not his responsibility. Just as the problem is a diffuse one, so too is the solution. There is no centralized way to combat racism except perhaps the legal system, and legal routes are more or less exhausted because they have run up against other important legal concepts (e.g. free speech).

This is one of those cases where waging war on a concept (racism, terror, etc.) is a collective endeavor and really has to be done from the bottom up. A top-down strategy to fight terror, for example, would be "bomb the terrorists" - but of course there is an endless supply. Fighting racists is a similar game of whack-a-mole, where all that will happen is they will be driven into their caves and learn to speak in codes and start their own news networks.

Racism is just reality. It's part of being a human. I'm a racist - and I do battle with my own biases every day, because I recognize them for what they are and don't let them dictate my behaviors. But if you open up people's heads, all these little biases are lurking about and people must learn to do the hard work to combat them.

Everyone can fight racism - the battlegrounds are internal, and people must understand why it's worth fighting. It will never "go away" so long as differences exist!

Far better at this point, with legal avenues in exhaustion, to learn how to do battle in the mind.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
But upon reflection I wonder whether the recognition of how much power the football players have is a good thing.
Given how exploited most college football players are, sure. I certainly hope the NCAA is pissing in its pants about this.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
Nonsense. There is setting an example. There is providing opportunities for dialog (see above). There is holding accountable the people doing the harassment.
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
But upon reflection I wonder whether the recognition of how much power the football players have is a good thing.
Given how exploited most college football players are, sure. I certainly hope the NCAA is pissing in its pants about this.
I suppose there is a certain glee one could take just on this account.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
I actually fully expect the NCAA to issue some rule saying that anyone with a football scholarship in certain divisions will lose that scholarship immediately if they refuse to take the field for any reason.
 
Posted by jasonr (Member # 969) on :
 
I think if football players make a habit of boycotting play they'll eventually realize that they have as much or more to lose than anyone else, a lesson they'll learn the first time a university decides to grow a spine.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
Yes, it takes some bravery to actually strike.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JoshCrow:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:

But to be clear, you're not actually expressing your opinion on the topic, you're attacking the protesters for not conforming to your will. You're actively implying that they're foolish and don't know what they're doing because you happen to disagree with it, and asserting your superiority by choosing to tell them how to behave to appease you.

What makes you think you can tell me what my motivation is? Did you know that's not allowed on this forum? There's a reason. I am reporting this post.
I don't know what you're motivation is, I'm not guessing anything about that. Im commenting on _what_ you are doing, not the why of it. You may not mean to be doing that, but then, perhaps, that should be an indication to you that you should change your behavior to be more in line with what you want to be conveying rather than doubling down on degrading and attacking them.
 
Posted by jasonr (Member # 969) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Nonsense. There is setting an example. There is providing opportunities for dialog (see above). There is holding accountable the people doing the harassment.

I don't think a dialogue is possible with people like Pyrtolin as this thread demonstrates. So there is really nothing to talk about or debate. The PC fascists just need to be opposed, discredited and ridiculed wherever possible.
 
Posted by JoshCrow (Member # 6048) on :
 
Pyr - I'll tell you what: you suggest a way of wording the point I was making in a way that isn't "attacking" them, and I'll be satisfied.

Show me how it's done. I put forward that in fact you simply don't like my point of view and have branded it an "attack" regardless of presentation.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
The PC fascists just need to be opposed, discredited and ridiculed wherever possible.
Why?
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
Another question for those who may have found better information than I have, is to what extent is it true that there is a material lack of safety for black people on Mizzou campus? By this I mean to include anything such as violence, physical aggression, threats, taunting or mocking in public, vandalism and other crimes, etc. I do not include in this category people civilly speaking their mind about various things, even if those opinions are very offensive to certain people. Just for example, a conference about "male culture and how to pick up women" does not count as unsafe in the way I mean it, even though it may make people feel uneasy, whereas physically approaching someone else and making aggressive or hateful comments towards them definitely would count as unsafe by this standard.

I've done a rudimentary Google search to look for evidence of violence or aggression on campus that would serve to illustrate that the protesters were correct that the campus wasn't safe for black people. Naturally all the top Google hits are of the two recent Yik Yak messages issuing threats following the protest controversy. But in whatever articles I find they don't cite any other examples from recent history other than those two posts, the fecal Swastika (which is hardly anti-black in particular), the van of yelling idiots, and the drunken kid who walked in on a black event.

I hear anecdotal mentions of "there are people on campus standing in circles chanting white supremacist stuff" and "we have people in vans harassing black people". Taken in that form it makes it sound like an epidemic, whereas all I can find evidence of is the one-off event and no other occurrence. One van of yahoos being dicks is certainly a bad thing, and a group of racist buddies would certainly be a blight to whomever crossed their path, but this is not the same as claiming that 'black people are being harassed by people in vans.'

There is also the recent KKK hoax where it was claimed that the KKK was coming to Mizzou campus and the police verified that this was simply false, despite several people posting pictures and 'evidence' that the KKK were there to mess up the black people.

Regarding the two threatening Yik Yak messages this is certainly not acceptable and it would be good if those who sent them were found, but that happened after all of this got sensationalized and although I don't approve I can kind of understand a couple of people being upset over what happened with these protesters and making a foolish quasi-ironic post to try to put them in their place. Or maybe they were real threats, who knows. But those posts don't speak at all to whether there has actually been any material cause for concern for black students for, say, the past year.

So my question is really about parsing the details of what the protesters think is unsafe. Do they know something that they're not disclosing to the public about real safety concerns that were being ignored for the past year? Or by 'feel unsafe' do they mean to say that they don't feel safe being exposed to offensive ideas and a lack of support for their cause? If the former then I hope something is done about it. But if it's the latter then that is another matter entirely.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
You tell me they dont care what I think, and then you say they have a right to make it so they cant be ignored.


Those are not incompatible. What you think doesn't matter, just the fact enough people are paying attention that the people who have the power to affect change in the situation are forced to act does.

quote:
All I said is that if they force me to pay attention to them then they have a duty to explain why they made the commotion.
Which they did sufficiently for anyone who cared to investigate the issue to understand what was going on.

quote:
Kate showed that they did explain.
Which was kind of her, she chose to do your homework for you. That doesn't imply that anyone is obligated to pick up your responsibilities because you demand that they pick up your responsibilities.

quote:
If you wake me up screaming for help and I come over asking what the matter is, and you say go away, I am creating a safe space in the middle of a public road and cant be, I am going to walk away saying what a fruitcake. That doesnt make me Dr Evil; I'm making a reasonable inference based on available facts. if more facts come in later, I revise my assessment.
Sure, but that in no way even remotely parallels anything going on here.The source of the threat is obvious, the evidence of the matter is there for you to easily see if you make the effort to look into it. You're not being asked to go away, just to stop insulting the person person under attack take a time out from trying to protect themselves to dance to your demands that they fully debrief you, and in fact actively blaming them for defending themselves.

I guess the one thing my mathphor forgot to include was that the police cief was right there, on the scene, dozing, and deciding that he'd rather finish his nap and ignoring their less strident appeals, because there weren't any witnesses, so even if the victim did claim that they were ignored later, he could argue from a position of more credibility that he didn't see anything, couldn't have done anything, and was really, honestly taking all the possible steps needed to prevent such things from happening.

They don't need you to understand, they just need the police chief to realize that he's being watched by outside witnesses such that he no longer has the option to do nothing, even if his response is to now try to cite everyone as if the victim was equally responsible for illegal behavior as himself and the attacker.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jasonr:
I don't think a dialogue is possible with people like Pyrtolin as this thread demonstrates. So there is really nothing to talk about or debate. The PC fascists just need to be opposed, discredited and ridiculed wherever possible.

Showing respect for others is fascism. Nice.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jasonr:
I think if football players make a habit of boycotting play they'll eventually realize that they have as much or more to lose than anyone else, a lesson they'll learn the first time a university decides to grow a spine.

They already realize they have a lot to lose from boycotting play,. that's why it was significant that they felt were forced to do it in order to actually gain some traction on the issue. Good job, once again presenting a degrading insult as if were a meaningful insight.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
To the second - no, because it is not his responsibility.
This is patenently rediculous in regards to the University environment itself. As the president he is absolutely, and unquestionably responsible for the nature of the environment has had full authority to make changes as needed to improve it.

You're right that he can't magically make prejudice go away, but again that's why it's important to not misuse racism in a confusing way that suggests that it's a redundant way of talking about prejudice. There's no excuse for giving such preference to individual prejudices against minority students on a system level that they fell unsafe at the university. He can make the environment hostile to acting on such prejudices, so that people are actually forced to confront and deal with them on a personal basis, rather than accommodating to them, so that they feel like they're encouraged to hold and act on them.

He could establish reporting systems in the university where minority students can more freely discuss issues they're facing without working about retaliation, and act on their reports in active and visible ways rathe than continuing to ignore them.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
. It seems that the linchpin of the protest - which got them their desired result - was the football team. People like Pyr no doubt feel that the fact that it was the black members of the team helped to legitimize the authenticity of the protesters' claims. But upon reflection I wonder whether the recognition of how much power the football players have is a good thing.
It's absolutely not. It's somewhat tangential, but they entire university sport situation is broken and abusive from top to bottom, tough this is one of the few times that they players have actually managed to be the ones holding the cards, rather than NCAA or institution that profits from them and basically tells them they should thank it for the crumbs it can spare to toss them.

(And, to be fair, it variable based on the degree to which sports are part of a given universities identity. At Carnegie Mellon, the Tartans probably couldn't exercise a fraction of that leverage; the Kiltie band and bagpipers might actually have more sway.)

This really goes directly in line with the general university funding issues that we've talked about elsewhere, as their income from grants and from ("evasion" of) estate taxes dries up, tuition, sports, commercialization, and other more abusable frameworks become more important to them.
 
Posted by jasonr (Member # 969) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
The PC fascists just need to be opposed, discredited and ridiculed wherever possible.
Why?
Why does one oppose any dictator? Cause I like freedom.
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by jasonr:
I don't think a dialogue is possible with people like Pyrtolin as this thread demonstrates. So there is really nothing to talk about or debate. The PC fascists just need to be opposed, discredited and ridiculed wherever possible.

Showing respect for others is fascism. Nice.
Nope... this is more what is being referred to.
quote:
The source of the threat is obvious, the evidence of the matter is there for you to easily see if you make the effort to look into it.
So which is it? Are you dragging out a particularly sad joke because it's funny -or- do you believe we are all "playing dumb" when we say it's not obvious to us?

To those on the outside, both of the collage scene and because we are white, the acts we imagine provoking this response seem, well, unthinkable. The incidents cited are worth investigation and effort being put into finding the perpetrators. While I agree they are very offensive I don't equate that to a lack of security.

Now maybe "safety" has more to do with mental wellbeing than physical. If so, spell it out. Treat us like we are slow and lack context rather than assuming the worst of us. I'm always willing to accept that I may be ignorant. I get worked up fast when others assume I must be out to harm them because of course they KNOW... [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Pyr, when you heard my analogy of orgasm and sfterglow cuddling, did you somehow assume that referred to a nonconsensual sexual battery?

No. When I heard you defend using sexual metaphors because it suited your personal tastes without regard to how others might feel about it, I felt I should give you a taste of your own medicine by applying one in a way that might make you feel uncomfortable by reaching for a close sexual metaphor instead of finding one in a less sensitive area. The nature of racism is why comparable to other forms of non-consensual assault, not your previous metaphor.

Sensitivities vary greatly when it comes to random injections of sex into non-sexual conversations. Perhaps keep your reaction here in mind when tempted to do so instead of suggesting that others should have to suck it up because you want to do it. Feel free to recast the metaphor as an attacker punching the victim in the face.
 
Posted by jasonr (Member # 969) on :
 
Tom to add to what I said - 20 years ago I thought the PC movement was a joke destined to die out in relative obscurity or as a whipping dog for right wing pundits but little reach beyond that.

I was wrong.

Social media gives these totalitarians the perfect instrument to spread their wicked ideology. They have already functionally killed or at least mortally wounded the idea of free speech in the educated youth.

Am I afraid the PC brigade will drag me out of my home and shoot me in the street? Nope, at least not yet. Certainly it would come to that if they had the power - as Pyr repeatedly demonstrates there is simply no limit to what someone will do under the influence of an ideology that considers contrary thought and speech to be tantamount to direct assault and brooks no dissent. Their arguments, as Fenring noted, are reminiscent of what was going on in the Soviet Union. We all know how that turned out.

So yeah, this kind of lunacy does really need to be opposed as much as possible.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
So which is it? Are you dragging out a particularly sad joke because it's funny -or- do you believe we are all "playing dumb" when we say it's not obvious to us?
I don't say you're playing dumb. I say that the decision to attack and demonize instead of asking "Why would they feel motivated to do this?" and making an effort to investigate is making an argument from ignorance. That's not playing dumb, that applying prejudice to compensate for a lack of knowledge instead of seeking information in a nonjudgmental manner.

quote:
To those on the outside, both of the collage scene and because we are white, the acts we imagine provoking this response seem, well, unthinkable. The incidents cited are worth investigation and effort being put into finding the perpetrators. While I agree they are very offensive I don't equate that to a lack of security.
Why not? If you don't then perhaps you should take a step back from your current perspective and try to see what advantages you have that help insulate you from being threatened by such actions; how an appearance that pus you under constant threat of violence and a society that has multitude ways of communicating degradation and violent threats might make those things that communicate real danger to you.

If you cam from a place where anyone wearing a purple shirt was free to punch you in the face if they felt like it, don't you think your reaction to someone handing a purple shirt out in a public place might make you feel significantly less safe than people who didn't grow up with such a constant threat hanging over them?

quote:
Now maybe "safety" has more to do with mental wellbeing than physical.
Wellbeing is wellbeing. THe only reason to separate mental and physical is to understand how to address them. It's absurd to suggest that one is more or less important than the other.

quote:
If so, spell it out. Treat us like we are slow and lack context rather than assuming the worst of us.
And again, I'm not assuming anything here- I'm responding to the manifest attacks and judgemental criticism that people are actually putting forth. I don't need to assume anything to point out that that's a harmful and degrading way to engage with the issue instead of starting from a point of asking non-judgmental questions to gain a better understanding.

You allude to it above even. Instead of saying "These people are horrible for acting this way!" why not start with "How bad are conditions that they felt driven to do this?"

quote:
I get worked up fast when others assume I must be out to harm them because of course they KNOW.
It's not that you intend or don't intend to harm them. It's that the very nature of the degrading attacks people are making is harmful, even if they don't realize what they're doing. Trust me, I'd be far less sympathetic and far more strident if I thought you were actually intending to hurt them- it's because I'm assuming that what your saying is coming from a place of ignorance rather than a place of malice that I think it worth the effort to point out just how such an attitude is harmful.

[ November 13, 2015, 01:46 PM: Message edited by: Pyrtolin ]
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Tom to add to what I said - 20 years ago I thought the PC movement was a joke destined to die out in relative obscurity or as a whipping dog for right wing pundits but little reach beyond that.
Well, certainly, that's what the people who chose to try to mock the notion of actualyl treating people with respect instead of feeling free to insult and degrade anyone we wanted to with impunity wanted to happen by inventing the mocking "PC" label.

And I see you're still fighting the good fight here and standing up your your right to insult and degrade others and be lauded for it instead of possibly having to face criticism for doing so.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jasonr:
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
The PC fascists just need to be opposed, discredited and ridiculed wherever possible.
Why?
Why does one oppose any dictator? Cause I like freedom.
Yes, your freedom to act oppressively toward others should totally be our highest priority to ensure that you never need to fear feeling the slightest bit of criticism for.
 
Posted by JoshCrow (Member # 6048) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:

He could establish reporting systems in the university where minority students can more freely discuss issues they're facing without working about retaliation, and act on their reports in active and visible ways rathe than continuing to ignore them.

What sort of concrete actions would you recommend be taken against, say... me. If I espoused the view I have in this thread (the one where you said I was attacking/patronizing black people), and someone reported it (because they were uncomfortable)... what would you do to me?

I'm curious, if you were president, how would I fare at your school?
 
Posted by jasonr (Member # 969) on :
 
Josh, that's an excellent question. So Pyr, supposing I continue to spit on your perspective (figuritavely speaking) and refuse to see reason no matter what. And supposing you're emperor for the week, what would you be willing to do about it? What is the remedy?
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JoshCrow:
Pyr - I'll tell you what: you suggest a way of wording the point I was making in a way that isn't "attacking" them, and I'll be satisfied.

Show me how it's done. I put forward that in fact you simply don't like my point of view and have branded it an "attack" regardless of presentation.

Can you articulate a point you were tying to make outside of telling them how you think they should be acting?

You could certainly ask some information gathering questions- "How long has this particular movement been growing at the school?" "What other ways have they tried engaging with the university administration?" "What have other people in a similar situation done to make progress in the past?"

I'm seriously not clear on what point is left in what you said when you remove the parts about "This is howto appease me and other white people". I mean, if that was you're point, then you're basically saying what's been said about any major civil rights leader in their time, but then revised out of history to cover our embarrassment at claiming it once they won out and actually managed to motivate some degree of change.

I mean, if you're point is "Their actions are going to make white people uncomfortable" then I fully agree. Because that discomfort is an essential step toward achieving change. People who are comfortable don't make changes- they actively defend their comfort.

It's only when you continue to make them uncomfortable, and criticize them and make them feel even more uncomfortable for bad reactions to that discomfort, that there's any hope of making progress toward an improvement in the status quo.

That's been the fundamental principle behind every successful movement, including Gandhi and MLK's efforts.
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
quote:
Wellbeing is wellbeing. THe only reason to separate mental and physical is to understand how to address them. It's absurd to suggest that one is more or less important than the other.
And yet to me this statement is absurd. Of course physical wellbeing is more important. I can’t make it “not hurt” or make my bones “not be broken” by choice. I expect the police (and in this case campus policy) to help mitigate any physical threat. As to mitigating occurrences of verbal attacks, the law (and to some extent the collage) has their hands tied.

quote:
You allude to it above even. Instead of saying "These people are horrible for acting this way!" why not start with "How bad are conditions that they felt driven to do this?"
But what has actually happened is a variation on that. “This seems a disproportionate or ill directed response to the reported conditions; what did we miss?”

Now a perfectly valid response to that is to defend why it is indeed valid and well focused in light of only the conditions the questioner acknowledges. Is that what you are trying to say? It seems to me you are every bit as willing to assume the worst of the other side as you are accusing others of being.

quote:
's because I'm assuming that what your saying is coming from a place of ignorance rather than a place of malice that I think it worth the effort to point out just how such an attitude is harmful.
That you feel you’ve pointed this out is one of the most depressing things I’ve read in awhile.
 
Posted by jasonr (Member # 969) on :
 
You didn't answer his question Pyr. Josh is a professor at a university. He is never going to agree with you. So what needs to be done? Spit it out man.
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by jasonr:
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
The PC fascists just need to be opposed, discredited and ridiculed wherever possible.
Why?
Why does one oppose any dictator? Cause I like freedom.
Yes, your freedom to act oppressively toward others should totally be our highest priority to ensure that you never need to fear feeling the slightest bit of criticism for.
Objection to PC fascists would be if an ally was fighting a war against a shared enemy but were using chemical and biological weapons to do so. You want the enemy defeated but yet you still find the tools employed distasteful.
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
quote:
I mean, if you're point is "Their actions are going to make white people uncomfortable" then I fully agree.
The point is: Will this firing make F' all of a difference? Was this a symbolic sacrifice or a tactical move that is likely to improve things?
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
Am I afraid the PC brigade will drag me out of my home and shoot me in the street? Nope, at least not yet. Certainly it would come to that if they had the power - as Pyr repeatedly demonstrates there is simply no limit to what someone will do under the influence of an ideology that considers contrary thought and speech to be tantamount to direct assault...
You know, even had Pyr the power, I find it very unlikely that he would drag you out of your house and shoot you in the street. Not even for insinuating that he might.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JoshCrow:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:

He could establish reporting systems in the university where minority students can more freely discuss issues they're facing without working about retaliation, and act on their reports in active and visible ways rathe than continuing to ignore them.

What sort of concrete actions would you recommend be taken against, say... me. If I espoused the view I have in this thread (the one where you said I was attacking/patronizing black people), and someone reported it (because they were uncomfortable)... what would you do to me?

I'm curious, if you were president, how would I fare at your school?

I'm not sure why you imply that I should take punitive action against you, since there's nothing useful to be accomplished from doing so.

I would talk to those students that felt under threat from you about what I could do to provide them with a forum where they could be sure that they could discuss their issues and work for change without being subject to judgemental attacks. I'd very likely help them try to better convey to you why such attacks on them are demeaning and imply a lack of respect, though, having the resources of a university president, I'd probably reach out to academic experts on the faculty and at large in the community or even country to help arrange a series of talks and presentations for the entire community that addressed the issue and those around it.

Unless you actually took some form of actionable action, I'd focus on giving those that that were marginalized access to sufficient resources to carve out their own space where they could feel supported, understood, and protected
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jasonr:
You didn't answer his question Pyr. Josh is a professor at a university. He is never going to agree with you. So what needs to be done? Spit it out man.

I need answers to my questions before I can answer his. I can't meaningfully restate his point if I don't know what his point is. Absent clarification m the only actual point I could find, which is did reiterate nonjudgmentally, was "This will make white people uncomfortable"
 
Posted by JoshCrow (Member # 6048) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by JoshCrow:
Pyr - I'll tell you what: you suggest a way of wording the point I was making in a way that isn't "attacking" them, and I'll be satisfied.

Show me how it's done. I put forward that in fact you simply don't like my point of view and have branded it an "attack" regardless of presentation.

Can you articulate a point you were tying to make outside of telling them how you think they should be acting?

You could certainly ask some information gathering questions- [...]

I'm seriously not clear on what point is left [...]

Your post attempts to change/erase my point rather than reword it - so I think you understand that my very point was my suggestion of "what black students should do about it". I can only assume I was right and that you consider this opinion to be an "attack" regardless of how it is presented.

I wonder if I found black people who agreed with me and espoused this viewpoint if you would feel like the argument suddenly has some merit. I submit that you would not, but maybe you will tell me otherwise.
 
Posted by jasonr (Member # 969) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
Am I afraid the PC brigade will drag me out of my home and shoot me in the street? Nope, at least not yet. Certainly it would come to that if they had the power - as Pyr repeatedly demonstrates there is simply no limit to what someone will do under the influence of an ideology that considers contrary thought and speech to be tantamount to direct assault...
You know, even had Pyr the power, I find it very unlikely that he would drag you out of your house and shoot you in the street. Not even for insinuating that he might.
Is there anyone you know who you think would do this? If not who are the people who keep doing these nasty things throughout 20th century history?
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
See I'd take him aside, tell him our customers all think you have a **** attitude. I know you were under the illusion you were here to speak open minded or <chuckle> even open minds. However we are a business and your firmly held beliefs are a danger to our bottom line. Suck it up, put on the kid gloves and do your job. Let the real world kick them in the ass after we've got our money.

Problem solved and thing stay as messed up as they are today for another generation. Piece of cake.

Unless you are suggesting that after all that "safe place" sit downs and academic expert pondering comes to the conclusion that the teacher is right all along and they come up with a sensitive and convincing way to tell the kids that?
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jasonr:
Josh, that's an excellent question. So Pyr, supposing I continue to spit on your perspective (figuritavely speaking) and refuse to see reason no matter what. And supposing you're emperor for the week, what would you be willing to do about it? What is the remedy?

My answer to you there is the same as it was to him, with the addition that, due to the degree of active spite you demonstrate, that I'd be sure you were clear on the institutions anti-harassment policies and probably ensure that there was a well staffed safe-walk program so that no one who felt unsafe risked you cornering or targeting them alone, and could provide a verifiable report if your frustration at people not responding to your intimidation eventually moved escalated to actionable harassment or assault.
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by jasonr:
You didn't answer his question Pyr. Josh is a professor at a university. He is never going to agree with you. So what needs to be done? Spit it out man.

I need answers to my questions before I can answer his. I can't meaningfully restate his point if I don't know what his point is. Absent clarification m the only actual point I could find, which is did reiterate nonjudgmentally, was "This will make white people uncomfortable"
Pyr you seem to not be so good at answering questions, even though your entire overture is based on the premise that we should be asking questions instead of making accusations. Shouldn't you be celebrating that we're asking questions instead of complaining that they're not in the form you would like? Here are the questions to date that you can address if you like:

1) Josh is a professor at a university where you are President. He disagrees with you on this topic vehemently and will say so in public. Now I'll add one premise that was the case here: Some students don't like what Josh is saying and demand his resignation. NOW the question is: What do you do? Do you make him resign to appease them? Do you support your staff member's right to his opinion and tell them to back off? Or do you do nothing and let them fight it out?

2) This is what I asked just before, and D.W. followed up on: What exactly is the nature of the 'threat' that the protesters think has been happening for the past year? Has it been a material threat, or more the kind of threat where people don't like the kinds of ideas being put forward? Before you say "abuse is abuse, physical or mental" please just answer the question as it's been asked.

3) Why do you think it's ok to tell people like Josh that he's a white supremacist when he's said nothing of the kind? Not only does this give him no credit for intellectual integrity but it also paints him in an even worse light than is necessary for you to just say he's wrong. People on the blogosphere seem ok with telling the unspecified public "you are all racists", but are you aware that writing about a specific individual that his goal is to make others bow down to whites is libelous?

[ November 13, 2015, 02:39 PM: Message edited by: Fenring ]
 
Posted by jasonr (Member # 969) on :
 
Pyr you already stated that "wellbeing is wellbeing" dismissing the the black line between physical threat and psychological attack. Besides, most interplay now occurs online anyway. I don't need to jump out of the bushes to harass someone. So what about my disparaging comments on this forum? Let's say this was a university message board and we are students. What should be done to me?
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jasonr:
Is there anyone you know who you think would do this? If not who are the people who keep doing these nasty things throughout 20th century history?

They tend to be people like you, wo cling to the belief that they are justified in harassing, intimidating, belittling, and otherwise acting spitefully toward others because they don't respect your state of authority.

Recall, that one of the fundamental differences that we're disagreeing over is my suggestion that I should respect you even if I disagree with you or criticize what you're doing, while you're asserting that if you disagree with me that entitles you to act spitefully toward me, especially if I ask you to try to act with a little more respect toward those you disagree with. It's that kind of dehumanization of your opponents that eventually helps serve as a rationalization for your perceived right to punish them.
 
Posted by JoshCrow (Member # 6048) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by jasonr:
You didn't answer his question Pyr. Josh is a professor at a university. He is never going to agree with you. So what needs to be done? Spit it out man.

I need answers to my questions before I can answer his. I can't meaningfully restate his point if I don't know what his point is. Absent clarification m the only actual point I could find, which is did reiterate nonjudgmentally, was "This will make white people uncomfortable"
You called my point an attack and insulting and patronizing of black people... but you don't know what my point is? I think you know exactly what it is, and you just can't handle it head on - you have to pretend I said something else and attack that.

I'll restate it again.

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.
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.


 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
But jasonr, we're on the internet. This IS a safe place! [Big Grin] None of us can hurt you here. I'd give you a hug... but I can't do that either... it's the internet.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jasonr:
Pyr you already stated that "wellbeing is wellbeing" dismissing the the black line between physical threat and psychological attack. Besides, most interplay now occurs online anyway. I don't need to jump out of the bushes to harass someone. So what about my disparaging comments on this forum? Let's say this was a university message board and we are students. What should be done to me?

You should not be allowed into safe discussion rooms within that forum that have been established so that people can have a place to talk free from harassment. And any student how feels the need to should have the ability to block you, such that they don't have to directly see your comments or be subject to your spite if they choose not to be.
 
Posted by JoshCrow (Member # 6048) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:

I would talk to those students that felt under threat from you about what I could do to provide them with a forum where they could be sure that they could discuss their issues and work for change without being subject to judgemental attacks. I'd very likely help them try to better convey to you why such attacks on them are demeaning and imply a lack of respect, though, having the resources of a university president, I'd probably reach out to academic experts on the faculty and at large in the community or even country to help arrange a series of talks and presentations for the entire community that addressed the issue and those around it.

Out of curiosity, would I be permitted to speak at these talks/presentations on campus, or to hold my own?
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
The solution to someone being mean to you is to form a group and talk behind their back? Is this grade school or collage?
 
Posted by jasonr (Member # 969) on :
 
What's a "safe discussion room" on a forum? I am not familiar with this concept. And really so you're okay with me spreading my spiteful poison so long as it's merely in the public section of the forum and not the "protected" one? What if people feel threatened by my views regardless of where they are posted?
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
You called my point an attack and insulting and patronizing of black people... but you don't know what my point is? I think you know exactly what it is, and you just can't handle it head on - you have to pretend I said something else and attack that.

So again, the only point I can see there that isn't an attempt to suggest that they behave in a certain way to please you, the white majority, etc... is

"The way they're behaving will make the majority uncomfortable". I suppose I can extend that to include "And will reinforce prejudices among those where such is already deeply ingrained"

Stating that as a point sticks to non-judgemental facts, and invites discussion as to why they might feel the need to take actions that have those effects and risks, without insulting them by telling them how they should be behaving (and especially by saying that they should be behaving in a way that makes it clear that they need to appease the majority, as the need to appease is a behavior of subservience, not of equality.)
 
Posted by jasonr (Member # 969) on :
 
quote:
Recall, that one of the fundamental differences that we're disagreeing over is my suggestion that I should respect you even if I disagree
Please cite the post where you made this "suggestion".
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
We want not only freedom of speech but freedom FROM speech. When face to face encounters are equivalent to everyone posting on their facebook page and only those they invite (and choose not to uninvited later) can read and comment, we will have achieved social nirvana.

Or the fall of society. One of those I'm sure. Augmented reality glasses and a good set of headphones and this could be a reality soon. Your computer could "edit out" offensive interactions with people. [Smile]
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JoshCrow:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:

I would talk to those students that felt under threat from you about what I could do to provide them with a forum where they could be sure that they could discuss their issues and work for change without being subject to judgemental attacks. I'd very likely help them try to better convey to you why such attacks on them are demeaning and imply a lack of respect, though, having the resources of a university president, I'd probably reach out to academic experts on the faculty and at large in the community or even country to help arrange a series of talks and presentations for the entire community that addressed the issue and those around it.

Out of curiosity, would I be permitted to speak at these talks/presentations on campus, or to hold my own?
You'd have the same freedom that any student or student organization has to do so., just so long. That would include holding an outright debate on the issue if all parties were in agreement to doing so.
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
Pyr I know you're getting bombarded from all sides at the moment, but I'm just reminding you that you're dodging the questions entirely in favor of non-answers. You have not even begun to address your response to what Josh and jasonr have asked you (or to my three questions, but I'll be patient as you may be busy at the moment).
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jasonr:
quote:
Recall, that one of the fundamental differences that we're disagreeing over is my suggestion that I should respect you even if I disagree
Please cite the post where you made this "suggestion".
That's been my main point in just about every message since I engaged in this thread. I will certainly go back and copy the verious places where I've pointed out that basic respect including the benefit of the doubt that they understand have a reason for their actions should be the default starting point if you really want me to, but that seems redundant with so many people up in arms and actively resisting the notion that it would be far more productive to treat the protestors with basic respect and rely on evidence to build criticism rather than start by insulting and attacking them out of the gate, and requiring others to find you evidence to grant them grudging respect.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
Pyr I know you're getting bombarded from all sides at the moment, but I'm just reminding you that you're dodging the questions entirely in favor of non-answers. You have not even begun to address your response to what Josh and jasonr have asked you (or to my three questions, but I'll be patient as you may be busy at the moment).

Your questions looked like good ones, unfortunately that means I might actualyl have to take some time to try and help you find answers, while it's easier to jot off quick responses to Josh and Jason.

AS to non-answers, I'm answering the best I can given the material I'm given. Better questions get better answers.
 
Posted by JoshCrow (Member # 6048) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by JoshCrow:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:

I would talk to those students that felt under threat from you about what I could do to provide them with a forum where they could be sure that they could discuss their issues and work for change without being subject to judgemental attacks. I'd very likely help them try to better convey to you why such attacks on them are demeaning and imply a lack of respect, though, having the resources of a university president, I'd probably reach out to academic experts on the faculty and at large in the community or even country to help arrange a series of talks and presentations for the entire community that addressed the issue and those around it.

Out of curiosity, would I be permitted to speak at these talks/presentations on campus, or to hold my own?
You'd have the same freedom that any student or student organization has to do so., just so long. That would include holding an outright debate on the issue if all parties were in agreement to doing so.
Would you permit the establishment of a forum/debate that was "blacks only"?
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jasonr:
What's a "safe discussion room" on a forum? I am not familiar with this concept. And really so you're okay with me spreading my spiteful poison so long as it's merely in the public section of the forum and not the "protected" one? What if people feel threatened by my views regardless of where they are posted?

If people know that it's an unsafe area and can choose to avoid it, then they have the power they need to protect themselves. So long as any areas that they actually need to access are well moderated or they can block you if need be, then yes, you are just as free to have your own soapbox as they are to not pay any attention to you. It's only when the situation is engineered that they're forced to be your audience that it becomes unsafe and problematic.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JoshCrow:
Would you permit the establishment of a forum/debate that was "blacks only"?

Given that they lack the same power to do so on their own to gain the benefits of free expression that whites effectively have by virtue of being the majority, most likely yes.
 
Posted by JoshCrow (Member # 6048) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by JoshCrow:
Would you permit the establishment of a forum/debate that was "blacks only"?

Given that they lack the same power to do so on their own to gain the benefits of free expression that whites effectively have by virtue of being the majority, most likely yes.
And can I take that last statement to mean there could not be, under your administration, a similar forum for "whites only"?
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
The solution to someone being mean to you is to form a group and talk behind their back? Is this grade school or collage?

Ah, so wanting to be safe from attacks and degradation is "childish"? Akin to being in grade school? Might you consider that that comparison is just a bit insulting and degrading, even without getting into how it demonstrates a lack of understand of the issue and the need to establish a baseline sense of security?

Wouldn't be better and more respectful to say "I don't understand how and why this would be beneficial." Than to imply that people who feel they need such are acting like children?
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JoshCrow:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by JoshCrow:
Would you permit the establishment of a forum/debate that was "blacks only"?

Given that they lack the same power to do so on their own to gain the benefits of free expression that whites effectively have by virtue of being the majority, most likely yes.
And can I take that last statement to mean there could not be, under your administration, a similar forum for "whites only"?
Whites already have the ability to speak freely and act without fear of discriminatory attacks in society at large, so there's no similar justification to carving out a place where they can enjoy the same freedoms that whites have on the basis of being white. If a group of white kids want to form and exclusive club they want, so long as it doesn't become a vehicle for essential access to university events and resources, they're already free to do so without any special need for institutional support.
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
Your questions looked like good ones, unfortunately that means I might actualyl have to take some time to try and help you find answers, while it's easier to jot off quick responses to Josh and Jason.

AS to non-answers, I'm answering the best I can given the material I'm given. Better questions get better answers.

My question #2 requires some research so I certainly couldn't fault you for delaying on that or ignoring it. That being said it's probably the most important question in the thread, in my opinion. Questions 1 and 3 don't require research, just your off-the-cuff opinion.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
We want not only freedom of speech but freedom FROM speech.

Freedom of speech just means that the government cannot take legal action against you for what you say. It does not imply freedom from criticism by other members of the public (as that's their freedom of speech) and it does not imply the power to force others to listen you you.

We're back to effectively dismissing the notion of casts and physical therapy for a broken leg in favor of suggesting that the best cure is to run marathons till you get over it.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
Your questions looked like good ones, unfortunately that means I might actualyl have to take some time to try and help you find answers, while it's easier to jot off quick responses to Josh and Jason.

AS to non-answers, I'm answering the best I can given the material I'm given. Better questions get better answers.

My question #2 requires some research so I certainly couldn't fault you for delaying on that or ignoring it. That being said it's probably the most important question in the thread, in my opinion. Questions 1 and 3 don't require research, just your off-the-cuff opinion.
Okay, I'll go back and see if I missed something. The post from you that I had in mind is the one where you asked about security and brought up thinks like the KKK hoax, which I'd have to research to actually provide substantial answers to (including an idea of who perpetrated the hoax, since that's actively relevant to whether it was inherently threatening or not)
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
quote:
Ah, so wanting to be safe from attacks and degradation is "childish"? Akin to being in grade school? Might you consider that that comparison is just a bit insulting and degrading, even without getting into how it demonstrates a lack of understand of the issue and the need to establish a baseline sense of security?
It IS childish. It is the reaction of a child. Something is unpleasant, I am powerless, I should flee. When we grow up, we (hopefully) realize that confrontation is sometimes necessary. I have ZERO problem with the students being confrontational and using their political power (and economic power) to achieve their goals. When their goal is to be provided the opportunity to retreat however I go all, <heavy sigh> "I'm disappointed in you kids."

I am an unrepentant jerk when it comes to other's sense of emotional security. I won't judge you by your sex, sexuality or skin color. I will however judge you (and harshly) if I think you are emotionally weak / thin skinned. I probably won't act on it but I will quickly loose respect for you and it's likely that will color our interaction. I realize that is a character flaw given the vast number of interactions it has impact on.

Physical security is entirely different. I'm with ya, nobody should be afraid they will be physically harmed or killed for being who they are, speaking their mind or just walking around campus. You see harm and harm. I see harm and a failure of character.

That's not to say you should just "suck it up" when people are being emotionally abusive. But we've seen the students take action. They KNOW they don't have to just take it. However the demands seem to be at odds to the catalyst.

I would never say, "I don't understand how and why this would be beneficial.” It doesn’t even occur to me to ask as I jump right to explain why it’s wrong. The idea that someone would humor me and treat me like a child by trying to let me think my way out of a flawed response is equally insulting to me. But, these ARE kids. They are there to learn. Maybe letting them reach that conclusion themselves IS valuable in this context.

Also influencing my rather abrasive response on this is there is no REAL WORLD equivalent to a "safe space". Sure we could carve them out on a campus. Then you graduate and what? Think back for the rest of your life on how grand it was those short years when you felt safe? That is depressing **** right there.

[ November 13, 2015, 03:56 PM: Message edited by: D.W. ]
 
Posted by jasonr (Member # 969) on :
 
quote:
If a group of white kids want to form and exclusive club they want, so long as it doesn't become a vehicle for essential access to university events and resources, they're already free to do so without any special need for institutional support.
So if white students began a "whites only" club on campus you would be okay with that? I find that exceedingly hard to believe.
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
Okay, I'll go back and see if I missed something. The post from you that I had in mind is the one where you asked about security and brought up thinks like the KKK hoax, which I'd have to research to actually provide substantial answers to (including an idea of who perpetrated the hoax, since that's actively relevant to whether it was inherently threatening or not)

I made a larger post a couple of pages back where I detailed the cited security threat, yes. My more recent post on page 9 incorporated an abbreviated version of that post as well as concerns raised by JoshCrow and jasonr.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
1) Josh is a professor at a university where you are President. He disagrees with you on this topic vehemently and will say so in public. Now I'll add one premise that was the case here: Some students don't like what Josh is saying and demand his resignation. NOW the question is: What do you do? Do you make him resign to appease them? Do you support your staff member's right to his opinion and tell them to back off? Or do you do nothing and let them fight it out?
Is what he's saying relevant to the classes he's teaching? If he's saying such things as part of an academic function, then my actions would be to ensure that none of his courses are required for any given degree that anyone might want to attain, such that no one is forced to listen to him and that he''s otherwise not put in a position where he has a captive audience. I would also make sure that the content of his classes was clearly indicated so that students could properly make informed decisions about whether to attend them.

If he was RAndomly grabbing a soapbox in the public square and doing so completely outside his professional obligations, then I imagine that there would be issues in the university code of conduct/anti harassment policy that might have to be brought to bear,the same as they would need to be for someone who I happened to agree with that was using harassment and implied institutional authority in a similar way.

quote:
3) Why do you think it's ok to tell people like Josh that he's a white supremacist when he's said nothing of the kind?
White supremacy is a consequence of behavoir that asserts racial supremacy favoring whites. You don't have to cop to identify in a movement that names itself for intentionally pursuing that as a goal to engage in behaviors that support and reinforce it. The consequences and implications of his actions have nothing to do with his identification or intent.

quote:
People on the blogosphere seem ok with telling the unspecified public "you are all racists", but are you aware that writing about a specific individual that his goal is to make others bow down to whites is libelous?
I'm not saying that his goal is to do that. I'm saying that his attempt to tell others how to act has that effect whether he intends it to or not, hopefully so that he can make more informed choices in his behavoir in the future. Far from not giving him credit, I am actively giving him credit that he does not intend to convey that message and that the understanding of what he's doing will help him find better ways to engage that don't accidentally aggravate the issue.

And to try to anticipate and address teh next question here, I given the protestors the credit of understanding that their actions create discomfort and tension, and may even incense racial prejudices in the short term because that's the fundamental nature and part of the intentional mechanism involved in what they're doing. I attribute Josh's action to ignorance worthy of corrective criticism because it's manifest effect is at odds with his stated and seeming intended goals, so there's value in trying to inspire sufficient discomfort in him to create the potential for positive change; something that can't happen if I Smile, nod, and confirm his impression that he's acting in the best possible way.

And, I mean, I get where he's coming from. I used to make arguments just like that, I acted similarly defensive in the face of criticism, first due to self-centered confidence that I had to be right, eventually out of the perception that admission that I was mistake would be a mark of shame, until the preponderance of evidence finally convinced me to overcome that and allowed me to work toward understanding instead of scorn.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jasonr:
quote:
If a group of white kids want to form and exclusive club they want, so long as it doesn't become a vehicle for essential access to university events and resources, they're already free to do so without any special need for institutional support.
So if white students began a "whites only" club on campus you would be okay with that? I find that exceedingly hard to believe.
Have you seen most campus clubs at white majority universities? Are you suggesting that I'd try to require every club to have at least some minority representation such that they weren't de facto whites only clubs out of the gate?
 
Posted by jasonr (Member # 969) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by jasonr:
quote:
If a group of white kids want to form and exclusive club they want, so long as it doesn't become a vehicle for essential access to university events and resources, they're already free to do so without any special need for institutional support.
So if white students began a "whites only" club on campus you would be okay with that? I find that exceedingly hard to believe.
Have you seen most campus clubs at white majority universities? Are you suggesting that I'd try to require every club to have at least some minority representation such that they weren't de facto whites only clubs out of the gate?
Okay Pyr we're done. Adios.
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
You see no difference between demographics and interest dictating the makeup of a club and someone being told they aren't welcome because they make the others feel unsafe?
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
Is what he's saying relevant to the classes he's teaching? If he's saying such things as part of an academic function, then my actions would be to ensure that none of his courses are required for any given degree that anyone might want to attain, such that no one is forced to listen to him and that he''s otherwise not put in a position where he has a captive audience. I would also make sure that the content of his classes was clearly indicated so that students could properly make informed decisions about whether to attend them.

If he was RAndomly grabbing a soapbox in the public square and doing so completely outside his professional obligations, then I imagine that there would be issues in the university code of conduct/anti harassment policy that might have to be brought to bear,the same as they would need to be for someone who I happened to agree with that was using harassment and implied institutional authority in a similar way.

For the purposes of the question it's irrelevant whether JoshCrow is speaking about matters directly related to the material of his courses or not. If he was a medical teacher and decided to hold a lecture on some racial studies topic then maybe you could say he was operating outside the guidelines of his official capacity, which is just another way of saying he's speaking his mind as a citizen and member of the college community, rather than as a teacher. But if he was teaching in an arts program (like for instance English or poly sci) you'd be hard pressed to demonstrate that social issues like race relations are "off topic" since frankly all liberal arts topics intersect with each other at a certain point.

The bottom line is not whether you think he'd be out of line to speak 'on a soapbox' about his thoughts on the matter. Actually your view on his comments isn't the question. The question is that some students don't like what he's saying and they feel it's threatening them and making them feel unsafe. They are calling for his firing/resignation and the football team is on strike over it. What's your play? Time is running out. You can't answer with something other than a) support Josh, b) give in to the demands, c) ignore it. And you can't initiate long-term plans to help race awareness on campus, you need to address this crisis RIGHT NOW. What do you do?
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
Jack Bower, college president. <boop> <beep> <boop> <beep> <commercial break>
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
Okay, let me step in here and discuss the tricky nature of college clubs.

You have the following issues:
1) Does being listed in the college activity catalog, using college resources, and receiving activity funds constitute the college's endorsement of the club? If the college has funded a "Southern Heritage" club for years without any problems, does it bear any responsibility if the club's elected president one year says something about how much better things would be if blacks still couldn't vote?

2) Let's say you create a club for, say, "Survivors of Sexual Assault." After the first couple of years, a handful of men -- survivors of sexual assault -- join. This makes some of the current female members uncomfortable, but they suck it up. The next year, a man joins who says he's never experienced assault, but wants to better understand the issue. He spends a great deal of his time trying to collect the phone numbers of women in the group. How do you deal with him?

3) Let's say you create a club for Macintosh aficionados. A bunch of IBM PC fanboys wanting to troll you sign up and, within weeks, drive away enough of the actual Mac fans to have a voting majority. They amuse themselves by voting every month on resolutions about how much Macs suck and how the campus should get rid of them. Do you, as the founder of the club, have any recourse?

None of these issues are purely hypothetical, although the details have clearly been tweaked. And some of them have given rise to exactly the discussion of "safe spaces" that we now see in this protest arena; after all, if rape survivors cannot be given an environment free of skeevy players even long enough to try to discuss and heal from their experience, what's the point? But if you can keep skeevy guys out of a rape survivor's forum, why can't you keep white people out of a minority experiences group, or black people out of a White Pride group?

There are nuanced answers to these questions, and ridiculing the framework in which they're asked isn't useful.
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
Understanding the framework in which they're asked is useful though. Thanks
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
quote:
Ah, so wanting to be safe from attacks and degradation is "childish"? Akin to being in grade school? Might you consider that that comparison is just a bit insulting and degrading, even without getting into how it demonstrates a lack of understand of the issue and the need to establish a baseline sense of security?
It IS childish. It is the reaction of a child. Something is unpleasant, I am powerless, I should flee.

No it's not. It's the rational reaction of someone who realizes that they're overwhelmed an outmatched. The fact that children do it intuitively until a culturally instilled meme of machismo leads some of them to act foolishly or recklessly doesn't make it childish.

quote:
When we grow up, we (hopefully) realize that confrontation is sometimes necessary.
And we learn how to chose out battles- to understand when confrontation is necessary and productive and when it does more harm than goods. We also, in theory learn when we're too wounded and worn down to fight effectively and that we need to take time to rest and heal until we're strong enough to carry on. Or else we end up dead with nothing accomplished.

quote:
I have ZERO problem with the students being confrontational and using their political power (and economic power) to achieve their goals. When their goal is to be provided the opportunity to retreat however I go all, <heavy sigh> "I'm disappointed in you kids."
Ah, so you'd respect them more if they were outright suicidal? Or if they were just nice enough to keep their heads don't and continue to be properly conditioned into a second class role?

quote:
I am an unrepentant jerk when it comes to other's sense of emotional security. I won't judge you by your sex, sexuality or skin color. I will however judge you (and harshly) if I think you are emotionally weak / thin skinned. I probably won't act on it but I will quickly loose respect for you and it's likely that will color our interaction. I realize that is a character flaw given the vast number of interactions it has impact on.
If you can acknowledge that much, then perhaps you should use that as evidence that you're perhaps not the best judge of what the emotional needs of others are. Especially when they're requesting a solution that, when properly implemented works very well to improve emotional resilience and ability to stand up to attacks and abuse from the world at large.

quote:
I see harm and a failure of character.
Sure, you can cast it that way if you like, but again, maybe you should stop and think about what it takes to actually build that element of character. Look into what's been tried and what produces the best results. People build emotional resilience when they can rest, free from attacks. Constant attacks on them wear down resilience until they become fragile and eventually break.

quote:
That's not to say you should just "suck it up" when people are being emotionally abusive. But we've seen the students take action. They KNOW they don't have to just take it. However the demands seem to be at odds to the catalyst.
Does that change at all if you consider that they view what they're asking for as a tool to help build emotional resilience rather than as a shelter for fragility? You don't have to agree that it's true, but if you take for granted that they believe that, then doesn't their request suddenly make much more sense, with the more productive discussion being about whether or not that's true rather than whether they're childish for asking for it?

quote:
I would never say, "I don't understand how and why this would be beneficial.” It doesn’t even occur to me to ask as I jump right to explain why it’s wrong.
And this is what I'm referring to when I talk about arguing from ignorance. When you hit something that you don't understand but feel you disagree with,, instead of trying to learn enough to make an informed argument, you instead engage judgmentally, a kind of behavoir that tends to be pretty unproductive, if not outright demeaning to those that you assert that you know better than.

I can't stop you from doing it, to be sure, but that's not going to stop me from pointing it out even if (and, frankly, in large part because) if may make you feel uncomfortable for doing so.

quote:
The idea that someone would humor me and treat me like a child by trying to let me think my way out of a flawed response is equally insulting to me. But, these ARE kids. They are there to learn. Maybe letting them reach that conclusion themselves IS valuable in this context.
Do you really want me to try to walk you though why is seems strange to equate trying to understand things that are unfamiliar to you to be childish? I mean, I haven't exactly been ambiguous about why the responses are flawed, I've done my best to express exactly why they're not productive. And you're saying this in the context of suggesting that, when you don't understand something to research it or ask others questions that might help you understand it.

quote:
Also influencing my rather abrasive response on this is there is no REAL WORLD equivalent to a "safe space".
That's simply not true. How often, on a day to day basis do you find yourself forced to ask yourself if you're being mistreated because of your race? If you're indager of harassment or attack because of your appearance? Except in a few narrow circumstances, you can likely go for days, weeks, or even moths at a time without coming up against such unless you choose to put yourself in an environment where you may be subject to them. Unless you chose to visit a majority black neighborhood, or choose to engage in an online discussion where such issues may be brought up. As a white person you have a gigantic safe zone (In regard specifically to race, not in regard to other traits that you may have the would involve discriminatory action) that comes as the benefit of being part of the majority and you have almost full control of when you are or are not in it.

quote:
Sure we could carve them out on a campus. Then you graduate and what? Think back for the rest of your life on how grand it was those short years when you felt safe? That is depressing **** right there.
But at least you'd have an ideal to work for, and more mental and emotional stability from which to try to achieve it. THink of the alternative- one where you never had that experience and instead accepted crushing oppression as your lot in life without the experience or energy to work for anything else?
 
Posted by JoshCrow (Member # 6048) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
I'm not saying that his goal is to do that. I'm saying that his attempt to tell others how to act

For the last time, I am telling nobody how to act. Your efforts to make me out to be a dictator is really in bad faith in a conversation.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
The bottom line is not whether you think he'd be out of line to speak 'on a soapbox' about his thoughts on the matter. Actually your view on his comments isn't the question. The question is that some students don't like what he's saying and they feel it's threatening them and making them feel unsafe. They are calling for his firing/resignation and the football team is on strike over it. What's your play? Time is running out. You can't answer with something other than a) support Josh, b) give in to the demands, c) ignore it. And you can't initiate long-term plans to help race awareness on campus, you need to address this crisis RIGHT NOW. What do you do?
I'd look into cannon on how Kirk dealt with the Kobayashi Maru and hack the simulator to provide a realistic scenario instead of one deliberately manufactured to force the answer you want.

In this case I would have taken these actions and worked the issue out long before it rose to the level of a protest action instead of ignoring it until I was up against the wall as your scenario requires I'd have had to do.

[ November 13, 2015, 05:07 PM: Message edited by: Pyrtolin ]
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JoshCrow:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
I'm not saying that his goal is to do that. I'm saying that his attempt to tell others how to act

For the last time, I am telling nobody how to act. Your efforts to make me out to be a dictator is really in bad faith in a conversation.
you yourself said:
quote:
Your post attempts to change/erase my point rather than reword it - so I think you understand that my very point was my suggestion of "what black students should do about it". I can only assume I was right and that you consider this opinion to be an "attack" regardless of how it is presented.
So in other words, you're telling them how they should act, but you're also not telling them how they should act? You don't get it both ways. IF you're point was "I think this is how they should act" then you are, in effect, telling them how you think they should behave. And, in particular, you are suggesting that they behave in a submissive and subservient manner. That they put the comfort and desires of white people above their own under the threat that they'll just inspire more prejudice by not following your suggestion.

To address the other part of this, since I missed it:
quote:
I wonder if I found black people who agreed with me and espoused this viewpoint if you would feel like the argument suddenly has some merit. I submit that you would not, but maybe you will tell me otherwise.
Then they'd be fully welcome to apply their own principles on how to try to affect change to their own issues. They'd eventually learn, as every other successful civil rights movement has, that they have to make people uncomfortable to affect change, but that's speculative, to be fair. It wouldn't excuse them being insulting or suggesting that the protestors be more submissive as a rational way to ask for equal treatment.

This is effectively reiterating the point from the story I paraphrased- In effect saying "You shouldn't sass the master" instead of focusing on the injustice and actual concerns at play.
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
quote:
Ah, so you'd respect them more if they were outright suicidal? Or if they were just nice enough to keep their heads don't and continue to be properly conditioned into a second class role?
Are the **** smearing vandals or trucks of people yelling insults likely to start beheading people? If they don’t believe the police can or are willing to prevent this, I’d start there.

quote:
Does that change at all if you consider that they view what they're asking for as a tool to help build emotional resilience rather than as a shelter for fragility? You don't have to agree that it's true, but if you take for granted that they believe that, then doesn't their request suddenly make much more sense, with the more productive discussion being about whether or not that's true rather than whether they're childish for asking for it?
Not much. I get that is the intent. What I don’t understand is the need for it to be formalized. Why ask for something nobody is stopping you from doing? Now if you are telling me that any attempt to form up in a group and take shelter from an implied constant emotional assault was being actively thwarted by the administration; that paints the whole situation at the campus differently.

quote:
And this is what I'm referring to when I talk about arguing from ignorance.
Yet here you assume ignorance on my part (which is probable I’ll admit) and fail to consider that I may just hold a view that is informed yet still incompatible with the conclusions you reach with the same data.
quote:
I can't stop you from doing it, to be sure, but that's not going to stop me from pointing it out even if (and, frankly, in large part because) if may make you feel uncomfortable for doing so.
Please don’t. I wouldn’t find any value in this forum if I felt everyone thought as I did.
quote:
And you're saying this in the context of suggesting that, when you don't understand something to research it or ask others questions that might help you understand it.
I was suggesting that your style of “Inform yourself” is insulting. As social creatures (when things aren’t a mess) we lean on each other. If you KNOW something I don’t and see me reaching a bad conclusion, inform me. If I KNOW someone is reaching a bad conclusion and I know something they don’t seem to, I inform them.

You suggest that not assuming the other person KNOWS is insulting to them and we should be mindful of their feelings. I suggest that you serve them better by risking insulting them by imparting your perspective. If they then refute your conclusions by giving you further data, YOU gain knowledge. One method is polite stagnation, the other is progress.

quote:
As a white person you have a gigantic safe zone
OK, but what about a black person? Do they also have this? That was my point. That I THINK you are reinforcing. They don’t. Does a temporary sanctuary during collage make a difference? I would think that collages (I’m making an assumption as I didn’t attend one) are more open than the surrounding societies. Relatively speaking, it IS safer if not safe. Using this environment to maximize exposure to others (in this case the white majority) is beneficial. Avoiding potential friction or outright confrontation may be more peaceful and relaxing but it’s an illusion and a temporary one.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Not much. I get that is the intent. What I don’t understand is the need for it to be formalized. Why ask for something nobody is stopping you from doing? Now if you are telling me that any attempt to form up in a group and take shelter from an implied constant emotional assault was being actively thwarted by the administration; that paints the whole situation at the campus differently.

It requires at le3ast some buy-in from the administration. Specifically a clear commitment to actively listen to issues raised and to work from there to help implement institutional changes to improve the situations. A safe zone isn't the final goal, it's what was asked for as a collaborative starting point to help work on the problem.

quote:
Yet here you assume ignorance on my part (which is probable I’ll admit) and fail to consider that I may just hold a view that is informed yet still incompatible with the conclusions you reach with the same data.
I don't assume that- I draw that directly from your statement that you'd jump in with attacks on something you didn't understand rather than asking questions to try to understand it. A lack of understanding is precisely what ignorance means.

quote:
. I wouldn’t find any value in this forum if I felt everyone thought as I did.
Treating people with respect and expressing honest curiosity are completely orthogonal to how you think. I'm not asking you to change how you think, but rather suggesting that you'd do better to ask earnest questions instead of jumping to insults.

quote:
You suggest that not assuming the other person KNOWS is insulting to them and we should be mindful of their feelings. I suggest that you serve them better by risking insulting them by imparting your perspective. If they then refute your conclusions by giving you further data, YOU gain knowledge. One method is polite stagnation, the other is progress.
Assuming you know more that someone else is insulting to them. As is pushing unsolicited advice onto them. Short of a matter of real danger of imminent physical harm, if you feel like you might have more experience on a matter, the very least you can to to be respectful is to ask if they want your advice.

quote:
OK, but what about a black person? Do they also have this? That was my point. That I THINK you are reinforcing. They don’t. Does a temporary sanctuary during collage make a difference?
It makes a huge difference. It gives them a change to build resilience and prepare themselves to face a world that doesn't offer the same protection in a productive manner.

quote:
Avoiding potential friction or outright confrontation may be more peaceful and relaxing but it’s an illusion and a temporary one.
It builds willpower and emotional resilience.

I mean, how would you build a better foundation for a house? Pour concrete and let id cure under the ideal conditions until it was solid, or pour it and then constantly take a jackhammer to it while it diresto ensure that it can stand up to the the pressures of the real world?

Safety and security are very low on the overall hierarchy of needs. The more we do to ensure that people get as much of them as possible, the stronger and more well adjusted they become in the long run. The less you allow them the more fragile and desperate they become.
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
I'd look into cannon on how Kirk dealt with the Kobayashi Maru and hack the simulator to provide a realistic scenario instead of one deliberately manufactured to force the answer you want.

In this case I would have taken these actions and worked the issue out long before it rose to the level of a protest action instead of ignoring it until I was up against the wall as your scenario requires I'd have had to do.

If you think I've given you the Kobeyashi Maru then you truly know nothing about administering a school. Having to give in to the demands of students/parents or sticking up for your staff in sticky situations is extremely common and there is seldom a simple correct answer. The typical result of this these days is that administrations throw the teachers under the bus in favor of giving in to every complaint no matter how spurious or at least contentious. In this case it's the President of the college himself who was thrown under the bus but the situation is not much different; he was forced to sacrifice himself whereas in other cases it's the staff who are sacrificed. Obviously this is harder to do with tenured staff but David Mamet's play Oleanna is about exactly this issue. If you haven't read it I'd at least recommend seeing the film version with William H. Macy.

You can reject my scenario all you want, but the actual reality we saw was very similar. Instead of a prof it was the President; big deal. If you're not prepared to stick your neck out and make the big call what business do you have berating others for their position? Make a call, dude. You can do it even though it will feel like all options are bad ones. That's life a lot of the time. WHAT DO YOU DO?
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
So I decided to scan back through my posts here to see how I jumped right into attacking.
I suggested they fired a scapegoat and in doing so implied that this may not change anything.
I suggested the protesters were flexing power yet unsure what to do with it. (relates to the first point)
I said there was a "rule" of "making some damn sense" in regards to spelling out what the president did or did not do that warrants firing, and in regards to demanding actionable change.

The rest were focused inward on our discussion here rather than on the protests on the campus.
I suggested that one aspect of identity politics involves shaming anyone who questions their message, even if just to ask for clarification.
Then I singled out some of your thinking as "absurd" and later the desire to retreat to a sheltered place of segregated isolation as childish.

Interesting what you are able to deduce from my attacks. More so how you imply that's all I've done.

Thanks KM and Tom for answering some of the questions and supplying further context to the discussion. Pyr either missed the questions or felt answering them would deprive me of a teachable moment.

I'm no psychologist. I'm skeptical of the good a few years of this would do if you revived little to no emotional sanctuary previously and can expect little to no emotional sanctuary in the future. Again, this is a formative time for these kids so maybe I'm undervaluing it.

That line of discussion is oddly enough, exactly the type of info that I find informative. I use the tools I've found effective in the past. I could give horndog analogies a shot I suppose...
 
Posted by jasonr (Member # 969) on :
 
quote:
2) Let's say you create a club for, say, "Survivors of Sexual Assault." After the first couple of years, a handful of men -- survivors of sexual assault -- join. This makes some of the current female members uncomfortable, but they suck it up. The next year, a man joins who says he's never experienced assault, but wants to better understand the issue. He spends a great deal of his time trying to collect the phone numbers of women in the group. How do you deal with him?

3) Let's say you create a club for Macintosh aficionados. A bunch of IBM PC fanboys wanting to troll you sign up and, within weeks, drive away enough of the actual Mac fans to have a voting majority. They amuse themselves by voting every month on resolutions about how much Macs suck and how the campus should get rid of them. Do you, as the founder of the club, have any recourse?

None of these issues are purely hypothetical, although the details have clearly been tweaked. And some of them have given rise to exactly the discussion of "safe spaces" that we now see in this protest arena; after all, if rape survivors cannot be given an environment free of skeevy players even long enough to try to discuss and heal from their experience, what's the point? But if you can keep skeevy guys out of a rape survivor's forum, why can't you keep white people out of a minority experiences group, or black people out of a White Pride group?

There are nuanced answers to these questions, and ridiculing the framework in which they're asked isn't useful. [/QB]

I'm just wondering, is the prevalence of creepy men crashing sex survivor assault groups that great? Do alot of single guys show up at these groups looking to pick up girls? I'm a little skeptical that this is a large problem.

But regardless, is it not reasonable to simply have rules in place to clearly ban this sort of behaviour? Surely each group has a charter of rules or a statement of guiding principles that can be tailored to fit the group's needs and to screen applicants.

If the university and student body exercise the power to create "safe spaces", surely they have the power to enact rules targeting anti social behaviour like what you're describing, which is a far less intrusive solution.

It also seems to me that the idea of the "safe space" is certainly not confined to a club (i.e. a building or a structure of any kind) but exists across campus.

It's one thing to say that women in a sex survivor group should be able to screen unverified or potentially anti social men from their clubhouse; it is another thing to suggest that they can do so from campus or from general public spaces, let alone dictate what students across campus are allowed to say and not say.

It seems like certain groups with specific political objectives feel entitled to create a miasma of silence around themselves and across campus, screening out and expelling views they personally find offensive. Sort of like those kids' in that Season 2 STNG episode whose immune systems would leave their bodies and pre-emptively attack potential invaders, thereby killing everyone around them.

Would you approve if I showed up on Ornery tomorrow and declared feminist viewpoints anathema, on the grounds that feminism is inherently anti male (and bigoted) and demanded that all posters be screened accordingly? How long would the forum last if I was able to implement that? This place would be a ghost town in short order.

I have a pretty good sense of what the Pyrtolins of the world would like to see and how a campus run by them would look like - what would YOU implement if you had the power? I'm curious. It really is difficult to tell where you stand on this thread.

[ November 13, 2015, 07:55 PM: Message edited by: jasonr ]
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
But regardless, is it not reasonable to simply have rules in place to clearly ban this sort of behaviour?
What sort? How would you distinguish between creepy behavior and curiosity?

quote:
It also seems to me that the idea of the "safe space" is certainly not confined to a club (i.e. a building or a structure of any kind) but exists across campus.
Oh, absolutely. Read what I wrote more closely. The reason "safe spaces" are being extended is the idea that colleges, in acting in loco parentis (as they now are, in law, as of the '90s), should represent "home ground" to their students and should be universally safe. It's not, I believe, a practical goal, but it's a logical enough extension.

quote:
It really is difficult to tell where you stand on this thread.
That's because standing stubbornly on principle is generally pretty damn stupid in almost all human interactions.
 
Posted by JoshCrow (Member # 6048) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by JoshCrow:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
I'm not saying that his goal is to do that. I'm saying that his attempt to tell others how to act

For the last time, I am telling nobody how to act. Your efforts to make me out to be a dictator is really in bad faith in a conversation.
you yourself said:
quote:
Your post attempts to change/erase my point rather than reword it - so I think you understand that my very point was my suggestion of "what black students should do about it". I can only assume I was right and that you consider this opinion to be an "attack" regardless of how it is presented.
So in other words, you're telling them how they should act, but you're also not telling them how they should act? You don't get it both ways. IF you're point was "I think this is how they should act" then you are, in effect, telling them how you think they should behave. And, in particular, you are suggesting that they behave in a submissive and subservient manner. That they put the comfort and desires of white people above their own under the threat that they'll just inspire more prejudice by not following your suggestion.


Submissive and subservient? No - strong and resolute and proud, like I am. Unless YOU think they are subservient and submissive, which would be your problem, not theirs.

BTW, you are compounding the error of mischaracterizing my words (offer advice/suggest => tell == dictate) by adding the word "threat". I really think you are manipulating language past its breaking point. You should run for office.

quote:


To address the other part of this, since I missed it:
quote:
I wonder if I found black people who agreed with me and espoused this viewpoint if you would feel like the argument suddenly has some merit. I submit that you would not, but maybe you will tell me otherwise.
Then they'd be fully welcome to apply their own principles on how to try to affect change to their own issues. They'd eventually learn, as every other successful civil rights movement has, that they have to make people uncomfortable to affect change, but that's speculative, to be fair. It wouldn't excuse them being insulting or suggesting that the protestors be more submissive as a rational way to ask for equal treatment.
If they did possess my philosophy and outlook, they would not see taunting as worth becoming upset over - it would be just noise, more indicative of the taunter's own emotional weaknesses than reflective of them. In essence, if they're out there (and I'm sure they are), they would be invisible in this conversation, because they are not moved to action by the "problem", having essentially none. They would be getting on with their lives, empowered and uninterested in moral crusades against some trouble-making small-minded bigots.
 
Posted by jasonr (Member # 969) on :
 
quote:
That's because standing stubbornly on principle is generally pretty damn stupid in almost all human interactions.
What "principle" do you say is being stubbornly stood on and who do you say is standing on it?

I know you have an opinion on this issue - indeed you just stated: "It's not, I believe, a practical goal, but it's a logical enough extension" which coupled with your "tilting at windmills" comment, suggests you are more aligned with JoshCrow et al. then you are with Pyrtolin.

Nevertheless, you seem compelled to snipe at us while ignoring Pyrtolin which suggests you are (if not aligned with him) sympathetic with his goals. The question is why?
 
Posted by jasonr (Member # 969) on :
 
Incidentally, I think you do recognize that Pyrtolin's belief system is not confined in any way to "campus" or to the university system. You also can see the totalitarian impulse in this type of thinking. So why would you support it, even tacitly?
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
The question is why?
Pyr is punching up. You guys are punching down. It makes you less attractive.

quote:
You also can see the totalitarian impulse in this type of thinking. So why would you support it, even tacitly?
Because there are totalitarian impulses everywhere. An arrogant emphasis on self-reliance is no more healthy in the extreme. But the truth is that neither impulse is ever likely to be practiced in the extreme, so worrying about what it would be like in an extreme case isn't useful.

In practice, it's good to keep these impulses fighting against each other, without dismissing either.

[ November 13, 2015, 08:27 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
 
Posted by JoshCrow (Member # 6048) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
The question is why?
Pyr is punching up. You guys are punching down. It makes you less attractive.

I can live with being more ugly but more correct.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
Being correct is not necessarily the same thing as being right.
 
Posted by JoshCrow (Member # 6048) on :
 
Very well. I can live with being more ugly but more right. [Wink]

[ November 13, 2015, 09:24 PM: Message edited by: JoshCrow ]
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
See, in all seriousness, that's the trick: there are many people out there who, when they hear about a problem, leap in to try to "fix" it in the briefest, most efficient, most targeted way. And if it can't be fixed, they suggest that everyone just learn to live with it or work around it, then wash their hands of it. And they consider this perfectly normal and healthy and accurate.

But try that with your wife some time. She'll talk to you about work, and bring up a problem she's having with a coworker or a project, and you'll offer a "fix" -- and she'll suddenly get quiet and oddly defensive. Because she wasn't really wanting a laundry list of things that she might be able to do to fix her problem, only a few of which she hasn't already tried. She was just sharing the problem with you, looking for sympathy and understanding.

What you're doing here is tantamount to saying that looking for sympathy is stupid and doesn't fix anything. Which may be correct, but just try that line of argument on your wife, some time.

Being correct is not the same thing as being right, and being right is not the same thing as being good. When you say you can "live" with being right, that's hardly a sacrifice: you are self-absorbed and self-contained enough that the regard of others doesn't particularly matter to you, as long as you believe you are correct.
 
Posted by JoshCrow (Member # 6048) on :
 
Your point is well made, Tom - I get what you mean. But at its heart, what you're saying is an appeal to consequences - and it implies that one should be prepared to not only hear and acknowledge grievances without question, but to enthusiastically concur lest you be seen as part of the problem. Imagine if you listen intently to your wife's problems, but rather than pretend to take her side, you are suddenly stuck because you don't want to be dishonest. You avoid the topic, maybe, but soon she forces your hand. "Well, don't you think my boss was a fool?"
"Sure, honey".
An argument ensues. She wanted you to take her side - but you don't agree! You politely try to offer her suggestions, but she'll have none of it - "why don't you just agree"? She gets angrier and angrier, now suspecting you don't agree in fact at all, and throws a plate in anger before stomping off.

... and one minor thing I'd mention: the regard of others does matter to me - certainly for people I have come to respect. It's probably closer to the truth to say that the regard of individual strangers matters nothing to me (although again I would say the regard of the general public is something else entirely).

[ November 13, 2015, 09:53 PM: Message edited by: JoshCrow ]
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
it implies that one should be prepared to not only hear and acknowledge grievances without question, but to enthusiastically concur lest you be seen as part of the problem
No, you don't need to concur. Believe it or not, there's actually a framework for discussion that works quite well for this kind of thing, and one issue "SJW"s have when dealing with others -- especially inherently cynical, hostile others -- is that they aren't familiar with that framework and don't know how to use it.

The problem, of course, is that no one is going to get a hostile interviewer to essentially play "yes, and..." in a drum circle to work out their differences.
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Pyr is punching up. You guys are punching down. It makes you less attractive.

This is true but it's also a cheat. Why? Because one can paint a few lines of power as one sees it, which despite Pyrtolin's claims is neither simple nor objective in any sense. Once one has done this all one has to do is systematically avoid any thoughts or comments about the "down" direction and then make any kinds of claims whatever in the "up" direction and - presto! You are a crusader. Except for one small detail: Not only should the lines of power in the premise be up for debate (which in social justice circles right now they vehemently are not) but the actual claims which move in an 'upward' direction also need to be verified as being valid.

So I can say, for instance, that since Joe had power over Max that Max was fully entitled when he felt oppressed to call Joe names, get him fired, and then chant about his righteousness. But I think anyone with sense would ask me to wait and explain for a minute whether Joe really had power over Max, and further, whether Max's reaction was reasonable even if he did. Maybe you'll say that getting someone fired is ok, that's not so bad. Ok then, maybe Max punched Joe in the face instead, or killed him. Is that ok? Well, the answer would come, normally it's not ok but Max was being oppressed and when cornered you do anything you can to get out.

So now we have the basic premise which is shaky, and lumped on that we allow behavior that would not be reasonable except for the supposed oppressed status of those who did it, and finally, we lose sight altogether on what exactly is a proportional response, in terms of quantitative force offered, if some sort of oppression is going on and some sort of response is needed. But when any aspect of these premises is questioned the response is indignant anger and dismissal we find it very hard to accept the normally unacceptable response without explanation. When asked why no explanation is given the answer is "you just don't understand," or "if you bothered to learn about it you'd know already." (another form of Kafkatrap)

The result of all this is a creeping permissiveness of behaviors and enforced ideas that would not have been accepted before, but which is piecemeal permitted into discourse because of the "oppression" argument and leeway given. So actually it's the good grace of those who don't understand, if anything, that is allowing this creep in the first place, since no one wants to take an aggressive stand against people who claim to be helping others. That's actually the trick to get the foot in the door in this area - daring people to challenge you when you claim to be helping others. It's like those anti-terrorist bills; do you dare oppose them and be put in the position of looking like you 'don't oppose terrorism'?

Tom, I know you think there is some wisdom in taking the middle path and playing both sides against each other. It can perhaps strike balance in the long run; it can allow you to avoid choosing sides prior to your being certain which one is best; and for the purposes of a forum it can allow you to add in to heated debates without necessarily becoming embroiled in annoying back-and-forths. However this is the real world we're talking about, and it's not at all clear cut that the two sides are in a stalemate. As I see it the Kafkatrappers are gaining ground right now, and only because it so closely resembles top-down Soviet control mechanisms do some of us wonder whether a neo-Marxist movement is underfoot. Surely in the wake of Occupy and the 1% movement this would be a good time, and it aligns nicely with an era where oligarchs are truly getting the better of everyone. But the solution to oligarchy isn't and never was fascism, even though people in the 20's and 30's truly and completely failed to understand this. They somehow thought it would save them even though it was evil incarnate.

Your nuanced questions about University clubs were very good and I agree with your line there entirely. This is the sort of debate that can and should happen. But I can actually take all of your questions and reduce them to one: what are we to do about the oddball total a*****e who makes everyone crazy and scared? What are we to do with that rare sociopath or bigot who makes life miserable? This has been the question of the ages going back forever. "Mean old crazy farmer Sam, don't go near him, he'll hit you with his shovel!" The balance to strike is about how much you can 'stop' annoying and destructive people while not ruining things for everyone else. Can you ban them? Must you include them and suffer the consequences? Must you adopt arcane and convoluted social systems to weed these people out unofficially without resorting to top-down rule-making? We both know there's no simple answer. But my question about the events at Mizzou during the last year is aimed at getting at whether this is an epidemic or a few bad seeds. If the former, why can I find no mention of all the bad things that have happened? And if the latter, I see no solution other than to be vigilant and make arrests when crimes are broken. 3-4 bad incidents are sad to hear about, but painting them as campus-wide and needing a new campus culture may be an extreme overreation. Of course that's our perspective; we're not there. It's just that since the mentality going into the crusade against the ex-Prez is the exact same one as in campuses across the country and online as well, we can't take this as an isolated incident. Pyr really sounds like he would endorse a bipartite system of rules on campus, and perhaps of laws in a society. Different laws depending on whether you are part of an oppressed class or not, however that's determined. Because there are only two option: the same rules and laws for everyone (no double standards), or different laws depending on your skin color, like Jim Crow but in reverse.

Don't you care what becomes of your country, and doesn't it matter to you if it's going down a potentially dark path? Things don't always balance out. Sometimes a long, dark patch arrives and things are not good for a while. Why allow that when it can be prevented through steadfast vigilance to what one knows are good civic virtues? I know you share some of my concerns about oligarchs, so surely you also know that the typical result historically when oligarchs are challenged is that they are replaced with other oligarchs. Or as Frank Herbert put it, "Rebels are always closet aristocrats." This doesn't have to be true by definition, but it tends to be true. The means used by those who would oust the power structure need to be held to the highest rigor; as Ghandi said, resistance cannot be offered using the tools of the oppressors if real change is to happen.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
As I see it the Kafkatrappers are gaining ground right now, and only because it so closely resembles top-down Soviet control mechanisms do some of us wonder whether a neo-Marxist movement is underfoot.
Yes, but this is profoundly stupid, alarmist and reactionary. This worry is dumb and does not deserve to be entertained. It is, in fact, precisely what underlies the popularity of Donald Trump, which we can all agree is one of the great tragicomic political developments of our time.

quote:
Don't you care what becomes of your country, and doesn't it matter to you if it's going down a potentially dark path?
Of all the potentially dark paths to worry about right now, the idea that we need to be worried about potentially oversensitive college students is something that I find so baffling and absolutely -- no exaggeration -- laughable. I live in a state that is having its power structures and social safety nets systematically dismantled by a single runaway group of idiots literally bought and paid for by wealthy, ideologically extreme oligarchs, and yet not a single one of the people here worried about whether college campuses are too oppressive has posted in opposition to, say, the Wisconsin legislature's repeated attacks on good governance.

If you guys are really, really worried that touchy-feely "social justice warriors" are going to somehow run roughshod over American freedoms, you haven't thought it through. It's just a stupid, stupid thing to worry about.

[ November 13, 2015, 11:33 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
Ah but you're right; the dangerous parties right now are the ones you mention. And what is more inevitable than a group on one side generating a counter-movement on the other?

There are many kinds of dangers that threaten a democracy. One is special interests dominating the rest of the populace; another is the subversion of the system of Congress by those interests. These are systemic threats and have to do with organization and structure. But systemic threats aren't the only kind possible. After all, how could oligarchs have gained so much ground except for the laxity of the need for real representation among the people? How could piecemeal steps take the controls of government further and further away from people unless their will to oppose it was likewise eroded? What if life becomes so comfortable for most that the idea of risking that life in favor of confrontation is almost unthinkable?

This is how the systemic controls are shifted over from one group to another. That, and secrecy. But once the will of the group is eroded; once civic virtue is replaced by a demand for civic comfort, other threats become possible, such as the threat of altering language and the nature of discourse. It's another oligarchic tool, ultimately, but of a different variety. It involves changing thinking rather than changing government. And no side of the political spectrum has a monopoly on the war to win minds. I'm hoping you take Orwell seriously as a political thinker; if so one may note that the change leading to the events in the book doesn't at all have to occur violently or even aggressively. It can come about with smiles and happy thoughts more easily than any other way. It's not the sentiment behind changes that matters; is the mechanism by which they are brought about. 1984 is all about the mechanisms themselves, not any particulars about what people think about them. There are so many elements in U.S. culture beginning to resemble 1984 in small ways; still small, but creeping. The signs of this in the neverending war with Eurasia should be clear enough, although certainly this aspect can be attributed mostly to the Bush admin for the time being. I don't really want to expand further on this, except to say that desiring to nip a thing in the bud may risk being ridiculed for going after buds; but one doesn't want to learn the hard way that going after the fully grown Audrey plant is far more serious a prospect.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
"
Of all the potentially dark paths to worry about right now, the idea that we need to be worried about potentially oversensitive college students is something that I find so baffling and absolutely -- no exaggeration ,"

That's right, I forget that Americans don't get any sort of world history. You probably didn't get what the Chinese were so afraid of at Tiananmen ...
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
"White supremacy is a consequence of behavoir that asserts racial supremacy favoring whites"

That's dangerous stupidity and a rank subversion of Martin Luther King's message. Have you looked at all at all's discussion of white supremacy? It is the doctrine propounded by Calhoun. To dupe poor whites into accepting poverty by believing in their legal and moral superiority over blacks. No, you don't get to move that target to fit your cause de jour.
 
Posted by jasonr (Member # 969) on :
 
Tom I'm disappointed in you. You must be familiar with 20th century history and the role played by student movements in some of its darkest chapters. Like Fenring I am looking at methods more than ideology, although that is relevent too.

Lightning rarely strikes twice so I agree that the chances of this developing into something really nasty are still small. But the seeds are there abd it's aleady plenty ugly.

But even if this never develops into real oppression my simpler motive is that I find these social justice types nauseating and repulsive. They're on par with evangelicals in my mind except they're not a spent force.

[ November 14, 2015, 07:29 AM: Message edited by: jasonr ]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
"Tom I'm disappointed in you. You must be familiar with 20th century history and the role played by student movements in some of its darkest chapters"

Don't be surprised. Americans are shockingly provincial and incurious when it comes to world history where American boots weren't on the ground. Most wouldn't know the history of the Red Guards if it [sexual metaphor removed*]
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
You must be familiar with 20th century history and the role played by student movements in some of its darkest chapters.
Sure. What parallels do you see here, exactly? Which of the students in that video strike you as the type to start riding around in cars with AKs, shooting people dead on sidewalks for not conforming?

Get off it. It's not a concern, and it is actively, offensively stupid to be concerned about it.
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
You must be familiar with 20th century history and the role played by student movements in some of its darkest chapters.
Sure. What parallels do you see here, exactly? Which of the students in that video strike you as the type to start riding around in cars with AKs, shooting people dead on sidewalks for not conforming?

Get off it. It's not a concern, and it is actively, offensively stupid to be concerned about it.

The only danger is from the mentality we mention becoming effective or actual law. If that doesn't happen then it's just a matter of observing some disturbing events on campuses, but I honestly don't think it will be restricted to that in the long run. That's just a hunch, mind you. But we already see the victim-oriented mindset quickly becoming the law of the land in cases involving rape, especially on campuses. To go back to what I said earlier, far be it for me to oppose any efforts to help rape victims and try to prevent rapes, but it's another matter entirely to create a legal double standard where if a male and female each perform the identical action the man is a criminal and the female is not. That, in particular, I see as very problematic and I doubt very much that is the only legal area that will be affected as the victim-culture movement gains ground. Legal double standards are one of my concerns, but not by any means the only one.
 
Posted by jasonr (Member # 969) on :
 
Tom if these little dictators aren't the "type" then who is? I'm curious. What criteria do you use to identify the "type" capable of using violence (or supporting it) to force their beliefs on others? Do you think that such people are born with bayonets in thrir right hands?
 
Posted by JoshCrow (Member # 6048) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jasonr:
Tom if these little dictators aren't the "type" then who is? I'm curious. What criteria do you use to identify the "type" capable of using violence (or supporting it) to force their beliefs on others? Do you think that such people are born with bayonets in thrir right hands?

To be fair, I doubt very much that oversensitive and hyper-PC people are actually that much of a physical threat to people. As much as they may be annoying or create annoying rules to live by, they are almost tautologically disinclined to violence by virtue of their own outsized empathy for underdogs. They wish to impose their will - but direct violence against any group is antithetical to their ideology.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
You must be familiar with 20th century history and the role played by student movements in some of its darkest chapters.
Sure. What parallels do you see here, exactly? Which of the students in that video strike you as the type to start riding around in cars with AKs, shooting people dead on sidewalks for not conforming?

Get off it. It's not a concern, and it is actively, offensively stupid to be concerned about it.

Haven't seen the Video. Some of the thugs putting up the tweets and text comments fit your bill, though. Especially if campus security starts sucking up to some new regime.

And since the facts about this campus movement are so hard to come by, with folks arguing like Pyr and you have here, that this movement should be copied and supported without regard to actual facts or grievances, it is ..entirely possible that a copycat movement could be something ugly along the lines you speak of. Or indulge in SLA-like activities
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JoshCrow:
quote:
Originally posted by jasonr:
Tom if these little dictators aren't the "type" then who is? I'm curious. What criteria do you use to identify the "type" capable of using violence (or supporting it) to force their beliefs on others? Do you think that such people are born with bayonets in thrir right hands?

To be fair, I doubt very much that oversensitive and hyper-PC people are actually that much of a physical threat to people. As much as they may be annoying or create annoying rules to live by, they are almost tautologically disinclined to violence by virtue of their own outsized empathy for underdogs. They wish to impose their will - but direct violence against any group is antithetical to their ideology.
Have you read the rhetoric of the Symbionese liberation army?
 
Posted by JoshCrow (Member # 6048) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Have you read the rhetoric of the Symbionese liberation army?

It hasn't made my night table. Looks like about 20 whole people were involved. I teach bigger classes.
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JoshCrow:
quote:
Originally posted by jasonr:
Tom if these little dictators aren't the "type" then who is? I'm curious. What criteria do you use to identify the "type" capable of using violence (or supporting it) to force their beliefs on others? Do you think that such people are born with bayonets in thrir right hands?

To be fair, I doubt very much that oversensitive and hyper-PC people are actually that much of a physical threat to people. As much as they may be annoying or create annoying rules to live by, they are almost tautologically disinclined to violence by virtue of their own outsized empathy for underdogs. They wish to impose their will - but direct violence against any group is antithetical to their ideology.
Their stated ideology is anti-violence and anti-oppression, for sure. However in an age where Orwell's "war is peace" becomes more and more of a reality we drive further towards an ends justifies the means mentality. "We are for peace, and yet another war is how we'll win it." So an ideology of peace can justify war just as much as an ideology of aggression can. The mechanism, again, is what's important more so than the ideology. If one is willing to bend basic principle 'in the short term' to achieve an end then one's ideology is no better than the worst behavior that will be permitted.

In the case of the protesters in the video I linked earlier in the thread (on page 2) you have protesters in another University, much like these and on about the same sorts of things. The protesters on various campuses can be roughly said to all be part of the same general movement even though each branch is no doubt its own entity in some particular ways. In the video I linked one sees an example that can be seen in many other videos, where the protesters are not merely exuberantly trying to make changes, but are actively aggressive both in tone and in pure rage as they address anyone who disagrees. Watching the girl in the video I linked I can't think of a better way to describe her demeanor than to call it one of pure hatred and contempt. And this incident was over an e-mail where a Prof suggested that policing Halloween costumes might not be the best thing for campus compared to allowing adults to exercise their own discretion. The Prof's husband was there talking to the protesters and enduring them scream at him while he tried to calmly explain that he simply disagreed with their position.

Once we're talking about this kind of belligerence I think any kind of brushing aside of the theoretical possibility of violence becomes unwarranted. What is violence, after all, but a diminishing of the physical worth of others? Once one has already decided one's opponents are without moral worth - once calling them disgusting and other epithets is ok for merely disagreeing with you - where is the magical line where this devaluing of others ends? How far will they go if, given the chance and the means, they think they can silence dissent?

[ November 15, 2015, 03:47 AM: Message edited by: Fenring ]
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
If that's so simple, Fenring, why have we not seen a wave of violence against "libtards," based on the dehumanizing comments left by, say, Freepers?
 
Posted by jasonr (Member # 969) on :
 
quote:
They wish to impose their will - but direct violence against any group is antithetical to their ideology.
I don't see anything in their ideology that excludes violence. On the contrary, low level thuggery seems pretty well the norm for these types. It's how they get rid of speakers they don't like (for example) - they threaten, bluster, tear down signs, force their way into buildings, damage property - hardly peaceful. The professor's "muscle" statement is also an example of this.

I never suggested that there is a high probability that this particular movement is going to blossom into the next Soviet Union style autocratic state. Obviously the probability of that happening is very low. However, the probability of any social or political movement blossoming into something that big and ugly is exceptionally low in any circumstance. But it keeps happening, over and over again. And hundreds of millions of supposedly peaceful people continue to stand by and let it happen, and in most cases, participate enthusiastically when the opportunity presents itself. Or did you think that Hitler and a handful of psychopaths single handedly did what they did with no support from the common man?

I liken it to cancer - it is always unlikely for one to develop at any given time, because cancer is an aberration, something that the body is designed to correct against and usually does. Cancer happens sometimes by sheer bad luck (the wrong mutation at the wrong time) like a freak occurrence, but other times it happens because something external to the system is stacking the odds, making something normally improbable just a little bit more probable. With millions upon millions of "transactions" taking place in the body, that little "push" you get from smoking or asbestos exposure or whatever else exponentially increases the overall incidence of bad things happening over an extended period of time.

I see these totalitarian movements as being akin to carcinogens in the body politic. Most of the time they will fizzle out and come to nothing, or at worst do limited damage in specific spheres (such as the university) without spreading widely through the organism.

But the seeds are there. If the wrong person gets into power at the wrong time - that can be the catalyst to far greater things.

Tom's point is true but irrelevant. Every wicked movement that kills millions starts with a small seed that nobody could imagine would become anything big. These social justice types have exactly the kind of bad impulses - rigid conformity to a dogmatic truth, intolerance of anyone who does not subscribe to that truth, a zealous desire to purge wrong thinking from the community through any means and the willingness to employ coercion (and in some instances, outright violence) to force their will on those around them. Fenring called it "crypto Soviet". I don't think they're necessarily communists, per say, but their thinking is precisely in that mold.

[ November 15, 2015, 09:25 AM: Message edited by: jasonr ]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JoshCrow:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Have you read the rhetoric of the Symbionese liberation army?

It hasn't made my night table. Looks like about 20 whole people were involved. I teach bigger classes.
If they managed to get 20 during pre internet age, how many could networknow with cell phones internet etc?
 
Posted by JoshCrow (Member # 6048) on :
 
Yale dean under fire

A black dean who teaches civil rights is now a target? Talk about a movement eating its own...
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jasonr:
Tom if these little dictators aren't the "type" then who is? I'm curious. What criteria do you use to identify the "type" capable of using violence (or supporting it) to force their beliefs on others? Do you think that such people are born with bayonets in thrir right hands?

The capalibilty to employ violence against those you disagree with is a direct outgrowth of a philosophy that accepts or even encourages dehumanizing them to the point that violence becomes a reasonable option. You're not going to see it come from people standing firm on the principle that we should avoid disrespect and other forms of dehumanization, but rather from those that start by saying that there is nothing wrong with insulting, degrading, mocking, etc... those that hold different points of view. Being willing to apply those forms of interpersonal violence leads naturally into applying other forms, and historically have been at the root of the rise to power of many, if not most violent dictatorships.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JoshCrow:
Yale dean under fire

A black dean who teaches civil rights is now a target? Talk about a movement eating its own...

If he's failing to live up to what he could be doing, why not? Seems like it has been a bit of a harrowing experience, but it got him to pay better attention to where the real pain actually was and actually be visible about trying to work to improve the situation there instead of simply being part of the institutional machert and advancing a few cosmetic changes that didn't substantially improve the environment.

Are you really saying that you think that they should have continued to suffer in silence rather than putting the people whose job it is to listen to the through the inconvenience of actually needing to listen to them?
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
I'd look into cannon on how Kirk dealt with the Kobayashi Maru and hack the simulator to provide a realistic scenario instead of one deliberately manufactured to force the answer you want.

In this case I would have taken these actions and worked the issue out long before it rose to the level of a protest action instead of ignoring it until I was up against the wall as your scenario requires I'd have had to do.

If you think I've given you the Kobeyashi Maru then you truly know nothing about administering a school. Having to give in to the demands of students/parents or sticking up for your staff in sticky situations is extremely common and there is seldom a simple correct answer. The typical result of this these days is that administrations throw the teachers under the bus in favor of giving in to every complaint no matter how spurious or at least contentious. In this case it's the President of the college himself who was thrown under the bus but the situation is not much different; he was forced to sacrifice himself whereas in other cases it's the staff who are sacrificed. Obviously this is harder to do with tenured staff but David Mamet's play Oleanna is about exactly this issue. If you haven't read it I'd at least recommend seeing the film version with William H. Macy.

You can reject my scenario all you want, but the actual reality we saw was very similar. Instead of a prof it was the President; big deal. If you're not prepared to stick your neck out and make the big call what business do you have berating others for their position? Make a call, dude. You can do it even though it will feel like all options are bad ones. That's life a lot of the time. WHAT DO YOU DO?

You don't ignore it as long as he did and let it get out of control. You start from a point where you're communicating with students about their issues and taking material actions out of the gate. Again your scenario fails because it's built on the assumption that the wrong choice to ignore complaints for months or even years was repeated made. The protest that eventually led to him resigning did not come out of nowhere as you seem to be pretending here-0 it was the result of repeated bad decisions by the administration to ignore the concerns of the students, until they had no choice but to protest to be heard.

And sure, many individual complaints may suddenly take you by surprise, if you've not been paying enough attention and the complainer has been nursing their pain instead of speaking up clearly from the start. But that's not the scenario you presented. You presented one where a multitude of such complaints had been ignored or mishandled repeatedly until the only possible action to get them dealt with a mass protest action.
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
http://nypost.com/2015/11/15/blind-teacher-loses-job-after-rinsing-his-mouth-with-listerine/

This is from a public school, mind you, but it's a small and typical example of how schools nowadays throw their staff under the bus under the weight of any complaint. We can ascribe this to the standard bureaucratic mentality of avoiding complaints and conflict of any kind and lacking any kind of integrity in the process. Human beings in a job are replaceable cogs and the customer is always right.
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
You don't ignore it as long as he did and let it get out of control. You start from a point where you're communicating with students about their issues and taking material actions out of the gate. Again your scenario fails because it's built on the assumption that the wrong choice to ignore complaints for months or even years was repeated made. The protest that eventually led to him resigning did not come out of nowhere as you seem to be pretending here-0 it was the result of repeated bad decisions by the administration to ignore the concerns of the students, until they had no choice but to protest to be heard.

Since you are dismissing my scenario as literally impossible to happen to you (a claim that I would call self-aggrandizing to the extreme) then let's address the less hypothetical scenario I mentioned where a Prof wrote an email about Halloween disagreeing that policing costume choices was a good idea. There are protesters demanding that person's job. You are the President and are not at fault, but must decide what to do. Let's add in for fun the the protesters have brought things to a head by having the football team or whoever else go on strike and a quick decision must be made. WHAT DO YOU DO? Throw your staff under the bus to appease to protesters, or tell them no?
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jasonr:
I'm just wondering, is the prevalence of creepy men crashing sex survivor assault groups that great? Do alot of single guys show up at these groups looking to pick up girls? I'm a little skeptical that this is a large problem.


It's a huge problem, especially when you count in those that creep under the "nice guy" label and act like (or even sincerely believe) that putting on a good show of being superficially caring and supportive should entitle them to attention and romantic consideration.

quote:
But regardless, is it not reasonable to simply have rules in place to clearly ban this sort of behaviour? Surely each group has a charter of rules or a statement of guiding principles that can be tailored to fit the group's needs and to screen applicants.[/quote[
So they can close the door after the horse is out of the barn? Or are you really suggesting that having such rules will somehow remove any possibility that someone will violate them? Remember, the point of such groups is to create and environment where there is an active sense that there is _no_ danger. Not to flush out an punish dangerous people.

You seem to be very hung up on punishment as a solution to thing you don't like, but it's pretty much useless. It does no good in any real situation where you want to make people feel safe or otherwise work to overcome harm. SAying "we'll punish you if you break the rules" implies, not only, that there is a possibility that rule breaking will occur (meaning members must be on guard against it) but also that those in charge have the power to violate the nominal safety of others based on their interpretation of someone's behavior. Those are both elements that would effectively prevent any notion of safety from being established in the first place, whereas selective membership and a shared sense of communal responsibility that comes with it are what actually provide the security needed for these groups to work.

[quote]If the university and student body exercise the power to create "safe spaces", surely they have the power to enact rules targeting anti social behaviour like what you're describing, which is a far less intrusive solution.

A solution to what? It's a solution to punishing antisocial behavior, to be sure. It's not a solution to creating safe spaces for people to talk about things, because bad actors tend to assume that they wont get caught or that they're not actualyl bad actors, and so, at best is would amount to too little, too late, since the damage was done from the moment you couldn't guarantee they they would never be there in the first place.

quote:
It also seems to me that the idea of the "safe space" is certainly not confined to a club (i.e. a building or a structure of any kind) but exists across campus. [/quote[
In the ideal, sure, but one has to work to ge there, and there are different things to be done when dealing with public areas than with private areas. You can't prevent people from coming across bad actors when moving about day to day, but you can institute things like Safe Walk programs, so that people moving through the public areas can arrange to never need to be alone, but can always reliably have a well screened and trained companion with them to prevent, deflect, or diffuse any situation that may come up.

[quote]It's one thing to say that women in a sex survivor group should be able to screen unverified or potentially anti social men from their clubhouse; it is another thing to suggest that they can do so from campus or from general public spaces, let alone dictate what students across campus are allowed to say and not say.

Indeed, which is why it's disingenuous to pretend that anyone is claiming that that's an appropriate solution, instead of a strawman presented in place of looking at what the actual proposal are for increasing overall safety.

quote:
It seems like certain groups with specific political objectives feel entitled to create a miasma of silence around themselves and across campus, screening out and expelling views they personally find offensive. Sort of like those kids' in that Season 2 STNG episode whose immune systems would leave their bodies and pre-emptively attack potential invaders, thereby killing everyone around them.
And here we go with false accusations based on your invention. How about you back away from the strawman and actually address real solutions, instead of the things you make up to mischaracterize the position of others, since you're the only person who has proposed this bizarre and unrealistic solution in the first place.

quote:
I have a pretty good sense of what the Pyrtolins of the world would like to see and how a campus run by them would look like - what would YOU implement if you had the power? I'm curious. It really is difficult to tell where you stand on this thread.
No you don't. Because instead of listing to anything that I say, you invent things that you want to attack me for having said and then pretend that they're what I really want. All the more ironic because they tend to stem from your your strong preference for solutions based on punishment, rather than my assertions of solutions based on security and respect.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
You don't ignore it as long as he did and let it get out of control. You start from a point where you're communicating with students about their issues and taking material actions out of the gate. Again your scenario fails because it's built on the assumption that the wrong choice to ignore complaints for months or even years was repeated made. The protest that eventually led to him resigning did not come out of nowhere as you seem to be pretending here-0 it was the result of repeated bad decisions by the administration to ignore the concerns of the students, until they had no choice but to protest to be heard.

Since you are dismissing my scenario as literally impossible to happen to you (a claim that I would call self-aggrandizing to the extreme) then let's address the less hypothetical scenario I mentioned where a Prof wrote an email about Halloween disagreeing that policing costume choices was a good idea. There are protesters demanding that person's job. You are the President and are not at fault, but must decide what to do. Let's add in for fun the the protesters have brought things to a head by having the football team or whoever else go on strike and a quick decision must be made. WHAT DO YOU DO? Throw your staff under the bus to appease to protesters, or tell them no?
Do you think protestors magically fall out of the sky or something? You're jumping straight to *BAM* protesters, assuming that my office did not immediately issue a rebuttal to that letter and make an active and clear attempt to discuss the issue with professor and those aggrieved, especially to the degree that he represented it as anything beyond his personal opinion and put institutional weight behind it.

Let's recall that, in the parallel scenario here, the administration failed to respond until forced to by outcry instead of immediately and clearly acting, and it was against the background of ongoing issues.

you keep trying to present a scenario that results in a magical overnight, out of nowhere protest situation, with absolutely no understanding of the amount of time and effort, along with the weight or repeated offenses it takes to move people to protest.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
http://nypost.com/2015/11/15/blind-teacher-loses-job-after-rinsing-his-mouth-with-listerine/

This is from a public school, mind you, but it's a small and typical example of how schools nowadays throw their staff under the bus under the weight of any complaint. We can ascribe this to the standard bureaucratic mentality of avoiding complaints and conflict of any kind and lacking any kind of integrity in the process. Human beings in a job are replaceable cogs and the customer is always right.

Do you have a credible source on that? I tried to search to see if a source that doesn't make stuff up just for the sake of getting people worked up had covered it, but wasn't able to find anything.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JoshCrow:

Submissive and subservient? No - strong and resolute and proud, like I am. Unless YOU think they are subservient and submissive, which would be your problem, not theirs.


Wait, so you weren't suggesting taht they try to act in ways to curry the favor of white people and avoid acting in ways that might offend them? Nice try to miscast me, but what was your point, if not telling them to suck up to the majority to make it like them?

quote:
BTW, you are compounding the error of mischaracterizing my words (offer advice/suggest => tell == dictate) by adding the word "threat". I really think you are manipulating language past its breaking point. You should run for office.
You start out, right at the top of what you wrote by saying "If you act this way, you'll create more racists" that's a implicit threat, unless you don't mean to suggest that "more racists" is a dangerous or undesirable result for them.

Your advice to them boils down to "Do what white people want you to do if you want to be treated as if you had rights." That is advising subservience.

Consider for a moment that their right to respectful and equitable treatment should be predicated purely on their humanity, and not conditional on how well they please other groups of people by their behavior, nor based on how many members of a different group of people may harbor biases against them.

With that base line, can you not see how suggesting that they prioritize making other groups of people happy and coddling potential racists over fighting for equal treatment might be just a little contrary to their objectives.

quote:
If they did possess my philosophy and outlook, they would not see taunting as worth becoming upset over - it would be just noise, more indicative of the taunter's own emotional weaknesses than reflective of them.

If. Bu they don't. Why is that? Maybe because the top examples of people that stood up themselves that way we have in the media are ones that are dead? Shot by police or self-styled vigilantes since they wren't perfectly deferential? It would be nice indeed if we lived in a world where sharing your philosophy was a viable option, but we live in one where those taunts carry a realy, mortal threat. Perhaps not from every person projecting them, but from enough that ignoring them is playing Russian roulette.

quote:
In essence, if they're out there (and I'm sure they are), they would be invisible in this conversation, because they are not moved to action by the "problem", having essentially none. They would be getting on with their lives, empowered and uninterested in moral crusades against some trouble-making small-minded bigots.
They'd be silent because they'd be dead. And that's the fundamental problem that they'd really like you to actually be paying attention to instead of telling them how to voice their problems in ways that allow you to go on ignoring them as you have been instead of inconveniencing you my actually making you pay attention every once in a while so that those with the power to make changes are forced to actually do so in one way or another.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
it implies that one should be prepared to not only hear and acknowledge grievances without question, but to enthusiastically concur lest you be seen as part of the problem
No, you don't need to concur. Believe it or not, there's actually a framework for discussion that works quite well for this kind of thing, and one issue "SJW"s have when dealing with others -- especially inherently cynical, hostile others -- is that they aren't familiar with that framework and don't know how to use it.

And, more to the point, when an effort is made to teach those hostile attackers how to step back and take the first steps toward more productive dialog on issues, they rally behind their hostility and start asserting that asking for the baseline of non-judgemental respect needed is equivalent to totalitarianism.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Pyr is punching up. You guys are punching down. It makes you less attractive.

This is true but it's also a cheat. Why? Because one can paint a few lines of power as one sees it, which despite Pyrtolin's claims is neither simple nor objective in any sense. Once one has done this all one has to do is systematically avoid any thoughts or comments about the "down" direction and then make any kinds of claims whatever in the "up" direction and - presto! You are a crusader. Except for one small detail: Not only should the lines of power in the premise be up for debate (which in social justice circles right now they vehemently are not) but the actual claims which move in an 'upward' direction also need to be verified as being valid.

On what basis are you making these claims? Are you really that familiar with the overall study of power dynamics to actually making such assertions with any amount of authority, or ar you rattling off what you're really like to be true and asserting it as facts to try to give your opinions equal weight to what people who have carefully studied the topic have found to be true.

quote:
So I can say, for instance, that since Joe had power over Max that Max was fully entitled when he felt oppressed to call Joe names, get him fired, and then chant about his righteousness.
you can say that, but it's completely disconnected with reality. Perhaps if you said "criticize Joe's mistreatment of Max" instead of "call Joe names", sure.

quote:
But I think anyone with sense would ask me to wait and explain for a minute whether Joe really had power over Max, and further, whether Max's reaction was reasonable even if he did.
Except, to be clear, it's not simply having more power that's the issue, its having more power and hurting other though its application, whether intentionally or ignorantly.

Lets be clear here-
"Punching up" is being critical or even satirical of those with more net social, economic, institutional, etc... power than you for applying that power in harmful ways.

"Punching down" is being critical of those with less such power than you in was that further marginalize, diminish, or dismiss them as being inferior.


quote:
So now we have the basic premise which is shaky, and lumped on that we allow behavior that would not be reasonable except for the supposed oppressed status of those who did it,
So you're fully against Stand your Ground or any other defensive laws that suggest that using lethal force is allowable if necessary to protect you own life? I mean, it's pretty well established that we do already make clear allowances for self defense when someone is under duress that we wouldn't for someone who is not so oppressed.

quote:
and finally, we lose sight altogether on what exactly is a proportional response, in terms of quantitative force offered, if some sort of oppression is going on and some sort of response is needed.
Only in terms of your completely fabricated example with no basis in reality.

quote:
But when any aspect of these premises is questioned the response is indignant anger and dismissal we find it very hard to accept the normally unacceptable response without explanation.
Not at all true. When they're honestly and nonjudgmentally questioned, many people are happy to step forward with responses. And the only "indignant anger" tends to come from those that don't like the critical nature of the answers they get. Of course that doesn't stop you from making unfounded accusations, of anger, especially when...

quote:
When asked why no explanation is given the answer is "you just don't understand," or "if you bothered to learn about it you'd know already." (another form of Kafkatrap)
..you didn't actual;y honest, nonjudgemental questions, but rather launcghed into a series of judmental attacks on a position and then expected others to bow down to your demands and teach you a 101 course while tolerating your constant barrage of attacks and misrepresentations. At that point, characterizing your attacks as evidence that you're demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of the issue is perfectly accurate, and asking that you back off with te attacks and actually show an earnest desire to understand, even if you ultimately don't agree, is a very reasonable minimum standard.

quote:
Tom, I know you think there is some wisdom in taking the middle path and playing both sides against each other. It can perhaps strike balance in the long run; it can allow you to avoid choosing sides prior to your being certain which one is best; and for the purposes of a forum it can allow you to add in to heated debates without necessarily becoming embroiled in annoying back-and-forths. However this is the real world we're talking about, and it's not at all clear cut that the two sides are in a stalemate. As I see it the Kafkatrappers are gaining ground right now, and only because it so closely resembles top-down Soviet control mechanisms do some of us wonder whether a neo-Marxist movement is underfoot. Surely in the wake of Occupy and the 1% movement this would be a good time, and it aligns nicely with an era where oligarchs are truly getting the better of everyone. But the solution to oligarchy isn't and never was fascism, even though people in the 20's and 30's truly and completely failed to understand this. They somehow thought it would save them even though it was evil incarnate.
And gee, doesn't this give me all the confidence in the world that you're actually interested in the real positions, when you're so willing to absurdly misrepresent, attack, and demonize? Seriously, can you go back and read that and actually say that if someone was making those kinds of accusations against you that you'd be more willing to try to educate them than you would be to write them off as someone who was so lost in their own biases that you'd be wasting your time?


quote:
But I can actually take all of your questions and reduce them to one: what are we to do about the oddball total a*****e who makes everyone crazy and scared? What are we to do with that rare sociopath or bigot who makes life miserable?
Except were talking about groups of people for who these behaviors against them are commonplace, day to day things. Not people like you who enjoy the luxury of only being threatened by the oddball or rare sociopath.

quote:
Pyr really sounds like he would endorse a bipartite system of rules on campus, and perhaps of laws in a society. Different laws depending on whether you are part of an oppressed class or not, however that's determined. Because there are only two option: the same rules and laws for everyone (no double standards), or different laws depending on your skin color, like Jim Crow but in reverse.
Ah, so you think banning rich people and poor people from sleeping under bridges- enforcing the same rules for everyone with on consideration for underlying causes, is a just solution to homelessness.

I mean you do seem to suffer from the same belief as jasonr to the effect of "If we punish enough people who mess up, then maybe people will magically stop messing up all on their own" Which would be a debatable belief if you didn't compound it by falsely projecting that same beliefs onto others and distorting what they say through that lense.

The net result being you keep hammering away at the false dilemma of "Well, do we make one law for everyone regarding bridges or one for the rich and one for the poor?" While completely ignoring my assertion that we should instead be focusing on ending poverty and providing reasonable shelter to the poor by hand waving it away as an attack on the rich.

quote:
Or as Frank Herbert put it, "Rebels are always closet aristocrats." This doesn't have to be true by definition, but it tends to be true. The means used by those who would oust the power structure need to be held to the highest rigor; as Ghandi said, resistance cannot be offered using the tools of the oppressors if real change is to happen.
Indeed. Which is why I stand here steadfastly resisting your use of insult, invective, dehumanization, etc... and argue instead that we should be starting from a place of non-judgemental respect.

I don't mind that you're ignorance. ignorance is a natural sate. I object to and will continue to criticize your defense of your own ignorance through attacks on others. Insult me all you like, you're not going to intimidate me into letting your attacks and insults go uncriticized for their dehumanizing effect, even if that wasn't your active intent.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
"White supremacy is a consequence of behavoir that asserts racial supremacy favoring whites"

That's dangerous stupidity and a rank subversion of Martin Luther King's message. Have you looked at all at all's discussion of white supremacy? It is the doctrine propounded by Calhoun. To dupe poor whites into accepting poverty by believing in their legal and moral superiority over blacks. No, you don't get to move that target to fit your cause de jour.

I'm not sure why you're injecting MLK at this point, but I will note that the principles I'm advancing are exactly those designed to and very effective at countering what Calhoun pointed out. If you pay attention to what I'm saying and not what you want to be arguing against, the notions I favor attack the false premise that there's some magic tradeoff between addressing racial inequality any addressing classism, and allows those that suffer from each to cooperate for mutual benefit and inures them from suggestions that one benefits at the expense of the other, by showing how the benefits or penalties one suffer from race have little bearing on the benefits or penalties that one suffers from health, and that it's wrong to try to equate the two directly.

you're injecting the notion of superiority of one group over the other out of nowhere, and in the process of doing so, you're the one encouraging the conflict that Calhoun spoke of even as I do my best to negate it.

To bring an example that you've brought up before- you spoke of your experience trying to get public services and being tolsd that there were certain programs that were only for black minorities.

Your reaction was to be outraged ad being excluded for those programs that were for other people, effectively directing anger and envy at those people- playing into Calhoun's scenario. My reaction was to be outraged that there weren't sufficient services for people that were poor to get you what you needed to have a stable footing. Directed at the system and the way it mistreats you rather than at other people whose separate issues you effectively dismiss by complaining that you weren't eligible for solutions to a different problem than the one that you were facing.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jasonr:
Tom I'm disappointed in you. You must be familiar with 20th century history and the role played by student movements in some of its darkest chapters. Like Fenring I am looking at methods more than ideology, although that is relevent too.

Are you seriously claiming that all student movements in recent memory have had bad, totalitarian results? That just the involvement of students in a movement is enough to ensure disaster?

Because your conclusions and miscasting of the behavoir of the students only make sense in that narrow context.
 
Posted by JoshCrow (Member # 6048) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:

If he's failing to live up to what he could be doing, why not? Seems like it has been a bit of a harrowing experience, but it got him to pay better attention to where the real pain actually was and actually be visible about trying to work to improve the situation there instead of simply being part of the institutional machert and advancing a few cosmetic changes that didn't substantially improve the environment.

Are you really saying that you think that they should have continued to suffer in silence rather than putting the people whose job it is to listen to the through the inconvenience of actually needing to listen to them?

As I have said before in other way, what I'm saying is that modern racism is not a problem to be "solved" - it is more like a chronic illness to be managed.

This suffering cannot be cured by making people watch diversity programming, or letting black people self-segregate. They cannot "choose" to not be black, and people cannot "choose" to not have biases (which is why they are called "unconscious biases": they run so deep that even the current images of protesting blacks reinforces them, in an ironic twist). You can chase these biases all the way back to the door to a person's mind, but you cannot enter that door - only the occupant controls what goes on in there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Say_It_Loud_%E2%80%93_I%27m_Black_and_I%27m_Proud

Black pride needs to be "a serious thing" again. Just as with gay pride - it serves as a powerful centering mechanism for a minority under external pressure. A proud person is not suffering - they are mighty and they KNOW it. This is what must be worked towards. It is not to reinforce the state of victimhood - it is to powerfully establish the alternative.
 
Posted by JoshCrow (Member # 6048) on :
 
Pyr, you continue to insist that I want black people to act "to make white people happy", and I continue to insist that no, I don't actually think that (in fact I want black people to "make themselves happy", which is the point of my philosophy), so basically we are finished communicating. You seem incapable of taking what I say at face value and have sought all manner of ways to impugn my motivations. Actually, you finally got close to addressing my suggestion above (when you said "If. Bu they don't. Why is that?"...) but I honestly at this point am left with nothing but frustration at your insinuations about my motives. I am done engaging with you unless you want to actually discuss the issues without mischaracterizing everything I say.

A useful exercise in debate, for example, is to try to repeat your opponent's position to see if you've understood it before proceeding. Without snark. Can you?
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
It's always a little surreal to read one of these threads where the most judgmental person on the thread is constantly demanding others proffer non-judgmental responses and questions. As if the exercise of judgment is something to be guilty about, rather than a hallmark of adulthood. It does explain why he refuses to support his points with actual facts or examples, as that might lead to actual justified judgments.

Or when someone is constantly demanding that all critics need to listen and ask questions, yet seems incapable of actually listening to the questions or comments that he receives. Is it, a do as I say, not as I do moment, or just a complete inability to actually comprehend the irony?

Or how, someone pretends emotional and physical wellbeing are the same thing, yet confronts any challenge to the emotional side with examples of the physical situation (punch in the face, stand your ground, etc.). We accept a difference between physical safety (illegal to violate) and freedom from mental hostility (range of consequences but rarely illegal), pulling hypos from the former to cover the latter reflects a weakness of ideology.

I still think the safe spaces demand is too vague to be actionable. It really is an extraordinary request, to ask for the "state" (in the form of campus government) to suppress the speech of others to allow for certain groups to speak freely. That's a stark contrast to what our principals are based on, where every group is allowed to speak and bad ideas are held up to challenge and ridicule. And given the importance of that principal in our society (and it is specifically that principal that set the stage for groups like the KKK to become subject to public scorn), it's something that really needs a clear logical argument to support.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
As I have said before in other way, what I'm saying is that modern racism is not a problem to be "solved" - it is more like a chronic illness to be managed.
You're saying that people shouldn't be standing up for equal rights, then? That they should basically just tolerate second class status because it's too hard or inconvenient to keep working toward equity?

I'm not sure how else you expect racism to be managed, except by telling people "Sorry, you just gotta deal with being treated as less than fully human"
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JoshCrow:
Pyr, you continue to insist that I want black people to act "to make white people happy", and I continue to insist that no, I don't actually think that (in fact I want black people to "make themselves happy", which is the point of my philosophy), so basically we are finished communicating. You seem incapable of taking what I say at face value and have sought all manner of ways to impugn my motivations. Actually, you finally got close to addressing my suggestion above (when you said "If. Bu they don't. Why is that?"...) but I honestly at this point am left with nothing but frustration at your insinuations about my motives. I am done engaging with you unless you want to actually discuss the issues without mischaracterizing everything I say.

A useful exercise in debate, for example, is to try to repeat your opponent's position to see if you've understood it before proceeding. Without snark. Can you?

Let's break it down:

quote:
Except that in responding the way they have, they are reinforcing (rather than reducing) racism.
"They should not be behaving the way they are, because it might upset the white majority (encourage racial bias against them)"


quote:
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.
"I give them my permission to talk about the issue, so long as they do so on these terms: They can talk all they want, but they cannot take physical action to stand up for themselves."

quote:
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.
"Despite being under very real threat of physical harm on a day to day basis, they should make an active effort to ignore the dangers they live with on a daily basis and see the world in the way that I want them to"

quote:
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.
"If someone made a threat against me, I would call on an institution that I have a favorable past history with to deal with the matter. They should consider doing the same dispute that institutions long track record of mistreatment and persecution of them"

quote:
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 probability of threats to my identity is low enough in this day and age that I do not take my life in my hands if I ignore them"

quote:
The reason is simple - my self-worth is already established and rock-solid. It is unshakable.
"I can maintain a strong sense of self worth, because I do not live in a world that constantly threatens it and undermines it by reminding me of my second class status or that it can take my life with impunity at any moment"


quote:
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.
"The insecurity that black people fell because they live under constant threat isn't justified. They should ignore the danger around them and act in ways that align with how I want them to behave instead. If they acknowledge that danger in any way, I will accuse them of embracing oppression/victimhood as an identity."
 
Posted by JoshCrow (Member # 6048) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
As I have said before in other way, what I'm saying is that modern racism is not a problem to be "solved" - it is more like a chronic illness to be managed.
You're saying that people shouldn't be standing up for equal rights, then? That they should basically just tolerate second class status because it's too hard or inconvenient to keep working toward equity?

I'm not sure how else you expect racism to be managed, except by telling people "Sorry, you just gotta deal with being treated as less than fully human"

Equal rights - absolutely they should stand for it, because "rights" are legal constructions, and I oppose legal discrimination.

"Tolerate second class status" - not in any legal sense. Socially, on the other hand, if someone views you as second class, you can argue with them all you like but in the end it must be tolerated. I don't say "should be" tolerated, mind you: I say "must be". It is nobody's choice what someone else thinks of them. This is true regardless of how disturbing that opinion is.

Sorry for being a downer, but I do not believe racism will ever go away. Luckily I do think it has withdrawn far enough to leave open a path forward for people to be empowered without the physical menace of racial violence (with horrific and rare exceptions, of course)
 
Posted by JoshCrow (Member # 6048) on :
 
Pyr, you just proved you cannot even understand what I'm saying without running it through a warped funhouse mirror, inserting your own opinions into my words, and indulging in motive-speculations. We're done. Best of luck.
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
I will just note for the record that after at least three attempts to ask Pyr what he would do in the situation where protesters are asking for resignation he categorically refuses to answer directly. His claim is that with him in charge it would be literally impossible for protesters to have any problem with him or his staff in any scenario.

The thread OP thesis is basically "it's bad that Tim Wolfe was forced to resign, this was unjust." All subsequent discussion has been about whether it was, in fact, unjust, or whether he really was derelict in his duty to respond to legitimate concerns. Pyr, however, refuses to provide a straightforward (even complex) answer to the simple question of whether Wolfe being forced to resign should be seen as a good thing or a bad thing. A man lost his job; should he have lost it?

Everything Pyr says points in the direction of supporting the result at Mizzou, but he has yet to come out and say it. I want him to say it. I would like to see him man up and answer JoshCrow's question as well. If Pyr could choose, would Wolfe have lost his job? Would JoshCrow lose his job should he speak against the protesters?

[ November 16, 2015, 03:13 PM: Message edited by: Fenring ]
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
I'll tell you, I was tempted to play fallacy bingo with your artfully contentless attacks on me (Seriously falsely conflating "being judgemental" and "making judgements"? You must be having an off day to have to resort to that dead horse. On the other hand, your attempt to paint my philosophical consistency of treating mental and physical heath as equally important, and pretty much inseparable as a weakness was a particularly artful gem.)

Let's just stick to this strawman, since it tries to make a point:

quote:
Originally posted by Seriati:
I still think the safe spaces demand is too vague to be actionable. It really is an extraordinary request, to ask for the "state" (in the form of campus government) to suppress the speech of others to allow for certain groups to speak freely. That's a stark contrast to what our principals are based on, where every group is allowed to speak and bad ideas are held up to challenge and ridicule. And given the importance of that principal in our society (and it is specifically that principal that set the stage for groups like the KKK to become subject to public scorn), it's something that really needs a clear logical argument to support.

Suppression of speech is your proposal here, not anyone else's. So if you think it's unreasonable, then maybe you shouldn't randomly inject it into the conversation. Do you really need me to find some way to prove that it's good to have even the foggiest idea of what you're talking about to make useful criticisms rather than making things up? I'd assumed that it should be a self evident point, but maybe I should take a step back and work on teaching how making stuff up and then attacking it with criticism isn't a productive method of argument.
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
A safe space in this sense is, by definition, one where the rights to free expression are suppressed in favor of a permitted type of speech and a disallowed type of speech and content. Even suggesting otherwise is hilarious. And such spaces need not only restrict access by certain ideas, but by certain skin colors as well. If I'm not mistaken they were asking for black-only spaces as well, and for black-only vigils and so forth. The idea that this is not an act of suppression is flatly wrong, although it can perhaps be debated whether such suppression is or isn't potentially useful.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JoshCrow:
Pyr, you just proved you cannot even understand what I'm saying without running it through a warped funhouse mirror, inserting your own opinions into my words, and indulging in motive-speculations. We're done. Best of luck.

Until you can understand that what I read back to you is a mild interpretation of how what you said will be heard, then I guess you're right. I get that that's not what you were trying to say, but in the end, once the facts of the situation are taken into account, it is what you communicated.

Tell you what? If I go though and read back what I think you were trying to say rather than what you were effectively saying will you do the me the decency of showing that you have the same understanding of my objection to it?
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
A safe space in this sense is, by definition, one where the rights to free expression are suppressed in favor of a permitted type of speech and a disallowed type of speech and content.

By whose definition? That, so far, seems to be something that's been completely made up by people attacking the concept, despite it having no basis in anything described by those supporting it.

Here's a hint- part of the basic function of a safe space is that it allows those in it to speak freely, without fear of recrimination or retribution. That's what makes it safe.

[ November 16, 2015, 03:23 PM: Message edited by: Pyrtolin ]
 
Posted by ScottF (Member # 6897) on :
 
So anyone can speak freely about anything in a safe space?
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Except that in responding the way they have, they are reinforcing (rather than reducing) racism.
"They should not be behaving the way they are, because it might upset the white majority (encourage racial bias against them)"
This one was only slightly warped, assuming of course that you ignore any racism other than white on black. If you include other kinds of racism them it completely fails to demonstrate comprehension. But even if you do ignore other forms of racism, you're still left with a statement of opinion of factual consequence - that racism increases rather than decreases, which if true detracts from the presumed goal. Your opinion on this is irrelevant Pyr, it's either true and therefore a bad idea, or not true and therefore possibly a good one (in each case judged from the perspective of the protesters).
quote:
quote:
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.
"I give them my permission to talk about the issue, so long as they do so on these terms: They can talk all they want, but they cannot take physical action to stand up for themselves."
He didn't give them permission, nor did he condition it on anything. He actually expressed agreement with your stated goals (not that you acknowledge anything that others say) by validating that their views and opinions should be heard. Hard to say if they have merit until after you hear them, unless you're buying whatever they are selling sight unseen.

And yes no one is permitted to take physical action in this case. The state has pre-empted our self-help rights in all but a limited set of circumstances. Are you proposing a change to the history and right of physical self help?
quote:
quote:
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.
"Despite being under very real threat of physical harm on a day to day basis, they should make an active effort to ignore the dangers they live with on a daily basis and see the world in the way that I want them to"
What very real threat of physical harm? Please cite examples.

Like I said before, when you jump to physical harm to confront the entire range of mental and emotional harms possible it demonstrates the weakness of your philosophy.

I think the fairer interpretation is that he was talking about everything BUT PHYSICAL HARM with his statement. He even took it a step into physical acts to threats with his Swastika example (not that you really are paying attention).
quote:
quote:
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.
"If someone made a threat against me, I would call on an institution that I have a favorable past history with to deal with the matter. They should consider doing the same dispute that institutions long track record of mistreatment and persecution of them"
These are my favorite ones, where you ascribe actions to "institutions" rather than people, as if they monolithic and not capable of the individualize reactions of the people that make them up. This one though is a bit of a cause of the day, and not without good reason given how far the police take things these days.

In any event, you have to have a bad act that would actually evoke police protection, it didn't seem as if any were actually implicated here.
quote:
quote:
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 probability of threats to my identity is low enough in this day and age that I do not take my life in my hands if I ignore them"
Who is taking their life into their own hands exactly? What evidence of this is there? And what context?

You're talking about a university campus, how common is racial murder on university campuses?
quote:
quote:
The reason is simple - my self-worth is already established and rock-solid. It is unshakable.
"I can maintain a strong sense of self worth, because I do not live in a world that constantly threatens it and undermines it by reminding me of my second class status or that it can take my life with impunity at any moment"
The "because" is unwarranted. You don't have any idea what kind of world he lives in, or whether he's come up through the kind of personal circumstances that are more potentially damaging than the group identity issues that are all you seem to care about. He may have lived a priviledged and sheltered life, he may not have, you don't appear to care, which is a fundamental failure of the philosophy you espouse, it's complete disregard of reality in favor of theory.
quote:
quote:
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.
"The insecurity that black people fell because they live under constant threat isn't justified. They should ignore the danger around them and act in ways that align with how I want them to behave instead. If they acknowledge that danger in any way, I will accuse them of embracing oppression/victimhood as an identity."
Was this one just completely made up? He said internalizing a status of oppressed makes having self-worth more difficult, which your thesis inherently acknowledges and you routinely bash everyone nearby with. Yet when he says it you "reinterpret" it into nonsense?
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
I will just note for the record that after at least three attempts to ask Pyr what he would do in the situation where protesters are asking for resignation he categorically refuses to answer directly. His claim is that with him in charge it would be literally impossible for protesters to have any problem with him or his staff in any scenario.


You staged three false dilemmas involving a situation that had been let go so far out of control though neglect that protests had arisen, and would not take "I wouldn't be so neglectful" as an answer. I do applaud you for trying your hardest to set up the kind of traps that you're criticizing others for using, but I'll keep stabbing the Giant in the eye here rather than picking a cup.

quote:
The thread OP thesis is basically "it's bad that Tim Wolfe was forced to resign, this was unjust." All subsequent discussion has been about whether it was, in fact, unjust, or whether he really was derelict in his duty to respond to legitimate concerns. Pyr, however, refuses to provide a straightforward (even complex) answer to the simple question of whether Wolfe being forced to resign should be seen as a good thing or a bad thing. A man lost his job; should he have lost it?
It's a bad thing, hands down. It's sad that the situation had to progress that far before people actually realized they needed to pay attention to and try to fix the problems.

quote:
Everything Pyr says points in the direction of supporting the result at Mizzou, but he has yet to come out and say it. I want him to say it.
We have yet to see the result at Mizzou. We've seen a casualty of the fight due to a person with power refusing to step up and execute his responsibilities as needed to resolve the situation, but the actual result is still to come.

quote:
I would like to see him man up and answer JoshCrow's question as well. If Pyr could choose, would Wolfe have lost his job?
No. If I could choose, Wolfe would have done his job instead and the issue would have never had to come to what it did.

quote:
Would JoshCrow lose his job should he speak against the protesters?
Of course not; I've already made that clear in my responses to your less rigged questions that almost seemed like you were starting to be earnest instead of just trying to make a trap.
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
I'll tell you, I was tempted to play fallacy bingo with your artfully contentless attacks on me (Seriously falsely conflating "being judgemental" and "making judgements"? You must be having an off day to have to resort to that dead horse. On the other hand, your attempt to paint my philosophical consistency of treating mental and physical heath as equally important, and pretty much inseparable as a weakness was a particularly artful gem.)

Yes I know, pointing out your illogical and deliberate (or possibly ironic) hypocrisy is something you have to ignore. It's too direct for your normal misdirection attacks.

quote:
Suppression of speech is your proposal here, not anyone else's.
Lol, do you think anyone reading this thinks your statement is true? What audience are you speaking to?

A safe space only works by suppressing speech. There is no other operative mechanism. It excludes the unwelcome.
quote:
So if you think it's unreasonable, then maybe you shouldn't randomly inject it into the conversation.
Maybe, I should play the game you played with Josh?

"If you insist on bringing up reality or truth, you should stay out of the conversation"
quote:
Do you really need me to find some way to prove that it's good to have even the foggiest idea of what you're talking about to make useful criticisms rather than making things up?
I'd like you to prove I made something up, yes, I'd like to see that. Actually, I'd like to see you prove anything, feel free to use either logic or facts, or both.
quote:
I'd assumed that it should be a self evident point, but maybe I should take a step back and work on teaching how making stuff up and then attacking it with criticism isn't a productive method of argument.
I think you should take a step back and do exactly that. Why don't you start with an analysis of say your first 50 responses on this thread compared with what the posters you responded to actually said.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ScottF:
So anyone can speak freely about anything in a safe space?

In terms of private , safe discussion groups. Absolutely, if you're asking honestly. That's the point in terms of private discussion forums. When you create an environment carefully shaped to have all threats excluded, people who are otherwise silenced in public where they will be judged, attacked, abused, etc... for speaking are able to learn to express themselves freely without fear of such recrimination. This allows them to begin to build the foundation of confidence needed to deal with the world at large on a healthier and more productive basis.

When expanded to unfiltered public areas, though, they have nothing to do with restricting people from talking, but rather with providing people with the resources needed to not be vulnerable to attacks and to have their concerns actively heard and responded to before small problems escalate into large ones.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
A safe space only works by suppressing speech. There is no other operative mechanism. It excludes the unwelcome.
And by not being able to force they presence on others, they're somehow not able to speak? I think you're confusing the freedom to speak with the power to force people to listen to you. Nice play for the "right to abuse" though.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 945) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by ScottF:
So anyone can speak freely about anything in a safe space?

In terms of private , safe discussion groups. Absolutely, if you're asking honestly. That's the point in terms of private discussion forums. When you create an environment carefully shaped to have all threats excluded, people who are otherwise silenced in public where they will be judged, attacked, abused, etc... for speaking are able to learn to express themselves freely without fear of such recrimination. This allows them to begin to build the foundation of confidence needed to deal with the world at large on a healthier and more productive basis.

When expanded to unfiltered public areas, though, they have nothing to do with restricting people from talking, but rather with providing people with the resources needed to not be vulnerable to attacks and to have their concerns actively heard and responded to before small problems escalate into large ones.

Unless the sole rule for inclusions or exclusion is based on some bright line identity feature, this is...not true.

The "careful shaping" includes shutting out certain viewpoints.

This can serve a valid purpose, IMO, but it's not useful to pretend that such a safe space doesn't include some restrictions on speech.
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 2450) on :
 
Pyr, how can threats be excluded if anyone is allowed to say anything? Your response to ScottF implies that a white supremacist wouldn't be excluded from a safe space for people of colour. Even if he showed up spouting the worst sort of racism.

Safe spaces or even just places expected to be free of harrassment and abuse must suppress certain kinds of speech. Any messageboard that has any visibility figures that out quickly enough.
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Would JoshCrow lose his job should he speak against the protesters?
Of course not; I've already made that clear in my responses to your less rigged questions that almost seemed like you were starting to be earnest instead of just trying to make a trap.
Your responses to the other scenarios were that you would never let the situation get out of control to the point where there was a protest in the first place. Aside from the fact that you're not a wizard who can foretell what will or won't cause a protest to begin, you may also note that there might be protesters about progressive issues no matter what kind of president there is. No matter how much the administration does there will always be a farther goalpost, a new freedom to fight for. There will always be a protest fighting for the next thing.

But back to your answer here: in the other cases you said you'd listen to the upset students and it would never get out of hand. But this scenario is one where you didn't let anything get out of hand and did everything you could in good faith. However a student's group released a campus message saying they believed that Halloween costumes should be vetted and offensive costumes banned. In response to this a staff member (who is not under your mind control and can therefore ignite anger despite your best intentions) writes a reply email saying that banning costumes is a bad idea, that it infantilizes people who are supposed to be learning to act as adults, and that it is a suppression of expression and liberty. In response to this the students form a protest to go after the Prof's job and they rally the football team behind them who go on strike. WHAT DO YOU DO? You can just dodge again, of course, but it's not enough to say JoshCrow shouldn't lose his job; you have to also say you would accept WHATEVER consequences come with standing up for him and his right to speak his mind. You would tell the protesters that their opinion is noted but he's retaining his job? You would tell the football league they'll have to do without your team for a while? What about your board? What will they say about the lost revenue? Would you supply JoshCrow with a bodyguard to make sure he can come and go from his classes unmolested and unthreatened?

[ November 16, 2015, 04:23 PM: Message edited by: Fenring ]
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Seriati:
This one was only slightly warped, assuming of course that you ignore any racism other than white on black. If you include other kinds of racism them it completely fails to demonstrate comprehension. But even if you do ignore other forms of racism, you're still left with a statement of opinion of factual consequence - that racism increases rather than decreases, which if true detracts from the presumed goal. Your opinion on this is irrelevant Pyr, it's either true and therefore a bad idea, or not true and therefore possibly a good one (in each case judged from the perspective of the protesters).


Except that implies that the racial prejudice of others (which is what I take it you're incoherently applying rasim here to mean) is relevant to the goals of the protestors. They're seeking redress for issues on campus and administrative support for establishing a mechanism that would ensure that concerns they had were heard and responded to. They realistically have no control over the number of prejudiced people in the world, as Josh otherwise acknowledges, so the threat that prejudiced people might be annoyed by it is a very hollow criticism. It's a bogeyman threat that actively distract from their actual desires and objectives.

quote:
He didn't give them permission, nor did he condition it on anything.
He said "I want you to this" that's a staement of permission, and presumes that what _he_ wnts matters to them.What he wants them to do, what I want them to do, what you want them to do are all irrelevant unless we're considering them to be subject to our desires.As free and equal people what they want should be what matters and what we're paying attention to.

quote:
He actually expressed agreement with your stated goals (not that you acknowledge anything that others say) by validating that their views and opinions should be heard.
Except, of course, for his objection to measures that it took to actually get people to hear them. So we have a nominal claim that he want them to be heard, but apparently by someone else because he immediately followed that up by saying he didn't want them to take the kind of action it took to get him to hear.

quote:
Hard to say if they have merit until after you hear them, unless you're buying whatever they are selling sight unseen.
Indeed, but we have just the opposite problem- people dismissing them based on the fact that they managed to get heard without actually looking at the content of the message, just the nature of what it took to get attention to it.

quote:
And yes no one is permitted to take physical action in this case. The state has pre-empted our self-help rights in all but a limited set of circumstances. Are you proposing a change to the history and right of physical self help?
We seem to have a long standing right of freedom to assembly and to protest injustice, or are you just glossing that over here? And hey, don't forget that MLK wrote many letters from jail as part of his efforts. Sometimes it takes standing up to the law in the face of injustice to get people to listen. EVen Pete later conceded, once he'd actually reviewed the action instead of just speculating, that they conducted their physical actions with full propriety and in lines with respectful protests.

quote:
What very real threat of physical harm? Please cite examples.
You're actually denying that black people, of all races, are at a significantly higher risk of physical harm than others? What do you want, assault and homicide stats? Testimony from black people about how every day they have to keep in mind that, at any moment they could be targeted because of their appearance (or stories about how forgetting that for even a moment, like the kid with the toy gun did) means they end up in trouble or dead?

I mean, if you're asking me to prove what the black experience in the US is to you, then at least have the decency to admit that you have no clue about it instead of trying to hold the mutually contradictory position of not being ignorant but yet requiring a prove basic facts.

quote:
Like I said before, when you jump to physical harm to confront the entire range of mental and emotional harms possible it demonstrates the weakness of your philosophy.
Nice a complete tangent to once against claim that consistency is weakness. Or is it failure to conform to a degenerate status quo that you're asserting is a weakness? Either way, for all of its irrelevance, this is begging the question at its finest.

quote:
I think the fairer interpretation is that he was talking about everything BUT PHYSICAL HARM with his statement. He even took it a step into physical acts to threats with his Swastika example (not that you really are paying attention).
That doesn't change the fact that black people face the real and imminent threat of everything, including physical harm, as part of their day to day reality.

quote:
These are my favorite ones, where you ascribe actions to "institutions" rather than people, as if they monolithic and not capable of the individualize reactions of the people that make them up. This one though is a bit of a cause of the day, and not without good reason given how far the police take things these days.
Mob psychology changes human behavior, lie it or not. And institutions that refuse to police themselves and prevent bad behavoir will consistently degenerate toward it. If the police don't want to have the reputation for being biased against blacks, then they need to make greater efforts to stop abusive behaviors within their own ranks, not to blame others for the legitimate fear they invoke because those bad actors are common enough to represent a pervasive threat.

quote:
In any event, you have to have a bad act that would actually evoke police protection, it didn't seem as if any were actually implicated here.
And yet reference to police were in the original message, so what that communicated needed to be addressed.

quote:
Who is taking their life into their own hands exactly? What evidence of this is there? And what context?

You're talking about a university campus, how common is racial murder on university campuses?

Again, back to fundamentally questioning what day to day life is for black people. That would be a relevant question, I supposed, if black students were born on campus, lived their whole lives on campus, and then went to school there. But remember, they were born in other places in the world, lived their lives there, and now come to this place, so when they see the same signs that telegraphed impending harm to them growing up, are you really suggesting that the safe raction for them is "Oh, this is a university, so those can't mean what they've meant to mean for almost two decades of my life" or "Oh, wow, this place is no safer than anywhere else I've been, regardless of what people try to really, really assure me is different". I mean there might be some as trusting as Charlie Brown was of Lucy with the football, but odds are most of them didn't live long enough for college to be a thing for them.

quote:
The "because" is unwarranted. You don't have any idea what kind of world he lives in, or whether he's come up through the kind of personal circumstances that are more potentially damaging than the group identity issues that are all you seem to care about.
Actually, yes I do. He said as much when he said that he could dismiss them without lasting concern. HE made it very clear that, while insulting, he did not feel at real threat of physical harm from seeing them. If he felt a real threat of harm when he saw them, then he would not feel confident that he could just dismiss them. VEry notably, he did not say that he felt confident because he knew he was capable of handling any harm that may be implied by them; that would communicate a much different experience (one that would almost certainly get him labeled as a thug if he happened to be black)

quote:
quote:
quote:
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.
"The insecurity that black people fell because they live under constant threat isn't justified. They should ignore the danger around them and act in ways that align with how I want them to behave instead. If they acknowledge that danger in any way, I will accuse them of embracing oppression/victimhood as an identity."
Was this one just completely made up? He said internalizing a status of oppressed makes having self-worth more difficult, which your thesis inherently acknowledges and you routinely bash everyone nearby with. Yet when he says it you "reinterpret" it into nonsense?
No, and I see you're not above making things up here to claim that I'm making things up.

I said that _being a victim_ regardless of whether one "internalizes" the status makes it impossible to ignore the signs and signals that society gives you to remind you of your status. Signals that it punishes you for ignoring by subjecting you to abuse and violence. His final statement essentially dismissed the reality of the threat they live under and the necessity of remaining aware of it and reacting to in in favor of acting in ways that let their guard down out of a false confidence that there is no real treat behind the signs of threat they face. To effectively say that if they ignore the things that they've seen people get killed because of they'll be just fine, regardless of a preponderance of evidence in their lives to the contrary.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 945) on :
 
Fenring, I think the problem with your hypotheticals is that you want to use them to demonstrate something about a real situation, but in the real situation under discussion, there were mistakes that already happened prior to the crisis that can be blamed (at least in part; how big a part is obviously contested) for how things went down.

By reducing the complexity or picking an arbitrary starting point for the crisis, you might be missing the forest for the trees.

Should he have been fired? That depends on what he did before the crisis as well as on what he did during the crisis.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Your responses to the other scenarios were that you would never let the situation get out of control to the point where there was a protest in the first place. Aside from the fact that you're not a wizard who can foretell what will or won't cause a protest to begin, you may also note that there might be protesters about progressive issues no matter what kind of president there is.
First of all, not all protests should be discouraged. If anything I should be providing a well organized forum for people to protest if they feel they're not being heard.

And I don't have to be a wizard here at all, because you're effectively presuming that I need to pick who to pay attention to and who to ignore. My point is that if I'm ignoring people, then I'm failing at my job. People who are being listened to don't protested because the point of a protest is to gain attention when people don't listen. It's not the first reaction that they jump to, it's the last resort after continued failure to be heard. One doesn't need to be a wizard to sit down and listen to people instead of ignoring them until they feel they have no alternative left but to rally to be heard.

quote:
But back to your answer here: in the other cases you said you'd listen to the upset students and it would never get out of hand. But this scenario is one where you didn't let anything get out of hand and did everything you could in good faith. However a student's group released a campus message saying they believed that Halloween costumes should be vetted and offensive costumes banned. In response to this a staff member (who is not under your mind control and can therefore ignite anger despite your best intentions) writes a reply email saying that banning costumes is a bad idea, that it infantilizes people who are supposed to be learning to act as adults, and that it is a suppression of expression and liberty. In response to this the students form a protest to go after the Prof's job and they rally the football team behind them who go on strike. WHAT DO YOU DO? You can just dodge again, of course, but it's not enough to say JoshCrow shouldn't lose his job; you have to also say you would accept WHATEVER consequences come with standing up for him and his right to speak his mind. You would tell the protesters that their opinion is noted but he's retaining his job? You would tell the football league they'll have to do without your team for a while? What about your board? What will they say about the lost revenue? Would you supply JoshCrow with a bodyguard to make sure he can come and go from his classes unmolested and unthreatened?
Why don't I get to respond to the professor's letter and instead have to, for no apparent reason sit on my thumbs until things get bad enough for a protest? I mean, the only reason that they're protesting at this point is because I tacitly put the weight to the institution behind the professor's defense of racial prejudice and cultural ignorance, never mind already being in talks with the student organization that raised the original issue to find a balance between their request and what it was reasonably within the scope of appropriate responses to help them feel their their concerns about the harms of culturally demanding costumes had been met.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
And to note- Kate posted, early on, a great alternative to what happened at Mizzou. The way an institution that creates administrative infrastructure and forums for students to be heard works, such that people aren't so left out in the cold that they're forced to resort to protest to be heard.
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
Fenring, I think the problem with your hypotheticals is that you want to use them to demonstrate something about a real situation, but in the real situation under discussion, there were mistakes that already happened prior to the crisis that can be blamed (at least in part; how big a part is obviously contested) for how things went down.

By reducing the complexity or picking an arbitrary starting point for the crisis, you might be missing the forest for the trees.

Should he have been fired? That depends on what he did before the crisis as well as on what he did during the crisis.

This is true, and although the hypotheticals were imperfect by virtue of not being real I was going after the principle of dismissing staff to satiate a protest movement. The causes or what led to the protests are not strictly relevant to my question. I hope you agree with me that Pyrtolin's answer that under his guidance there would be zero chance of a protest, and even with a protest, zero chance they would be calling for anyone's job, is absurd. I wanted to know to what extent he'd resist the demands of protesters while still engaging them in a dialogue, but he won't participate in that thought experiment. He wants to have his cake and eat it too: JoshCrow would be free to write emails or speak publicly about his beliefs, and that this could never possibly result in protesters calling for his job as a result. That is his answer for what to do. Wave away the scenario as impossible. In short JoshCrow should have no reason at all to believe his job would be safe at Pyrtolin University. EVERY administrator at a school has to eventually take a stand about whether to stick up for their staff or to get rid of them for PR reasons. For a tenured Prof this would have to be a resignation, but that's certainly on the table if things are looking bad.

It reminds me of certain schools of martial arts that ignore ground fighting and grappling. They teach stand-up long and mid-range striking, and in response to the question "what happens if your opponent knocks you down? How do you deal with him when he's on you?" the answer comes back as "You prevent it happening by knocking him down first! That is what we'll teach you!" It doesn't occur to them that this is a paper fantasy and that in the real world s**t happens and you need to have plans for contingencies. You WILL get knocked down and you WILL have to deal with it.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
JoshCrow would be free to write emails or speak publicly about his beliefs, and that this could never possibly result in protesters calling for his job as a result.
Indeed. Because it's not letters about the beliefs of individuals that lead to protests, no matter how much you try to falsely imply that you can go from 0 to massive protest overnight on the basis of a single letter, regardless of how hurtful it is.

If the university administration has done its job properly then the students should feel safe enough that they can, in fact, respond the way that Josh suggested was better and shrug it off as a jerk that doesn't have power over them, rather than having to treat it as the latest in a series of events that demonstrate that they're under threat because of administration inaction or incompetence.

(You'll note, that beyond Kate's example, the _vast majoirty_ of Colleges and Universities somehow manage to prevent the campus environment from becoming so bad that protests are needed to call attention to it and rectify it. Are you saying they're all staffed by wizards who magically keep things in check?)

[ November 16, 2015, 05:45 PM: Message edited by: Pyrtolin ]
 
Posted by JoshCrow (Member # 6048) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
Indeed. Because it's not letters about the beliefs of individuals that lead to protests, no matter how much you try to falsely imply that you can go from 0 to massive protest overnight on the basis of a single letter, regardless of how hurtful it is.

The Yale letter ignited a firestorm, and could have easily been written by me (particularly since I agree with it). And no, I don't mean it happened in a cultural vacuum - but that letter and reaction could have happened out of the blue even at a place with plenty of diversity programming and safe spaces.

quote:
If the university administration has done its job properly then the students should feel safe enough that they can, in fact, respond the way that Josh suggested was better and shrug it off as a jerk that doesn't have power over them, rather than having to treat it as the latest in a series of events that demonstrate that they're under threat because of administration inaction or incompetence.

Did... did you just wait until I left the thread in frustration so that now you could say something nice about my ideas? I don't know how I feel about this. [LOL]

It's nice to see you lay the entirety of systemic racism at the feet of University administration, though, by suggesting they could fix it if they just cared to. It must be one helluva diversity program to do that. It took me many years, even starting from a place of privilege, to get to that kind of place.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
The "vast majority" of campuses don't have protests? Pray tell, do you live in the Peoples Republic of China?

When I participated in Take Back the night, we were "counter_protested" by a n ostensibly pro life group waving banners of bloody dismembered fetuses. Don't know where those inbred momma jumpers got the idea that anti rape meant pro abortion. Tried to talk to one of them and her husband came over and got threatening.. But I will never just assume that someone has a good reason to wave a banner and yell slogans. If you have nothing coherent to say then you have said nothing at all.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
The "vast majority" of campuses don't have protests?

Of the type, severity, and administrative focus that Mizzou was having. I'm sorry was was being a little brief instead of pedant proofing my remarks. Especially in light of my earlier notes that I thing that campuses should actively encourage protests such as the one you mentioned.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
The Yale letter ignited a firestorm, and could have easily been written by me (particularly since I agree with it). And no, I don't mean it happened in a cultural vacuum - but that letter and reaction could have happened out of the blue even at a place with plenty of diversity programming and safe spaces.
The letter didn't start the firestorm. The lack of response to the letter started the firestorm. Had the administration been on the ball and done its job, the situation would not have snowballed. And it was also against the background of an administration that, again, had been ignoring endemic problems.

It did not "come out of nowhere" ignoring it was the last straw in long history of not addressing issues. It caught the administration by surprise because they weren't paying attention, not because they had no warning.

To pull some bits from the intial article you poseted on the matter:

quote:
Yet some students complained that there was only silence at first from Dr. Holloway and from Peter Salovey, the university president, about the Halloween-related incidents and the broader issues.

By contrast, some students noted, the dean had moved swiftly last year to condemn the appearance of swastikas on campus, sending an email to the student body that said, “There is no room for hate in this house.”

So when black students encircled Dr. Holloway this month, some chanted, “Where’s our email?” Others asked: “Where are you? We need you.”

So at the very top of the issue, we have the lack of reply to a hurtful message, that demonstrates either a lack of connection or outright apathy, especially since it was the Dean's office that circulated the initial request (and note: it was a request, with a bit of education information. Not a ban. It can only be construed as a "ban" if you think that most people would take good information on how their behavoir can hurt others as a "ban" on hurting others, rather than a commonsense appeal to human decency. IS it really reasonable to say that it's better to let someone go on hurting others than to inform them of how what they're doing is harmful for fear of "banning" them from acting in harmful ways?)

quote:
She said she had faced racist attitudes from campus security guards who questioned whether she belonged at Yale and from people who suggested that “we’re only here for affirmative action.”

She said she was shocked at how unaware Dr. Holloway seemed to be of students’ situations before the meeting where scores of black students confronted him.

“If he did understand it before, he didn’t understand it well enough because he didn’t act on it,” Ms. Baker said. “Silence speaks volumes.”

Dr. Holloway, who issued an email in response the next day, acknowledged last week that he had not grasped the depth of the students’ concerns. “I wish I had understood better,” he said.

And this is the core of it. There were issues, but for one reason or another, the Dean and other elements of the administration simply weren't maintaining awareness of it. THere may be any number of reasons, but at the root of it, that awareness was their fundamental responsibility to work to maintain.

quote:
And he was shuttling from one meeting to the next, as Yale’s administrators weighed the latest demands from protesters, including requiring that all undergraduates take an ethnic studies class, the hiring of mental health service providers for the cultural centers geared to minority students, and the renaming of Calhoun College, which honors John C. Calhoun, the 19th-century American statesman, who was an ardent defender of slavery and a white supremacist.
So here we see that firing the professor isn't the focus of the protests, even if it may be one of the nominal demands. That means there's a lot of room for someone who knows what they're doing to meet the real functional demands while pointing out that regardless of how hurtful her support of cultural degradation (under the pretext of comparing it to anti-authoritarian boundary pushing that's been a hallmark of academic environments) she can say things like that in a public forum if she wants and is willing to deal with the critical backlash for being so insulting to others.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Did... did you just wait until I left the thread in frustration so that now you could say something nice about my ideas? I don't know how I feel about this. [LOL]
I never had an objection to the fundamental idea of allowing others to cultivate that feeling. What I had an objection to was you telling others that they should feel that way instead of using a protest to start the ball rolling on trying to create an environment where they could possibly feel that way, after all other efforts to work toward it had failed. Even the best of ideas amount to an offensive attack when presented as unsolicited advice to someone whose position you don't fully understand.

quote:
It's nice to see you lay the entirety of systemic racism at the feet of University administration, though, by suggesting they could fix it if they just cared to.
In as much as the University is the system in question, I'm not sure what the point of the administration is except that it controls the system. It has the power to change the system. It may not be able to evoke full trust overnight, but we're not talking about solving the entire problems, we're talking about just taking the first visible and effective steps to demonstrate that they acknowledge and understand the problem and are willing to cooperate in the hard work of getting it untangled. Something that Wolfe blatantly and egregiously failed to do, to the point of diminishing the entire issue through a horribly uninformed and offensive answer to the most basic question possible about it.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
The "vast majority" of campuses don't have protests?

Of the type, severity, and administrative focus that Mizzou was having. I'm sorry was was being a little brief instead of pedant proofing my remarks. Especially in light of my earlier notes that I thing that campuses should actively encourage protests such as the one you mentioned.
Well, in response to our protest, the college did get the campus safely lot up, especially the dangerous placplaces we were complaining about. Within 18 months, which is good for a bureaucracy. But I was pissed that we had to apply weeks in advance for permission, and then those inbred morons were allowed to get in our faces within sign swinging distance, without any permit beforehand.

I remember getting home and having my roommates telling me that Rush Limbaugh was blasting our organization and protest. Like that should make me embarrassed? LoL.
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
If the university administration has done its job properly then the students should feel safe enough that they can, in fact, respond the way that Josh suggested was better and shrug it off as a jerk that doesn't have power over them, rather than having to treat it as the latest in a series of events that demonstrate that they're under threat because of administration inaction or incompetence.

I like how you sophistically go from "done its job properly" to "the students should feel safe enough" Where did you pull this tautology out of? Putting aside for the moment the campus being physically safe from mugging or beatings or whatever, let's say the admin inserts sensitivity courses, fliers, safe zones, etc. Now let's say a white male conducts a lecture about how intersectionality is evil, or feminists are misguided, or whatever anti-protest he believes in. As a result people are going to say they feel unsafe with that kind of 'hateful' rhetoric on campus. And you know damn well this will be the response; such a lecture would be protested maximally. How do you square "the admin did its job properly" with the fact that people now feel unsafe anyhow? You've completely lost the fact that the university admin isn't the university, nor is the admin the university's culture. They can guide it, but not dictate it by fiat. Similarly, unless the admin wants to outright ban contentious speech or contrary views there will be people who disagree with what the protesters say, and those people will anger the protesters. Your two options are to have people on campus who feel unsafe due to offensive ideas being spoken, or else to have a censored campus. There is no third option.

quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:

So when black students encircled Dr. Holloway this month, some chanted, “Where’s our email?” Others asked: “Where are you? We need you.”

So at the very top of the issue, we have the lack of reply to a hurtful message, that demonstrates either a lack of connection or outright apathy, especially since it was the Dean's office that circulated the initial request
Your mistake here is to classify the Halloween email as being a "hurtful message." Now, you could have said it offended some people or was hurtful to them, which is obviously true, but no: you called it hurtful, outright. In other words, you are casually inserting into your sentence the premise that the students were objectively correct that it was hurtful, which in turn suggests that only a lack of sensitivity or empathy could lead to such a hurtful email (and you have the audacity to say so yourself anyhow). In fact the email is completely respectful, civil, and intelligent. Certainly it isn't everyone's cup of tea, but calling it hurtful exhibits your massive allegiance to the protesters before you even examine the facts. Incidentally, suggesting that the person who wrote this email lacks empathy, specifically, is the kind of libelous leaping to conclusions that I really think is both disrespectful and dehumanizing. You do it to people here too, so if you actually cared about sensitivity you might consider this.

quote:
quote:

She said she was shocked at how unaware Dr. Holloway seemed to be of students’ situations before the meeting where scores of black students confronted him.

“If he did understand it before, he didn’t understand it well enough because he didn’t act on it,” Ms. Baker said. “Silence speaks volumes.”

Dr. Holloway, who issued an email in response the next day, acknowledged last week that he had not grasped the depth of the students’ concerns. “I wish I had understood better,” he said.

And this is the core of it. There were issues, but for one reason or another, the Dean and other elements of the administration simply weren't maintaining awareness of it.
The irony here is that you completely misunderstand what Dr. Hollaway meant about wishing she had understood the situation better. You assume she meant you wish she had taken the reasonable requests seriously, since you assume they were reasonable requests and the only reason she wouldn't agree is because she was unreasonable. But what she actually meant by that is she didn't foresee the reaction to her comments being so vitriolic and hostile. She knew what they believed; she didn't know they were out for blood. In a sense that does make her naive in a way, but it's the kind of naive that I might actually applaud since it assumed the best of people - that they won't go right for the neck if you open yourself up to attack. Her statement reminds me of the scene in Anchorman when Ron Burgundy jumps into the bear pit and then says "I IMMEDIATELY REGRET THIS DECISION." He, too, thought of doing the right thing, but lacked awareness of what it really means to jump into a pit of hungry bears.

quote:
quote:
And he was shuttling from one meeting to the next, as Yale’s administrators weighed the latest demands from protesters, including requiring that all undergraduates take an ethnic studies class, the hiring of mental health service providers for the cultural centers geared to minority students, and the renaming of Calhoun College, which honors John C. Calhoun, the 19th-century American statesman, who was an ardent defender of slavery and a white supremacist.
So here we see that firing the professor isn't the focus of the protests, even if it may be one of the nominal demands. That means there's a lot of room for someone who knows what they're doing to meet the real functional demands
You've just stated your position truly for the first time. An admin "who knows what they're doing" will have to "meet the real functional demands." This is what a university administration is for, to you, and failing to meet demands means you don't know what you're doing. And if you think that acknowledging the demands respectfully and engaging in dialogue and yet refusing to meet the demands would stop the protests then you're dreaming. By the way I like how in saying the admin should meet these reasonable demands you are indirectly agreeing that all undergrads should have to take am ethnic studies class. I find that most intriguing, since I can think of a number of classes that I think of more of a civic responsibility to know than that. How about American history? Surely that would cover some of the black/white race issues. How about...say...logic? There's a good one if you want people to increase their understanding. What about intro to economics? Surely the ethnic issues cannot be understood in an absence of understanding the way the economy works; heck, you can't even properly define systemic racism unless you understand economics. So how do we come to the point where you think the admin has to give in and force all students to study THE ONE TOPIC THE PROTESTERS THINK IS IMPORTANT? No s**t they think it's important, it's like, their thing. To suggest that the topic you value is what everyone would benefit most from is ethnocentrism at its best.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
If I was native to Georgia I would certainly March to protest the Calhoun name of a major street in Augusta. If one man could be blamed for the civil was and subsequent sheerness atrocities, that man would be Calhoun. But I am not from here and think dimly of outsiders who move in and demand cultural changes to sip their tastes
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
People who are being listened to don't protested because the point of a protest is to gain attention when people don't listen.

I think this right here encapsulates a fundamental flaw in your thinking. People who are being listened to, will in fact protest if they are not getting the changes they demand. There is a big difference between hearing someone and agreeing with them.

You leave no room for what happens when a group is heard and disagreed with, or where they are heard but their demands are unreasonable. In fact you just seem to assume that all disagreement is just a matter of misunderstanding, and any honest person who truly listens will instantly switch positions to mirror the complainers' position. It's intellectually naïve. In fact avoiding a protest requires compliance not just listening. And if compliance is contrary to the needs of another group, including the majority - as is appropriate in a democracy, its not necessarily reasonable or possible to meet that need.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
You might be thinking Pyrtolin's use of the word "listen" is passive. I think he means that they hear, digest and respond accordingly.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Seriati:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
People who are being listened to don't protested because the point of a protest is to gain attention when people don't listen.

I think this right here encapsulates a fundamental flaw in your thinking. People who are being listened to, will in fact protest if they are not getting the changes they demand. There is a big difference between hearing someone and agreeing with them.

And, as Al notes, there's a big difference between letting someone talk and actually listening. Even if you don't agree, actually listening, in context, is a process that involves dialog, seeking understanding, and then eventually working toward a mutually acceptable resolution.

quote:
You leave no room for what happens when a group is heard and disagreed with, or where they are heard but their demands are unreasonable.

No, you fabricate that on my behalf and ignore the fact that I have directly said otherwise.

quote:
In fact you just seem to assume that all disagreement is just a matter of misunderstanding, and any honest person who truly listens will instantly switch positions to mirror the complainers' position.

At no point have I suggested that. It's you who seem to equate responding honestly to someone's concerns with agreeing with them, while insisting that if you disagree you need to misrepresent them rather than simply articulating your own position.

It would be one thing if you were talking about how a message I was expressing to someone else would come across from their perspective, based on an honest understanding of what I was trying to say, as per my discussion with Josh, but you insist on, over and over again, inventing things and putting words in my mouth that actively contradict what I've said, and then pretending to make arguments against them.

quote:
In fact avoiding a protest requires compliance not just listening. And if compliance is contrary to the needs of another group, including the majority - as is appropriate in a democracy, its not necessarily reasonable or possible to meet that need.
No, it requires ensuring the people who have a compliant feel that they've been heard and that effort has been made to respond to them. That doesn't mean blind compliance, that means listening, responded, and making a real, active and visible effort to come to a mutually agreeable accommodation that respects everyone's rights. Not, as the universities in questions have been doing, ignoring them and making no effort to take even basic acts toward acknowledging that their complaints have been heard.
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
Except that implies that the racial prejudice of others (which is what I take it you're incoherently applying rasim here to mean) is relevant to the goals of the protestors.

Josh said their actions increased racism, you misinterpreted him. Doesn't matter if it's relevant to their goals, its just a factual question with potential results you don't like.

I can accept the possibility that the protesters may be seeking a personal benefit that leads to an increase of racism generally, but I doubt that is truly the case. And I doubt that they would agree with that if you asked them.
quote:
It's a bogeyman threat that actively distract from their actual desires and objectives.
It may be, or it may be a factual reality. I don't believe your theory leaves you capable of acknowledging that, but winning a battle and losing a war is a well understood concept.
quote:
quote:
He didn't give them permission, nor did he condition it on anything.
He said "I want you to this" that's a staement of permission, and presumes that what _he_ wnts matters to them.
No actually he didn't (at least in the passage you quoted), that what's you said. He said, "I do not want them to "be silent" about their experiences..." So again, he didn't grant them permission, conditional or otherwise that's just you using a strawman.
quote:
As free and equal people what they want should be what matters and what we're paying attention to.
No. As equal people their wants and our wants are equal, not better or worse. It's certainly respectful to pay attention, but it's not a requirement of equality or freedom. In fact, you're contra-logically asserting that we have to pay attention to them, but that the inverse is unacceptable (that they would have to pay attention to us). You wrap your head around this illogic by ascribing views to a group called the "majority," which you assert speaks for everyone else with a single voice and therefore every individual who even tangentially is related to that "majority" has already been heard (whether or not they have actually been heard).

You love to mix group and individual concepts willy nilly to create whatever result you're looking for and to denigrate anyone else pointing out the logical flaws in that approach.
quote:
quote:
He actually expressed agreement with your stated goals (not that you acknowledge anything that others say) by validating that their views and opinions should be heard.
Except, of course, for his objection to measures that it took to actually get people to hear them.
And? Goals and measures are not the same thing. One could support one side or the other in the old Irish conflicts but not agree that terrorism was acceptable.
quote:
So we have a nominal claim that he want them to be heard, but apparently by someone else because he immediately followed that up by saying he didn't want them to take the kind of action it took to get him to hear.
Which is just more motive speculation on your part, rooted in your inability to comprehend that other people may pursue the same goal in their own manner. Which again given your absolute demand that we respect the methods of your favored grievance group, no matter what they are, is rankly inconsistent and hypocritical when you reject anyone else's methods for how they choose to listen or respond.
quote:
quote:
Hard to say if they have merit until after you hear them, unless you're buying whatever they are selling sight unseen.
Indeed, but we have just the opposite problem- people dismissing them based on the fact that they managed to get heard without actually looking at the content of the message, just the nature of what it took to get attention to it.
Which are two different things. Again one can criticize terrorism, but support the Palestinians.

Your real compliant here is not about being heard, it's about compliance. What you're celebrating is not that concerns were heard, understood and accommodated from a position of mutual respect, but just that the University complied. Doesn't matter at all WHY they complied, and that's what puts the lie to what you're saying. It's not about being heard at all, its just about effectiveness. That's also why it's important to you to conflate the message and the measures, so you can cloak any "means" in a justified "ends."
quote:
quote:
And yes no one is permitted to take physical action in this case. The state has pre-empted our self-help rights in all but a limited set of circumstances. Are you proposing a change to the history and right of physical self help?
We seem to have a long standing right of freedom to assembly and to protest injustice, or are you just glossing that over here?
He said by application of physical force. I don't want to speak for Josh, but I don't believe that he meant anything other than violence with what he said, so focusing on protests (which are uncontroversial) seems like another misdirection.
quote:
quote:
What very real threat of physical harm? Please cite examples.
You're actually denying that black people, of all races, are at a significantly higher risk of physical harm than others?
No, I'm denying that any of that is attributable to the University environment. In fact, I'd expect that the statistics would indicate that being a University student is probably safer than not being a University student by demographics. But more importantly, why do you think this is relevant? You've just lectured me on how the protesters are only talking about the University environment and it's unreasonable to expect them to consider the greater impact on racism, and now you want to pull general demographic information from the entire non-University population into the conversation?
quote:
What do you want, assault and homicide stats?
From the Missouri campus, sure. Or are we to pretend that changing its President has any ability to impact assault and homicide statistics somewhere else?
quote:
I mean, if you're asking me to prove what the black experience in the US is to you, then at least have the decency to admit that you have no clue about it instead of trying to hold the mutually contradictory position of not being ignorant but yet requiring a prove basic facts.
Lol, you seem to love running away with illogical connections if they give you a chance to go off on a soap box point. No one asked you to prove a "basic" fact, I asked you to demonstrate the threat on campus, which is as you pointed out where redress of the grievance is being sought.
quote:
quote:
Like I said before, when you jump to physical harm to confront the entire range of mental and emotional harms possible it demonstrates the weakness of your philosophy.
Nice a complete tangent to once against claim that consistency is weakness. Or is it failure to conform to a degenerate status quo that you're asserting is a weakness? Either way, for all of its irrelevance, this is begging the question at its finest.
The weakness in your argument is your inability to craft a convincing argument for a remedy that isn't connected to an act that is already generally agreed to be illegal. Its the association fallacy full blown. Because we agree that physical threats and harms deserve a remedy, and mental and emotional threats and harms can be described with the same terms, it must follow that they deserve the same kind of remedy. There's no logic there, just an association fallacy.

So make your case, if you can.
quote:
quote:
I think the fairer interpretation is that he was talking about everything BUT PHYSICAL HARM with his statement. He even took it a step into physical acts to threats with his Swastika example (not that you really are paying attention).
That doesn't change the fact that black people face the real and imminent threat of everything, including physical harm, as part of their day to day reality.
Which does not have to be connected to how they would choose to interpret everything else. That's a choice that is being made. Is your philosophy too narrow to explain why such things have to be considered only through the lense of violence?
quote:
quote:
These are my favorite ones, where you ascribe actions to "institutions" rather than people, as if they monolithic and not capable of the individualize reactions of the people that make them up. This one though is a bit of a cause of the day, and not without good reason given how far the police take things these days.
Mob psychology changes human behavior, lie it or not.
True but not every institution is a mob or acts like a mob.
quote:
If the police don't want to have the reputation for being biased against blacks, then they need to make greater efforts to stop abusive behaviors within their own ranks, not to blame others for the legitimate fear they invoke because those bad actors are common enough to represent a pervasive threat.
And there's an active (and always has been) process to monitor the police and to bring them back in line with our shared values. I agree we've let them go too far, their training is far too aggressive and hostile for the role they are supposed to be playing.
quote:
quote:
In any event, you have to have a bad act that would actually evoke police protection, it didn't seem as if any were actually implicated here.
And yet reference to police were in the original message, so what that communicated needed to be addressed.
Yes, but you keep addressing it because its easier to address than the much larger group of issues that do not warrant police intervention. You keep dodging questions about the resolution of conflicting rights of two parties, and you won't come out and say HOW you intend to keep mean people from being insulting and making other people feel unsafe. It's fine and good to state they have the right to feel safe, but nothing you've put forward actually makes that happen without abusing someone else. You just waive that harm away because they are part of the monolithic "majority" (even when of course they aren't).
quote:
quote:
Who is taking their life into their own hands exactly? What evidence of this is there? And what context?

You're talking about a university campus, how common is racial murder on university campuses?

Again, back to fundamentally questioning what day to day life is for black people.
No, questioning why this is a University issue that a president of a university somehow could have addressed.
quote:
That would be a relevant question, I supposed, if black students were born on campus, lived their whole lives on campus, and then went to school there.
Sigh, or maybe its relevant because they are protesting at a University and claiming their greivances are with failings at the University.
quote:
quote:
The "because" is unwarranted. You don't have any idea what kind of world he lives in, or whether he's come up through the kind of personal circumstances that are more potentially damaging than the group identity issues that are all you seem to care about.
Actually, yes I do.
Again, you demonstrate that despite all your demands for listening, it's not something you are actually willing to do. That your demands are for other people to listen to and accept your own ideas (their yours by proxy, as you claim to be speaking for a group rather than on your own behalf).
quote:
quote:
Was this one just completely made up? He said internalizing a status of oppressed makes having self-worth more difficult, which your thesis inherently acknowledges and you routinely bash everyone nearby with. Yet when he says it you "reinterpret" it into nonsense?
No, and I see you're not above making things up here to claim that I'm making things up.
Really, what did I make up? Show it, cause I go no respect for your arguments by assertion.
quote:
I said that _being a victim_ regardless of whether one "internalizes" the status makes it impossible to ignore the signs and signals that society gives you to remind you of your status.
That's illogical, its only through internalization that it becomes impossible to ignore the signs and signals that require you to acknowledge your "status". Without internalization its not your status in your own mind. You can't switch to third person omniscient and define someone else as a victim to avoid that process.
quote:
Signals that it punishes you for ignoring by subjecting you to abuse and violence.
Really, specifically when and how. Where is the majority culture imposing abuse and violence for ignoring signs and signals. Be specific now, cause I think this is one of those areas where you're hiding behind generalities because you either have no on point examples (which allows you to assume the truth) or where your examples are completely disputable as to whether your interpretation is accurate.
quote:
His final statement essentially dismissed the reality of the threat they live under and the necessity of remaining aware of it and reacting to in in favor of acting in ways that let their guard down out of a false confidence that there is no real treat behind the signs of threat they face.
What threat at the university again?
quote:
To effectively say that if they ignore the things that they've seen people get killed because of they'll be just fine, regardless of a preponderance of evidence in their lives to the contrary.
Your argument really seems to be that the University President failed to correct the dangers of an entire society. There's no evidence that any of the conditions that cause the demographic issues you're citing are not actually reduced in the university environment, and there's certainly none that a university could correct the general societal environment.
 
Posted by jasonr (Member # 969) on :
 
Seriati Pyr's memory chip is set to "read only". You are wasting your time.
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
I'll add on to what jasonr said that Pyr has already stated he knows no more facts about Mizzou than we do, and so he won't be able to answer questions about the specifics of life on campus there. He is basing his comments on the general basis of inequality in America and on the statements of the protesters and that's it. The only answer you'll get, Seriati, is that Wolfe lost his job for failing to do his job and listen to the protesters. What that boils down to is compliance with their demands, since Pyr defined "know what they're doing" as meeting demands.

I'll also add in that Pyr's equivocation on his answer to "was it good or bad that Wolfe lost his job" is telling. He said it's bad, but bad on the grounds that Wolfe let it get that far in the first place. While that fact may be bad, the answer suggests that it was Wolfe's own incompetence that led him to lose his job, which from a standard of justifiability means that him losing his job was just and correct. That is what I meant by "good and bad", so in short Pyr's view is that it's appropriate that Wolfe lost his job.
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
I appreciate that guys, but I don't argue with Pyrtolin because I think there's any possibility he'll change his mind (or even acknowledge a point). I do it because his entire argument style is based on layering assertions and assumptions on top of each other until he moves the meta-debate to a point where his underlying assertions become the baseline assumptions. I mean look at the debates over the meaning of racism. There's nothing there but an attempt to change the meaning of the term to make the default be that he wins. Trying to point out the fallacies, logical flaws and unwarranted assumptions is a bit of civic duty in a free society.
 
Posted by JoshCrow (Member # 6048) on :
 
I just want to express appreciation to Seriati for his line-by-line rebuttals to Pyr based on my comments. I honestly didn't have the time or energy to do it at that level (managing line-by-line html quotes is intensely annoying to me) but I was majorly heartened that someone did. Kudos.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
Now let's say a white male conducts a lecture about how intersectionality is evil, or feminists are misguided, or whatever anti-protest he believes in. As a result people are going to say they feel unsafe with that kind of 'hateful' rhetoric on campus.


No they're not. They're only going to say that if it happens as part of an extension of an overall attitude that makes them feel unsafe. you're back to trying to make things out to be magical single instances as if history and context weren't important.

I mean, I get that it's beneficial to you to try to cast the people protesting as being irrational and oversensitive instead of even giving a moments consideration to the notion that they might have a legitimate gripe about how they've been treated and left open to attack over a long period of time, but it is actively insulting to them for you to keep presenting that as axiomatic.

quote:
And you know damn well this will be the response; such a lecture would be protested maximally.
No I don't. That's begging the question. If you want to assert that, show some proof. In even a reasonably safe environment, most people will not feel treateded enough by it to need to respond so strongly, and those that do should feel safe and encouraged to carry on a reasonable counter protest to ensure that people realize that there's an alternate point of view.

quote:
How do you square "the admin did its job properly" with the fact that people now feel unsafe anyhow?
Mostly? Begging the question and constructing a narrative based on bias, rather than honest understanding.

quote:
Similarly, unless the admin wants to outright ban contentious speech or contrary views there will be people who disagree with what the protesters say, and those people will anger the protesters.
Absolutely. But there's a wide gulf between being angered by and feeling under threat by. And a safe public environment includes measures, such as safe private environments, reasonable general security measures, then people aren't put in the position of feeling under imminent threat by implicit support of disagreeable positions, even those that support oppressive attitudes toward them.

quote:
Your two options are to have people on campus who feel unsafe due to offensive ideas being spoken, or else to have a censored campus. There is no third option.
No, there's a third option. You provide a baseline of safety so that disagreeable ideas aren't a threat to them as they are in an unsafe environment.

quote:
Your mistake here is to classify the Halloween email as being a "hurtful message." Now, you could have said it offended some people or was hurtful to them, which is obviously true, but no: you called it hurtful, outright.
This is confusing. you acknowledge there that it was hurtful to them, but object to calling it hurtful? As if being honest about the fact that it was hurtful (of course to them; didn't you object way up thread about the notion of speaking up, unasked, because of a assumably flawed perception that it was hurtful to others?) is somehow a mistake.

quote:
In other words, you are casually inserting into your sentence the premise that the students were objectively correct that it was hurtful,
Something that you acknowledged as well, even.

quote:
which in turn suggests that only a lack of sensitivity or empathy could lead to such a hurtful email (and you have the audacity to say so yourself anyhow).
I say they lack an understanding of the hurtful nature of what they're saying. How else do you characterize a lack of understanding of the harm that your doing? Unless you are suggesting that it was deliberately intended to hurt them?

quote:
In fact the email is completely respectful, civil, and intelligent.
And? Those just speak to presentation, not content. None of those prevent ignorance, none of those prevent doing harm to others, intentional or not. You can find very erudite, civil, and respectful defenses of colonization, slavery, and whatever other hurtful philosophy from people who earnestly believed that they were doing good for everyone.

quote:
Certainly it isn't everyone's cup of tea, but calling it hurtful exhibits your massive allegiance to the protesters before you even examine the facts.
So even simply acknowledging the fact they were hurt means complete allegiance? Do you draw no distinction between simple human empathy and capitulation? How do you expect to carry on a reasonable dialog at all if you come out of the gate not even granting them the basic human decency of trusting to report their own feelings?

quote:
Incidentally, suggesting that the person who wrote this email lacks empathy, specifically, is the kind of libelous leaping to conclusions that I really think is both disrespectful and dehumanizing.
you suggests that they understood the harm they'd be doing and committed it intentionally? And I don't suggest that they lack empathy. I suggest that they lack understanding.

quote:
You do it to people here too, so if you actually cared about sensitivity you might consider this.
Ah, better to let people go on making ignorant attacks on others that to point out how they're hurting others through their ignorance? BEcause it's far better to let people remain comfortable in their ignorance than face them with the possibility that there may be unintended consequences to their actions that they didn't realize or understand?

Or are you saying that I should assume people here are fully aware of this and are intentionally being dismissive and dehumanizing of others? I mean there are a few that I could probably safely assume that of, but I make a point of giving them the benefit of the doubt regardless.

quote:
The irony here is that you completely misunderstand what Dr. Hollaway meant about wishing she had understood the situation better. You assume she meant you wish she had taken the reasonable requests seriously, since you assume they were reasonable requests and the only reason she wouldn't agree is because she was unreasonable.
He said he didn't understand how deep the problems ran. Again, you seem to be talking as if you're assuming that the letter was something that happened in isolation, as if teh reaction was to just the letter and nothing else. And the problem was that the administration treated the letter as if it were an isolated event. And that assumption was wrong- it was very evident to someone that actually looked that there was a ongoing and growing problem.

quote:
But what she actually meant by that is she didn't foresee the reaction to her comments being so vitriolic and hostile.
No I think you're completely confused. We're talking about Dr. Holloway here, the Dean who circulated the initial letter to educated people on the harmful nature of certain costumes, so that they could apply reasonably empathy to their choices, not the Professor who responded to it.

This is the Dean regretting ignoring that response and not making it clear that the university supported those that may have been hurt by her. He's expressing regret for not realizing how deep the tensions ran leading up to the event leading him to inaction instead of taking prompt action to diffuse the situation.

But I guess it would be an unfair attack on my part to point out just how much you were willing to backfill to meet your bias here to build an argument out of ignorance?


quote:
You've just stated your position truly for the first time. An admin "who knows what they're doing" will have to "meet the real functional demands." This is what a university administration is for, to you, and failing to meet demands means you don't know what you're doing.
Refusing to engage in a reasonable discussion about the issue, sort out the reasonable demands and seek to build accommodations, is absolutely a failure on the part of the administration.

quote:
And if you think that acknowledging the demands respectfully and engaging in dialogue and yet refusing to meet the demands would stop the protests then you're dreaming.
Ah, not pretending to engage in reasonable dialog, then ignoring everything requested in favor of preserving the status quo. Yes, I expect that kind of superficial appeasement in order to ignore the concerns being expressed would not go over well.

quote:
By the way I like how in saying the admin should meet these reasonable demands you are indirectly agreeing that all undergrads should have to take am ethnic studies class.
Am I? Is that, for sure the request that I found most reasonable? Or are you picking one that you want to trump up attacks on here? Am I to take it from this that you consider mental health services trained in there specific needs to be an even less reasonable request?

For the record, given the issues at hand, I think this is likely a pretty reasonable request overall.

quote:
I find that most intriguing, since I can think of a number of classes that I think of more of a civic responsibility to know than that.
I'm sure you can. But of course we're back to arguing from ignorance again. Here you are on the outside, without even enough familiarity to recognize the names of the big players, trying to tell people on the inside what they need because you magically know more about their situation than they do by pure assertion.

quote:
How about American history? Surely that would cover some of the black/white race issues.
Because that would address baseline cultural sensitivity and respect issues? From what are you drawing this certainty that the history of issues is the biggest lack of current knowledge?

quote:
How about...say...logic? There's a good one if you want people to increase their understanding.
Not really. Improve factual reasoning, sure. But it's a lack of respect that they're facing not a lack of ability of others to build rigorous arguments.

quote:
What about intro to economics? Surely the ethnic issues cannot be understood in an absence of understanding the way the economy works;
Some solutions and deeper understandings, perhaps, but they're not asking for a degree level understanding, just basic respect in communication.

quote:
heck, you can't even properly define systemic racism unless you understand economics.
sure you can. You may not be able to fully dig into the deepest implications, but you can certainly define it. I can tell you what an electron orbit looks like without you needed to understand the complicated math and quantum physics that went into determining that shape.

quote:
So how do we come to the point where you think the admin has to give in and force all students to study THE ONE TOPIC THE PROTESTERS THINK IS IMPORTANT?
I don't think that. I think they need to openly and honestly discuss the issue with the students, and perhaps figure out a compromise that might lead to better overall education of the campus community on the issues. The initial demand, like with all negotiations is just the starting point for discussion, not the expected final outcome. Any well planned protest will demand far, far more than it realistically wants or needs so that it has room to negotiate to a reasonable outcome.

quote:
No s**t they think it's important, it's like, their thing. To suggest that the topic you value is what everyone would benefit most from is ethnocentrism at its best.
And to suggest that it's unreasonable purely on the basis that same people would benefit from it is just outright contrarianism. Never mind the implications of attacking them simply for trying to advance their own interests in the only ay they can get attention called to them.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Seriati:
]Josh said their actions increased racism, you misinterpreted him. Doesn't matter if it's relevant to their goals, its just a factual question with potential results you don't like.


No I didn't I pointed out that I fully agreed that it might inflame racial prejudice. Just taht taht was irrelevant, because the prejudice of individuals is a personal matter and completely irrelevant to their needs or goals.

and more to the point, suggesting that it's their job to try to appease people who harbor such prejudices, at the expense of their own needs, is actively casting them as second class to those with the prejudices. RAising this factual threat only serves to remind them that they're not being treated as equals, but as subservient to those that they dare not offend

quote:
I can accept the possibility that the protesters may be seeking a personal benefit that leads to an increase of racism generally, but I doubt that is truly the case. And I doubt that they would agree with that if you asked them.
Especially if you confuse the matter by substituting racism - which, to them, will mean overall discrimination against minority races - for persona prejudice - which is actually meant here; the antipathy toward them of those that harbor biases against them.

Guess what. Their goal is to move toward more equitable treatment at the university and by the university administration, even if it means a handful of people in New Jersey, Montana, or even right there in the same city in Missouri don't like them as much.

quote:
quote:
It's a bogeyman threat that actively distract from their actual desires and objectives.
It may be, or it may be a factual reality. I don't believe your theory leaves you capable of acknowledging that, but winning a battle and losing a war is a well understood concept.
That a freak accident may occur whenever you walk outside; lightning strike, meteorite striking you, blue ice from a plane, or what have you, that may injure or kill you may be true. But it doesn't make a reasonable argument to advise someone to not walk outside. It's just a bogeyman to scare them into changing their behavoir.

I did not contest the factual accuracy of the claim, only the relevant of including it. It raises the spectre of a threat that's not relevant or even, in any practical sense externally addressable, as Josh himself notes elsewhere by acknowledging that such prejudices are internal battles, not policy battles.

but it does imply that they have a greater duty to appease those that are or may possibly be biased against them than they do to stand up for their own interests.

quote:
No actually he didn't (at least in the passage you quoted), that what's you said. He said, "I do not want them to "be silent" about their experiences..." So again, he didn't grant them permission, conditional or otherwise that's just you using a strawman.
You missed the "I do not want" there? The part where he injected his personal blessing, or at least lack of prohibition into the argument, as if what _he_ wanted were relevant? If he did not wish to imply that his wants were relevant here, then he should not have inserted his own desires into the question. By doing so he states that his desire for the to behave or not behave in a certain way matters. That his permission is effectively necessary. And that's without even getting into the presumption inherent in giving unsolicited advice in the first place.

quote:
No. As equal people their wants and our wants are equal, not better or worse. It's certainly respectful to pay attention, but it's not a requirement of equality or freedom. In fact, you're contra-logically asserting that we have to pay attention to them, but that the inverse is unacceptable (that they would have to pay attention to us).
not at all. In fact, up to this point you freely ignored them. You still don't have to pay attention to them, but not they made you have to actively choose not to instead of passively doing so. You couldn't just keep on passively ignoring them like you had in the past.

quote:
You wrap your head around this illogic by ascribing views to a group called the "majority," which you assert speaks for everyone else with a single voice and therefore every individual who even tangentially is related to that "majority" has already been heard (whether or not they have actually been heard).
No I don't. That's nonsense you're making up. I do state that the concerns of the racial majority is not implicitly ignored or dismissed based on their race, as racial minorities are. That's a very different claim than what you're inventing. They may have other ways that the status quo works to defend itself by silencing them, but it's not based on their race.

quote:
You love to mix group and individual concepts willy nilly to create whatever result you're looking for and to denigrate anyone else pointing out the logical flaws in that approach.
No I don't. But it is, I suppose, easier to claim that than it is to actualyl address what I'm saying. Better to keep up the smokescreen of strawmen and personal attacks than to risk honestly representing my position.

quote:
quote:
Except, of course, for his objection to measures that it took to actually get people to hear them.
And? Goals and measures are not the same thing.
quote:

THey are when the measure are the last resort someone has to accomplish the goals, and the only actual way those goals have ever realistically been accomplished.

quote:
Which is just more motive speculation on your part, rooted in your inability to comprehend that other people may pursue the same goal in their own manner.
How so? Or are you simply asserting your ignorance here that they'd repeatedly tried other manners, and this was finally what they had to turn to in order to get anything to happen, as it the case with all such protests?

quote:
Which again given your absolute demand that we respect the methods of your favored grievance group, no matter what they are, is rankly inconsistent and hypocritical when you reject anyone else's methods for how they choose to listen or respond.
On what evidence are you basing the claim of inconsistency or hypocrisy here? I do not object to criticism them as such if there is evidence to prove its true. What I object to is what you're doing here and asserting its true, de facto, without any evidence at all to back the claim. A respectful position assumes justification until proof of misconduct can be found. My position is not that you should laud the protest, or even agree with the protestors. Just that it's dehumanizing to attack them by default without any evidence to support the criticism.

Do you have any basis, aside for the fact that you dislike the fact that they're protesting or the results of their protest to hang that claim of hypocrisy on? Any evidence that they do not actually stand for the principles that they claim to be standing for at all?

Innocent until proven guilty and all. Treat them as if they're innocent until such time as actual evidence to support accusations emerges instead of doing what's been done here and manufacturing accusations while demanding that people prove their innocence.

quote:
Your real compliant here is not about being heard, it's about compliance. What you're celebrating is not that concerns were heard, understood and accommodated from a position of mutual respect, but just that the University complied.
No I'm not. I'm not even talking about what the university did at all. In fact I'm avoiding going to that stage as best as possible because it's a distraction from my point. which is addressing the way the people here are, without evidence attacking the protesters instead of honestly trying to ask about and understand what's going on first so such arguments can be made from an informed position.

quote:
Doesn't matter at all WHY they complied, and that's what puts the lie to what you're saying. It's not about being heard at all, its just about effectiveness. That's also why it's important to you to conflate the message and the measures, so you can cloak any "means" in a justified "ends."
And here you're making things up again to attack me instead of actually even trying to represent your own opinions on the topic. Insult, attack, daemonize. And not one word to defend what that's a proper method of discourse to counter the criticism of it that's my entire point here.

quote:
He said by application of physical force. I don't want to speak for Josh, but I don't believe that he meant anything other than violence with what he said, so focusing on protests (which are uncontroversial) seems like another misdirection.
Well, since the protests are the only form of physical force involved, are you suggesting that he's trying to claim that protests are inherently violent? Or are you saying that he's misdirecting by making false accusations of violence? Forgive me for sticking to things that actually happened instead of discussing pure fantasy.

quote:
[quote]You're actually denying that black people, of all races, are at a significantly higher risk of physical harm than others?
No, I'm denying that any of that is attributable to the University environment.
So you're suggesting that these kids have grown up in the university environment and have had their response to stimuli condition only in that environment?
quote:
In fact, I'd expect that the statistics would indicate that being a University student is probably safer than not being a University student by demographics.
I'd expect that a suburban neighborhood is safer than a warzone too. That doesn't stop conditioned response from the latter kicking in when someone hears a car backfire in the latter. And if the university is full of real signs, things that matter far more to the average person than abstract numbers, that it's not safer, the real signs are going to win, regardless of the numbers. People, by and large, only pay attention to numbers when they confirm their beliefs, they dismiss them when hey don't.

quote:
But more importantly, why do you think this is relevant? You've just lectured me on how the protesters are only talking about the University environment and it's unreasonable to expect them to consider the greater impact on racism, and now you want to pull general demographic information from the entire non-University population into the conversation?
Yes, because that represent the world they were raised in, that set their expectation, and that they need to defend themselves from on a daily basis. A world that the university has an active obligation to set itself aside from to facilitate openness and academics. When it fails to do that, it allows in the external threats that force students to have to be on their guard.


quote:
From the Missouri campus, sure. Or are we to pretend that changing its President has any ability to impact assault and homicide statistics somewhere else?
No. He has an obligation to keep the campus free of the warning signs that those stats will be the same on campus as they are elsewhere. He has an obligation that a segment of his population lives under those statistics and that it's his job to communicate clearly to them that he's making every effort possible to not contribute to them. It is a failing of his when he ignores complaints that he's failing to do that and allowing students to feel threatened- to feel like that world is invading the university environment that he has a duty to protect.


quote:
Lol, you seem to love running away with illogical connections if they give you a chance to go off on a soap box point. No one asked you to prove a "basic" fact, I asked you to demonstrate the threat on campus, which is as you pointed out where redress of the grievance is being sought.
On what basis are you claiming that the students testimony to the threat they feel is false? This the the core of my point, right here. You're starting from the effective accusation that the students are lying about their own experiences. That's disrespectful and dehumanizing.

Fenrig did actually come back and inquire into this in a way that was actually respectful and nonjudgmental. I'm willing to look into that when I have a chance to, but as long as I'm engaged with ongoing arguments over whether or not its okay to just insult and attack them out of the gate instead of showing an honest interest in understand the situation, my time for that is rather slim.

quote:
The weakness in your argument is your inability to craft a convincing argument for a remedy that isn't connected to an act that is already generally agreed to be illegal.
Ah, so the problem is that I don't automatically support the broken status quo. Gotcha. Conformity good, pointing out deficiencies, bad.

quote:
Its the association fallacy full blown. Because we agree that physical threats and harms deserve a remedy, and mental and emotional threats and harms can be described with the same terms, it must follow that they deserve the same kind of remedy.
No, rather, because there is no meaningful difference between mental harms and physical harms- because the distinction between them is entirely nominal, they're useful for comparisons in terms that are less subject to biased dismissal.

quote:
Which does not have to be connected to how they would choose to interpret everything else. That's a choice that is being made.
Sure. And those who chose wrong end up dead. So were left with the ones who made the choices that kept them alive.

quote:
Is your philosophy too narrow to explain why such things have to be considered only through the lense of violence?
They don't have to be, but if you live your life under threat of violence and don't, then you end up dead because you've chosen to ignore the real threats around you and act in ways that provoke them.

quote:
True but not every institution is a mob or acts like a mob.
Every group of people acting as one are a mob and follow the rules of mob psychology. They may be a very civilized mod, but they're still an aggregate and subject to the ways that people act in aggregate. Or are you confusing "mob" (a large group of people) and "riot" here?

quote:
And there's an active (and always has been) process to monitor the police and to bring them back in line with our shared values.
Which, particularly for black people, has completely field for decades, short of targeted consent degrees from the DoJ, which have to fight significant outcry if and when the situation becomes bad enough that they have to be brought to bear.

quote:
You keep dodging questions about the resolution of conflicting rights of two parties, and you won't come out and say HOW you intend to keep mean people from being insulting and making other people feel unsafe.
The is blatantly untrue. I've explained it top to bottom. Controlled private discussion groups so that people can have a place to go where they can associate only with safe, trusted people. Moderated forums that allow the same for online communication,. Unmoderated public spaces where basic rules against harassment are enforced and reasonable and organized protests are permitted as needed, also with programs like safe walk, so that students are never forced to travel alone and vulnerable to possible attacks or harassment from others. Channels for active dialogue with the administration with those that have concerns and real and visible efforts to address those concerns as needed, just as the discussion forum that kmbboots posted early in the thread.

quote:
It's fine and good to state they have the right to feel safe, but nothing you've put forward actually makes that happen without abusing someone else.
Oh really? No wait- that was what you put forward and then claimed I put forward.

quote:
No, questioning why this is a University issue that a president of a university somehow could have addressed.
Because the university has to make an active effort to distinguish itself from day to day life. It can't just say "trust us, we're a university" as if that was magical protection in and of itself.

[QUOTESigh, or maybe its relevant because they are protesting at a University and claiming their greivances are with failings at the University.

Indeed- a university that has ignored their attempts to raise concerns that ti's failing to do it's basic job in keeping out those signs of danger from the outside to ensure safety.

quote:
Again, you demonstrate that despite all your demands for listening, it's not something you are actually willing to do. That your demands are for other people to listen to and accept your own ideas (their yours by proxy, as you claim to be speaking for a group rather than on your own behalf).
Well then please do present your argument in favor of attacking and demonizing others by default as the proper baseline for conversation. You're certainly enamored of the technique, but all you seem to be willing to do is attack me for objecting to it, not actualyl stand up in defense of it. If you want me to listen to you, then say something, rather than simply continuing to make things up about me instead of saying much to support the position that you're weighing in on the side of.


quote:
Really, what did I make up? Show it, cause I go no respect for your arguments by assertion.
quote:
He said internalizing a status of oppressed makes having self-worth more difficult, which your thesis inherently acknowledges and you routinely bash everyone nearby with.
The bolded part is 100% fabrication on your part none of which has anything to do with my philosophy or points. Those are your assertions about it, not anything I've ever actually said, and in fact things I've actually contradicted. The very notion that someone must "internalize a status of being oppressed" actively contradicts my assertion that oppression is a factual state, not an identity. Peopel may be oppressed on the basis of their identity, and it's important for them to recognize when that's happening, but the oppression comes first, not the identification as being oppressed as "internalizing" suggests.

quote:
That's illogical, its only through internalization that it becomes impossible to ignore the signs and signals that require you to acknowledge your "status".
That's conditioning, not internalization. Conditioning happened whether you understand what's going on or not. Whether you put a name to what's appening to you or just accept it as the natural way people live. As Pete pointed out, in the worst forms of oppression, people don't even realize that tehy are victims of those more powerful from them, never mind internalize the status.

quote:
Without internalization its not your status in your own mind.
WIthout internalization, it's not your _identity_. You can understand your factual status without bowing down to it and accepting it as your lot in life. NOte specifically that the intial claim was effectively taht if someone acknowledged that they are oppressed or are a victim, they've effectively given in to being a victim- they've internalized the status and there's no hope for them. As if it were identifying as being oppressed that resulted in the negative being oppressed. The truth is that one cannot begin to fight off the effects of being oppressed and fight for equal treatment until one understand the nature of how one is oppressed. Understanding and coming to terms with oppression is the first essential step to overcoming it, not, as JOsh suggested, the point at which people are lost.

quote:
Really, specifically when and how. Where is the majority culture imposing abuse and violence for ignoring signs and signals. Be specific now, cause I think this is one of those areas where you're hiding behind generalities because you either have no on point examples (which allows you to assume the truth) or where your examples are completely disputable as to whether your interpretation is accurate.
Jordan Miles
Jonny Gammage
Tamir E. Rice
John H. Crawford III
Levar Jones
Eric Garner
...

I could keep piling on names. Surely not all completely innocent people, but at the same time all people who ended up dead because they didn't respond to signs that they were under threat properly.

quote:
Your argument really seems to be that the University President failed to correct the dangers of an entire society. There's no evidence that any of the conditions that cause the demographic issues you're citing are not actually reduced in the university environment, and there's certainly none that a university could correct the general societal environment.
No. Again, since you seem to be missing the point, because the University president did not make the basic effort needed to exclude the threats of society at large from the university environment, thus making it communicate the same level of danger as that of the entire society. No one was demanding that the President make all of society safe, just that he make the university safe. Something that he refused to take even basic actions to begin to accomplish.
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Your two options are to have people on campus who feel unsafe due to offensive ideas being spoken, or else to have a censored campus. There is no third option.
No, there's a third option. You provide a baseline of safety so that disagreeable ideas aren't a threat to them as they are in an unsafe environment.
You have no idea how unsettling it is to hear you say that disagreeable ideas can be a threat to anyone. Unless you mean physical safety? But you've yet to demonstrate any evidence that the students at Mizzou were under physical threat. This line is really not the way to go if you want to dispel the spectre of crypto-Soviet thinking.

quote:
quote:
heck, you can't even properly define systemic racism unless you understand economics.
sure you can. You may not be able to fully dig into the deepest implications, but you can certainly define it. I can tell you what an electron orbit looks like without you needed to understand the complicated math and quantum physics that went into determining that shape.
Is this comment for real? You can't tell me one specific thing about an electron orbit without speaking in mathematical terms. The little picture of the circle around the dot they show in high school is a nursery rhyme told to children so they can understand there is such a thing as a molecule and that there are certain numbers of particles involved. If you think you can speak of the nature of a molecule in other terms than the data collected from experiments then you fail to recognize why quantum requires "interpretations". It's precisely because we don't have a physical diagram that means anything. It's all math and numbers. The rest is a well-meant but inaccurate attempt to explain the math to laymen. This point is actually irrelevant since you used it merely as an analogy, but it irritated me on principle since obviously this is one area where you thought you could show that a lack of real understanding could produce rudimentary knowledge when in fact it cannot.

Also I think you're right that I confused the names of the two people at Yale. I stand by my point regarding what the statement meant, but I was attributing it to the wrong person, good catch.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
You have no idea how unsettling it is to hear you say that disagreeable ideas can be a threat to anyone.
Indeed. Now imagine hiving to live with that kind of threat hanging over your head on a daily basis, instead of just having to consider how the world might look from someone else's eyes that doesn't have the same benefit from being secure from verbal threats implying real physical threats. Where you might end up dead if you don't show the proper deference to authority and take whatever insults they dish out to you. You're free to stand up for yourself whenever you need to and disagree with people that you feel are wrong without having to remember to keep your head because that kind behavior doesn't put you under threat.

For all of your spurious accusations of " crypto-Soviet thinking" (Based entirely on your made up assertions of what I want to do, not on anything that I've actualyl advocated), you should, maybe wake up to the fact that entire segments of our population here, now, actively live under that kind of threat because of how their appearance or identity differentiates the from the majority and the status quo.

You find that thought horrifying>? Then spend some time listening to people living it instead of getting upset that they had to hold a mass protest just to get you to acknowledge them, even if you didn't spend enough time listening to them to understand that that's part of their reality right now.


Re: orbitals. See the diagrams here. You can show these pictures without dealing into the complex mathematics that leads to the shapes to convey what the different patters for the s,p,d, and f energy levels look like.
http://socratic.org/chemistry/the-electron-configuration-of-atoms/arrangement-of-electrons-in-orbitals-spd-and-f

I don't need complex math so convey that the S region is a spherical with bands where the probability is higher and others where it is lower. Or that the p levels are all somewhat tear dropped shaped pairs. The D level that's the pair of drops with a donut around it is pretty astounding, but again I don't need to know the math to see the shape. The math can help make the shape understandable, but they graphs are understandable on a high level without it.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
Actually, this is a more awesome set of renditions:
http://www.webelements.com/shop/product.php/137/orbitron_gallery_of_atomic_orbitals_poster
 
Posted by JoshCrow (Member # 6048) on :
 
Lol, Pyrtolin and I basically had this exchange:

Me: <on page 3 or so, makes suggestion about how black people could handle racism differently>

Pyr: So, you want them to suffer in silence

Me: Uh, no, I don't want them to suffer... I think they should-

Pyr: "I do not want"?? THIS IS NOT ABOUT WHAT YOU WANT! They don't need your permission!

Me: ...


I actually started laughing so hard when I thought about this exchange today that tears came out. There was literally no way to escape this line of argument from Pyr. I suggest he use it often - it's awesome. The minute somebody makes a suggestion (about anything), just pretend they are dictating terms... and if they insist they are not, tell them that they are, and do so even if they then say they do NOT want something. It's almost infallible as a debate strategy.
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
JoshCrow, how dare you say the problem is with how black people handle racism? It sounds like you're blaming them for it! [Wink]
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
Seriati- looking back to try to find the exchange that Josh referred to (which I was unable to) I will now that I did forget to put quotes around my wedding of the word "internalized" to him in my initial reply, which made it possible to interpret me as accepting the term instead of punt out that the notion is absurd, because the attitude in question is learned as a result of being under attack and defending oneself from it, not a result of deciding to identify as being under attract. One siren nor internalize the notion of being a victim/being oppressed. On is a victim/oppressed and learns a certain manner of behaviour as a result in order to survive. Understanding that one is under such duress is the first step to being able to overcome it, not giving up and losing the fight as his spin effectively implied.

[ November 18, 2015, 01:09 AM: Message edited by: Pyrtolin ]
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
JoshCrow, how dare you say the problem is with how black people handle racism? It sounds like you're blaming them for it! [Wink]

You're sorely doing pretense here and actually going to bat for victim blaming? The problem with oppressed people is that they complain to much about being oppressed?
 
Posted by ScottF (Member # 6897) on :
 
Whoosh!
 
Posted by JoshCrow (Member # 6048) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
Seriati- looking back to try to find the exchange that Josh referred to (which I was unable to) I will now that I did forget to put quotes around my wedding of the word "internalized" to him in my initial reply, which made it possible to interpret me as accepting the term instead of punt out that the notion is absurd, because the attitude in question is learned as a result of being under attack and defending oneself from it, not a result of deciding to identify as being under attract. One siren nor internalize the notion of being a victim/being oppressed. On is a victim/oppressed and learns a certain manner of behaviour as a result in order to survive. Understanding that one is under such duress is the first step to being able to overcome it, not giving up and losing the fight as his spin effectively implied.

Pyr - on the subject, I would invite you to read this piece from Time magazine on the Charleston shootings. It is basically a collection of smaller vignettes sketching the victims' and their families, centered around the question "what does it take to forgive?". I just read it this morning and was surprised to find the Stoic philosophy that I espouse highlighted in one of them.

I think you'll be highly critical of it - and I think you'll even see that you are certainly not alone (the article acknowledges as much). But I think it nicely captures what I believe is a road forward for people of all stripes in the face of adversity.

quote:
In September 1942, an Austrian doctor named Viktor Frankl was enslaved along with his wife and parents and many other Viennese Jews in a Nazi camp called Theresienstadt. After two years in this supposed “model” ghetto—where prisoners were not gassed, although thousands died of disease, abuse and overwork—the Frankls were transported to Auschwitz, where they were immediately split up. Three were sent to their deaths, while Frankl was marched to yet another slave-labor camp where he clung to life until the place was liberated. Apart from one sister who fled Austria ahead of the Germans, his entire family was wiped out.

As he set about shoring up his fragments, Frankl turned his study to the question of human dignity under such conditions. What allows a person who has been stripped of everything to hold on to an essence of humanity? His conclusions are set down in a slim book with the English title Man’s Search for Meaning. Published in the U.S. in 1959, the book had sold more than 10 million copies by the time of Frankl’s death in 1997.

In it, Frankl describes the conditions that led some prisoners to commit suicide and others to become kapos, the turncoat slaves who supervised, often brutalized and even killed their fellow prisoners. But his real interest is in the prisoners who, in spite of everything, “walked through the huts comforting others, giving away their last piece of bread. They may have been few in number, but they offer sufficient proof that everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms—to choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one’s own way.”

In interviews with those who were victimized by the attack at Mother Emanuel, something of this determination recurs again and again. Anthony Thompson, while explaining his decision to forgive Roof, frames his choice in terms of his own freedom. “When I forgave him, my peace began,” he says. “I’m done with him. He doesn’t have control of me.”

Ina Jackson, who lost her grandmother, says, “It’s easy to react and destroy things around you. I think it’s harder to show peace and how strong you can be amidst something so tragic and hurtful. It’s strength to show that this situation isn’t going to make you be out of character.”

Behind their words of forgiveness lies a determination to choose their own reaction, to be the same people after this monstrous event that they sought to be before it happened.

It is no coincidence that Frankl distilled his philosophy from the experience of captivity, enslavement and mass murder, nor that his prescription bears a strong resemblance to the ancient Stoic philosophy of the Roman slave Epictetus. Maimed by a cruel master in the time of Emperor Nero, Epictetus taught that everything apart from one’s own will is beyond one’s control. That includes health, wealth and the behavior of others—loved ones as well as enemies. Freedom lies in mastering one’s responses and moral decisions, for the only things “under our control are moral purpose and all the acts of moral purpose.”

Prisoners and slaves are forced to reckon with the guttering candle of their freedom. Multiplied through centuries of enslaved and degraded generations, the reckoning becomes a cultural heritage. The forgivers of Charleston trace their beliefs to a communion of forebears stripped of all liberty—except its essence. This culture has been nurtured in churches that promise, someday, the vindication of the just, the liberation of the captive and the exaltation of the downtrodden. They worship a teacher who forgave those who crucified him even as he was dying on the Cross.

This notion of forgiveness has little to do with the offender. Indeed, it says little about the future paths and attitudes of the forgiver. It is the choice made by Anthony Thompson, who says emphatically that he wants nothing ever to do with Roof. But it is also the path of Polly Sheppard, who hopes someday to minister to Roof in prison and lead him to Christ.

Because it says little or nothing about future actions or the demands of justice, this philosophy has always attracted critics who condemn it as a form of surrender or acquiescence to oppression. The world is admirably arranged for racists and tyrants when their victims acknowledge the limits of their own control.

But it need not be surrender. Many have found strength in these ideas. By stripping away illusions of control and focusing on what actually can be achieved, one is free to steel one’s courage and sharpen one’s determination. Nelson Mandela, during the 15th of his 27 years in prison, was moved to mark a passage and sign his name in a volume of Shakespeare. The text, from Julius Caesar, is a variation on Frankl’s theme: no one can control death, only the attitude with which one faces it. “Cowards die many times before their deaths:/ The valiant never taste of death but once./ … death, a necessary end,/ Will come when it will come.”


 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
I'm not critical of the philosophy. I share the philosophy, personally. What I'm critical of is _preaching_ the philosophy, rather than working toward an understanding of why others do not share it.

I object to the attitude of "Well, if you were more like me all of your problems would go away" instead of "Help me to understand your problems so I can help you create the opportunity to try the things that work for me"
 
Posted by JoshCrow (Member # 6048) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
I'm not critical of the philosophy. I share the philosophy, personally. What I'm critical of is _preaching_ the philosophy, rather than working toward an understanding of why others do not share it.

I object to the attitude of "Well, if you were more like me all of your problems would go away" instead of "Help me to understand your problems so I can help you create the opportunity to try the things that work for me"

To be perfectly honest, I'm not even sure all humans are even capable of practicing this philosophy with success. Mileage will vary.

Nevertheless, I still strive to teach it wherever I see occasion to - most people are not familiar with it!

We do not agree on whether "understanding their problems" is necessary. Our disagreement is at least now crystal clear: you believe opportunity must be created for blacks and all other such groups to practice this philosophy, and I believe opportunity is already here (indeed it even existed in the concentration camps). At least we've distilled things down to the main point! This is encouraging to me.

[ November 18, 2015, 11:49 AM: Message edited by: JoshCrow ]
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Nevertheless, I still strive to teach it wherever I see occasion to.
And I find evangelism to be problematic. I will apply it defensively (Teaching people awareness of the consequences of their behavior, so that they can choose to act mindfully within the terms of their own philosophy) but not aggressively (Telling people to change their philosophy to one that matches mine, because mine is "better")

quote:
We do not agree on whether "understanding their problems" is necessary. Our disagreement is at least now crystal clear: you believe opportunity must be created for blacks and all other such groups to practice this philosophy, and I believe opportunity is already here (indeed it even existed in the concentration camps). At least we've distilled things down to the main point!
And on this, I'll point to Maslow's Hierarchy of needs. This attitude is part of securing the fourth level to move on to the fifth. When pushed as a solution to people that are struggling to establish the first and second, levels, it not only falls flat, but demonstrates a fundamental disconnect between the person trying to push it and the actual needs of the people being addressed.

Someone who feels they have to be constantly on guard against the bullet with their name on it is not going to be receptive to a message that suggests the stop worrying and act as if it's not out there, especially as they have to step over the memories of dead friends and relatives who didn't duck quickly enough to dodge their next bullet.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
I'll clarify as well that you may find receptive individuals in any situation, despite adversity, but when applied to the people as a whole, it goes over like a lead balloon.

Imagine if you broke into a concentration camp, gathered the people there up and told them that this was your secret plan to make their lives there better? Can you imagine that the audience might feel like, at best, you were having them on, if not outright effectively telling them to enjoy their stay?
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
For my part, I think exhorting people to be kind and forgiving and rise above their problems is fine. But if you are not sharing their problems, and you are offering this as an alternative to solving what they consider problems -- if you are, in fact, insisting that a problem you do not share is not something they should consider a problem -- I think you'll actually do the cause of kindness and forgiveness some real harm.

Consider, for example, how you feel when I point out that people afraid of Syrian refugees should just get over it.
 
Posted by JoshCrow (Member # 6048) on :
 
I disagree that Stoicism is merely about moving from the 4th to the 5th. It can aid the POW in the prison camp just as it can aid the privileged in navigating ho-hum leisure time. Nor it is a prescription for apathy in the face of an injustice (it can even be a source of power for the fight at hand).

But even so, I do not believe life for college-attending blacks in 2015 is as dire as you seem to. You are fond of talking about dodging bullets and mortal physical peril, but I do not think this is the experience of the average black person attending college. Their protests are about discrimination and other offenses on their dignity.

I think another key difference between us is that I feel as though I am pessimistic about their chances at combating bias at the level at which it exists (unconsciously, in many), whereas I think you think it can somehow be done.
 
Posted by JoshCrow (Member # 6048) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
For my part, I think exhorting people to be kind and forgiving and rise above their problems is fine. But if you are not sharing their problems, and you are offering this as an alternative to solving what they consider problems -- if you are, in fact, insisting that a problem you do not share is not something they should consider a problem -- I think you'll actually do the cause of kindness and forgiveness some real harm.

Therein lies the problem - but I certainly don't need to be the messenger. The Time article tells me it can come from within the black community, because it already exists there.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
But even so, I do not believe life for college-attending blacks in 2015 is as dire as you seem to. You are fond of talking about dodging bullets and mortal physical peril, but I do not think this is the experience of the average black person attending college. Their protests are about discrimination and other offenses on their dignity.
And I think, here, you overlook how they almost all come from backgrounds, and are living in the backdrop of a world where they two go hand in hand. The reason that they are concerned about offenses toward their dignity, is because they've lived lives where offenses against their dignity communicate threats to their lives.

quote:
I think another key difference between us is that I feel as though I am pessimistic about their chances at combating bias at the level at which it exists (unconsciously, in many), whereas I think you think it can somehow be done.
Actually, I think that's a useless fight. Those people are unchangeable and not worth the effort of trying to change from the outside. The important fight is not against individuals, but against the system, and the way it baises outcomes or fails to provide equitable treatment. That's something that can be changed, must be changed, and is really the only thing worth talking about how to change.

There will always be prejudiced people. They're background noise. There do not have to be biased systems, and without biased systems, prejudiced people lose relevance, because they lose the reinforcement that comes from a system bent to favor and nurture their bias.
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
I don't really see what any of that has to do with whether Mizzou campus is physically unsafe for black people or not. Pyr has mentioned "dodging bullets" and "they'll be killed" countless times. Not only is the situation not that dire in America at large, it certainly isn't anything like that on campus that I've heard. Systemic racism is a far cry from "they're being gunned down in the streets."

LR showed us some data about arrests and it didn't look like an epidemic of racism against blacks based on that. I've read data on killings by police over the past few years across different ethnic lines and based on that it seems that the police believe in equal opportunity violence right now. I do think the War on Drugs is racist against blacks, but that particular fact has no relevance to day-to-day life on Mizzou campus. There may be some hostility in the air, or a general sense of bigotry against black people in some places in America, and this would certainly be an uncomfortable reality. But that's not the same as the invective about "they'll be killed" that I'm hearing in this thread. It's hyperbole at best, and from the sound of it outright false in terms of university campus. The best the protesters could do to demonstrate unsafe conditions for blacks at Mizzou was to mention one drunken kid who walked into the wrong room, one van of idiots yelling out the window, and a swastika (yet they don't demand safe spaces for Jews).

Tom, the bottom line is you'd be right if the situation on campus (or even elsewhere in America) was like what's happening in Syria. If your life is in constant danger and you have no safe place to go it certainly would seem ridiculous to be told not to internalize victimhood. I mean, it would be good if one felt dignified at all times regardless, but I wouldn't make that my top priority to tell such people; helping them would be much more pressing. But that isn't the case except maybe in the worst districts of Detroit and places like that which barely resemble what we think of as America. But what that has to do with an Ivy league campus is quite beyond me.

ETA: I do agree with Pyr fully that biased systems are at blame, rather than biased people. It's only when a system enables various foibles of individuals that corruption and mayhem ensue. This can include racism, in addition to elitism and cronyism.

[ November 18, 2015, 01:14 PM: Message edited by: Fenring ]
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
I don't really see what any of that has to do with whether Mizzou campus is physically unsafe for black people or not. Pyr has mentioned "dodging bullets" and "they'll be killed" countless times. Not only is the situation not that dire in America at large, it certainly isn't anything like that on campus that I've heard. Systemic racism is a far cry from "they're being gunned down in the streets."
I'm sorry, have you missed the entire black lives matter movement? There's a reason for it, you know.

They are being gunned down in the streets, often by law enforcement, but also by the people they live around by virtue of being disproportionately impoverished and driven to the ends that impoverished people go to to find a way to get by.

"Things aren't that bad" is an expression of pure ignorance. Things are that bad. Taht's _why_ they're protesting.

And you're putting forth a red herring when you ask for evidence that the University is actually currently physically unsafe. That's the _wrong_ question. The problem is that the University is allowing, unaddressed, messages to those students that it's unsafe.

Again, a suburban neighborhood is absolutely factually safer than a warzone. That's completely irrelevant as to whether someone with PTSD from a warzone will have it triggered in the suburban neighborhood.

The issue isn't the statistical safety of the university. It's whether it's properly doing its job to control the presence of triggers for a significant segment of its population that's dealing with a specific kind of or equivalent to PTSD caused by the way the world has treated them up to this point. Caused by growing up in what amounts to a constant an ongoing war zone.

If the university is going to be a home for them. A place where they can go to learn and grow, then it needs to make an active effort to provide them the baseline for safety and healing that is required to overcome that background. Not idly sit by and ignore complaints about the ways that it's complicity in allowing those warnings of danger to creep in, as it has been doing.
 
Posted by JoshCrow (Member # 6048) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:

They are being gunned down in the streets, often by law enforcement, but also by the people they live around by virtue of being disproportionately impoverished and driven to the ends that impoverished people go to to find a way to get by.

"finding a way to get by" is a rather polite way to describe people murdering each other - maybe the nicest I've ever heard. Something like 93% of homicides against black people are committed by other black people. The protesting of some white university administrator for not prioritizing diversity programming seems awfully far removed from the real problem. In fact, even pointing to economic disparity and poverty is likely to get you booed by the BLM movement - they want it to be about racism, not poverty. I'm glad you agree with me that it is about impoverishment.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
I do agree with Pyr fully that biased systems are at blame, rather than biased people. It's only when a system enables various foibles of individuals that corruption and mayhem ensue. This can include racism, in addition to elitism and cronyism.
And there, you have in a nutshell, exactly why civil rights leaders, when they use the big -ism terms are using them to refer to the systemic issues, not individual biases. They know they can't do anything about personal biases, and that trying to is a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario. They use the -sims to address structural issues, and misconstruing their words to be about individuals mangles their messages and distracts from the points they're trying to make.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JoshCrow:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:

They are being gunned down in the streets, often by law enforcement, but also by the people they live around by virtue of being disproportionately impoverished and driven to the ends that impoverished people go to to find a way to get by.

"finding a way to get by" is a rather polite way to describe people murdering each other - maybe the nicest I've ever heard. Something like 93% of homicides against black people are committed by other black people. The protesting of some white university administrator for not prioritizing diversity programming seems awfully far removed from the real problem.

WHen the only way to afford to put food on the table is illegal business involving gangs, then trying to get buy is what gets you into that mess. Heck when the only way to be sure you're not collateral damage from gangs fighting is to make sure you're in good with the one most likely to kill you based on where you are, then once again, trying to get by is what gets you into the mess. When looking too "white" might get you roughed up or killed for selling people around you out, or even just communicate a degree of success that means you have something for others who are desperate and don't see any other way out of need to take... well, you get the point. That's what poverty does to people, and what people in poverty top the list of perpetrators of and being victims of crime.

But you're missing the point if you suggest that the facts of their background are what the point of the protest was to change. The point of the protest was over a university environment that wasn't taking active action to distance itself from that background. That was passively letting the signals from that background into what was promised to be an area that was free of them. You're doing them a great injustice when you try to ascribe attempts to fix things outside of the scope of the University's authority to their motivations instead of looking at the things within the scope of its authority and responsibility that they were trying to have addressed.

quote:
In fact, even pointing to economic disparity and poverty is likely to get you booed by the BLM movement - they want it to be about racism, not poverty. I'm glad you agree with me that it is about impoverishment.
"They want it to be"? Try "What they are talking about is". You're falsely implying tatt there's only one problem, not a stack of interrelated problems. There are already other movements talking about poverty. If you want to talk about poverty, why not interact with those movements instead of trying to hijack a movement that's bringing up and talking about a different issue into being about something that you're more comfortable discussing?

If you walked into an STD testing clinic and started lecturing the staff there about how they should be putting more effort into treating heroin addiction, since heroin needles are a big STD vector, do you think they'd applaud your insight, or ask you to stop distracting them from their jobs and go try the methadone clinic down the street instead whose actually working on that problem?
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
(And, lest the volume of conversation cloud this fact- economic justice is actualyl my home turf. That's the area that I'm acutalyl most versant with and can talk you from top to bottom in. I have an understanding of issues relating to racial justice (and similarly sexual/gender/orientation justice) based on many long, involved conversations with people I know whose focus is more directly on those areas. So I know the shape, size, similarities and overlaps, but I can't cite the specific experts and deep history nearly as well as someone whose made them their direct field of study and advocacy. I can do a rough 101, but not much deeper. But all of them, without fail start from a position of "You need to start from a position of respect and willingness to understand those that are suffering, not one of strident criticism and/or opposition)

[ November 18, 2015, 02:11 PM: Message edited by: Pyrtolin ]
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
The actual numbers just don't bear out the claim that life for a black person in America consists of dodging bullets and not being able to put food on the table. At least, not significantly more so than for a poor white person.

But even if this were not so, the thread topic is on the protesters' methodology and bullying, not on whether the BLM movement speaks to valid concerns or not. That's really a red herring. It's about dehumanizing and aggressive treatment of those who may disagree with them, or even simply fail to immediately agree with them. It's about, as JoshCrow put it, sacrificing people to the volcano of progress in a mob fashion without actually helping the progress of discourse itself. Part of the problem with the common man in America is that discourse has failed to address his real situation and needs. Politics has largely veered off from representing middle class and poorer people, and the relationship between government and citizens is less trusting and humane than it used to be. The way to combat this breakdown of real discourse is by creating lines of communication, trust and respect. I think the opposite was achieved at Mizzou.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
The actual numbers just don't bear out the claim that life for a black person in America consists of dodging bullets and not being able to put food on the table. At least, not significantly more so than for a poor white person.
But given that a person is black, they're more likely to be poor than they are if you only know that they're white. They absolutely more likely to be assumed to be poor and treated as such by store owners, law enforcement, and anyone else they encounter. They're also far more likely to live in or have a connection to high crime urban areas than white people who are poor are, as white poverty biases to suburban, town, and rural areas. The white person is far more likely to live among other white people that are not as poor. Similarly they're more likely to have family that is not as poor and to have inherited more in the way of education, access to networks, and other such forms of generational wealth even if they happen to be poor at the moment.

The experiences of your average black and average white person simply aren't comparable, so your comparison here, based purely on blind numbers, is spurious. How people experience the events that give rise to statistics matters far, far more than the statistics that may happen to correlate in the aftermath. People live their lives based on what happens to them, not based on abstract numbers.

quote:
But even if this were not so, the thread topic is on the protesters' methodology and bullying
Ah, so it's about making unsubstantiated attacks on them?

That's precisely what I was objecting to.

quote:
It's about dehumanizing and aggressive treatment of those who may disagree with them, or even simply fail to immediately agree with them. It's about, as JoshCrow put it, sacrificing people to the volcano of progress in a mob fashion without actually helping the progress of discourse itself.
Yes, all unfounded accusations that distract from asking questions about what their problems were and trying to understand what was happening in favor of demineralizing them, despite a complete lack of any evidence on which to make such accusations.

quote:
Part of the problem with the common man in America is that discourse has failed to address his real situation and needs. Politics has largely veered off from representing middle class and poorer people, and the relationship between government and citizens is less trusting and humane than it used to be.
And the students as Mizzou were driven to finally take the only kind of action that historically has had any real positive effect with regards to changing that. They finally had to buckle down and put themselves on the line and in the public eye to rally enough strength to be taken seriously instead of ignored.

quote:
The way to combat this breakdown of real discourse is by creating lines of communication, trust and respect.
That's what people tried to say to shut MLK doesn. to shut Gandhi dow, to shut every other person and group who actually put their necks on the line and made the needed effort to actualyl shake the status quo up enough for change. Missing, of course that it was the critics of the protesters, not the protesters, who were showing the lack of respect.

quote:
I think the opposite was achieved at Mizzou.
Hey, we could still get there if you're willing to actualyl walk the walk and not just pay lip service to the notion of respect. You actualyl seems to get there earlier in the thread, so I've got hope yet.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Malcolm X owned slaves
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
And the students as Mizzou were driven to finally take the only kind of action that historically has had any real positive effect with regards to changing that. They finally had to buckle down and put themselves on the line and in the public eye to rally enough strength to be taken seriously instead of ignored.

You know, I don't think the members of the Mizzou protest were putting much of anything on the line. What did they risk protesting on a cushy campus? They got exposure, attention, even the feeling of power from having a media presence and direct power over the administration. At worst their effort would fizzle out, but none of them were in any danger of being harmed or frankly even expelled unless they did something criminal.

Now protesters in the 60's...THEY were putting something on the line. The police would break up a lot of these protests violently, they were preaching against a current war where the government wanted them silenced; this was a really tense situation. People at the time were dying by the thousands. It takes brass b***s to speak out against a government in wartime on principle while at the same time fighting for social changes and cultural reformation. I don't mean for this contrast to damn protests in more peaceful times but man, the protesters in colleges today are not in any kind of danger. If anything I'd say the football players took a risk, but the dudes walking around with signs and chanting...not so much.

Tell me how much is 'on the line' for these protesters at Dartmouth:

http://coed.com/2015/11/16/dartmouth-college-black-lives-matter-protest-violence-video-details/

It seems to me that the students on premises when they entered were under far more threat than the protesters were. I don't see police anywhere around, but I do see frightened students. There's not much currency to saying they're putting anything on the line when they feel empowered, strong, and protected all at the same time, while knowing they have the backing of pop culture on the left and will at least get decent reviews from some parts of the MSM (except when they behave like they do in this video, for which it's very hard to paint it in a positive way).
 
Posted by jasonr (Member # 969) on :
 
Fenring, see if you can get Pyr to agree that the protesters in the video "bullied" anyone. Bet you $5 you can't. $20 if you can get him to admit they did anything wrong, at all.
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
quote:
You know, I don't think the members of the Mizzou protest were putting much of anything on the line.
I'm not sure about the football players. I expect the school could have threatened to suspend them or even remove them from the team and endangering scholarships.

It seems unlikely but not exactly risk free for that group.
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
D.W. do you have reason to believe there was a threat of expulsion? I've never read such a thing in relation to any protest lately, but maybe I missed it. I would be very surprised if they really did threaten that, but I'd amend my statement if I learned that had happened.
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
Not expulsion directly no. But I could see them suggesting that refusal to participate in a game could get them kicked from the team. There was/is a huge amount of money involved in the contracts for these games. 1 mill was the number for just the next game at the time of the protest I heard kicked around for penalties for forfeiting the game. Ticket sales / network contracts and so on.

So given that, strong arming by the school to "make you play" seems plausible. So if they were cut from the team, I expect (but don't know for sure) that this threatens athletic scholarships. That, while not expulsion, would result in some former players no longer able to attend.

I have no reason to believe this was threatened. In all honesty cutting one guy (even the pres.) at $400k'ish salary seems like a far safer bet than to get the bad press of bullying your players, to whom public sympathy is likely a given, into playing so that you can exploit them for the gobs of cash involved. While this was an option, it was likely not a hard decision to make to concede the player's point and fire the president.

I would say that if you pay close enough attention that rules governing player walk-offs or protests will be more formalized in the future. This could easily be viewed as a warning shot to the collage football revenue system and the power the players have to impede it if they so choose. More than just the politically minded students were paying attention to how much power the football players brought to the table with this tactic.

Also worth noting is it is very much in the schools best interest to make great strides in improving racial sensitivity and student safety moving forward. The less the public realizes the football players were the deciding leverage the more secure the status quo remains.

This was a business negotiation, not new found cultural sensitivity. That is not a slight on the protestors or an attempt to discredit their goals. They played the right cards this time. I hope that things improve as a result.


[ November 19, 2015, 11:11 AM: Message edited by: D.W. ]
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
If it's the football players you're talking about then yeah, I already mentioned that maybe they risked something, although even by the standards of historical protests that something was just their fancy scholarship and not their physical safety. As for the majority of the protesters I can't think of anything that would qualify as a 'risk' on their part.
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
Yes, I meant (and wrote) specifically and ONLY the football players. I missed that caveat in your post about their risk. Bad marks for both our reading comprehension. [Frown]

I suppose if you want to stretch it one of them did get nudged out of the way by the president's car in the parade. [Razz]
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
I don't think the members of the Mizzou protest were putting much of anything on the line.
The football players were breaking their fundamental contract with the university that their scholarships rode on by threatening to not play. The university would have been completely within its rights to ban them from the team and cancel their scholarships.

But, of course, the bigger issue is that, of course, the implicit assertion they should be acting based on _your_ perception of whether they were taking a risk, not based _their_ perception that they were taking a risk. You're inserting your uninformed opinion into your analysis of their actions instead of asking whether or not they felt that they were taking a risk. Unless you've got positive, nonspecualtive evidence somewhere that they said that they felt confident that noting bad could happen to them?

quote:
At worst their effort would fizzle out, but none of them were in any danger of being harmed or frankly even expelled unless they did something criminal.
Where's your evidence that they believed this? Aslo include evidence that tehy did not feel that allowing the current conditions to continue would translate to danger of harassment and possible physical harm, while you're at it, since those were part of the problem that they were trying to get addrtessed.

It may well be that many involved didn't feel like the university itself would punish them, but if the status quo was communicating threat then the "worst case" of nothing happening and that status quo being preserved would mean that they were in the cross hairs of escalating threat, so it was better to try to do something effective than sit around waiting for ineffective attempts to address the issue to bear fruit.

quote:
Tell me how much is 'on the line' for these protesters at Dartmouth:
I don't know much about the situation at Dartmouth, and it's completely tangential. Here. It's possible they're behaving badly- if you dig around I'm sure you can find any number of protests where _actual evidence_ exists that they botched it up. But if you'd like to make the case "Well, because some protestors behave badly, I can feel free to insult and degrade all protestors without evidence that they've acted poorly" then please, do feel free to try to make that case.

Otherwise you're squirming away from the point here.\, which is that it's unproductive and dehumanizing to approach a situation where you don't know the details with attacks and insults instead of an earnest and non-judgmental interest in trying to understand what's going on.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
As for the majority of the protesters I can't think of anything that would qualify as a 'risk' on their part.

And far be it for you to try to resolve that ignorance by making an effort to study situation and find an answer to that question, instead of just assuming that your ignorance is proof of a lack of them perceiving that there was something that hey were at risk of?
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
quote:
But, of course, the bigger issue is that, of course, the implicit assertion they should be acting based on _your_ perception of whether they were taking a risk, not based _their_ perception that they were taking a risk. You're inserting your uninformed opinion into your analysis of their actions instead of asking whether or not they felt that they were taking a risk. Unless you've got positive, nonspecualtive evidence somewhere that they said that they felt confident that noting bad could happen to them?
How does your brain even come up with this stuff? It must be an interesting existence going through life with the belief that everything is subjective. I'm just not that imaginative a person I guess.

Was there a risk? Yes or No. Not, "No, but they believe there was one, so you should complement them on their bravery." I'm wired so contrary to that option that the concept is genuinely alien to me. I do find it fascinating that it not only occurs to some, but they state it, and seem to believe it sincerely.
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
Pyr, it sounds like you agree that nothing material was on the line for the students here, I'm happy to hear that. What you did bring up is that I can't know whether the students felt they were taking a risk, and this is true. I don't know what they thought or felt. But then again it doesn't matter, since when one speaks objectively of what someone 'put on the line' one is not referring to anxiety but to material risk, which I see no evidence of here.

If one wants to paint the protesters as being heroic in some sense since they take risks in order to try to help others, it is actually incumbent on such a claim to show that there is actually such a risk. If there isn't any risk then the fact that a given student might feel threatened anyhow at some non-existent spectre of a threat doesn't mean they're putting anything on the line. It just means they are ignorant about how cushioned their protest really is. These protests are, by and large, a win-neutral prospect rather than win-lose. At best they gain their objective, at worst it amounts to little although they do have the satisfaction of having tried. There is no retribution coming their way. Although these groups at times feel the need to punish those that disagree with them, those that disagree with them don't seem to be seeking (from anything I've read) any kind of punishment towards the protesters.

[ November 19, 2015, 12:04 PM: Message edited by: Fenring ]
 
Posted by ScottF (Member # 6897) on :
 
Fenring, I just want to point out the courage it may have taken for you to type that last response. Granted, I don't have material proof that you risked anything in crafting it, but who am I to assume I'm familiar with your perception of risk? Stay strong.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
Pyr, it sounds like you agree that nothing material was on the line for the students here, I'm happy to hear that. What you did bring up is that I can't know whether the students felt they were taking a risk, and this is true. I don't know what they thought or felt. But then again it doesn't matter, since when one speaks objectively of what someone 'put on the line' one is not referring to anxiety but to material risk, which I see no evidence of here.

No. My position is that I _do not know_ what they feel they're putting on the like, and thus I do not judge them for it until I better understand.

While you see to think it's just find to degrade them because you don not understand what they feel they are putting on the line and thus feel safe to assume it must be nothing, post-rationalizing your ignorance as being "objective"

And all that matters is what they perceive. They are subjective participant in their own experience, their risk assessments are going to be made based on their subjective evaluation, not your uninformed and completely arbitrary assertions of what it "objective" here.

AS best I can see it, they feel their physical and mental safety are on the line. They risk those by not acting, so must act in order to protect them.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Was there a risk? Yes or No. Not, "No, but they believe there was one, so you should complement them on their bravery."
How does "Not demonize and dehumanize them" equate to "compliment them" to you? Is trying to approach the issue nonjudgmentally such a risk to you that you might actually agree that you have to equate it actively agreeing?
 
Posted by jasonr (Member # 969) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ScottF:
Fenring, I just want to point out the courage it may have taken for you to type that last response. Granted, I don't have material proof that you risked anything in crafting it, but who am I to assume I'm familiar with your perception of risk? Stay strong.

He's heroic really, like a modern day MLK.
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
I have not (at least have not intended to) demonized or dehumanized anyone here. At worst I can be said to infantilized collage "kids". But you'll be pleased (or affronted? I have no clue) to know that I do this universally and the race of the college kid or their political activity does not influence this unfair judgment by me.

But no, there is no "risk" for me on approaching any issue nonjudgmentally. It's a philosophy or reflex. I'm not risk averse I just make judgments. I may understand how or why someone may feel the way they do. I am an empathic person. I however compartmentalize that. If I see someone doing something I judge as wrong or find they reached a conclusion through faulty information I feel a need (damn near a compulsion) to inform them.

It's my version of the golden rule I guess. I WANT to be educated and informed when I make mistakes. I assume others do as well. I have a profound aversion to people who want to embrace a distorted reality out of fear or comfort. If it's out of ignorance at least that can be addressed.

I KNOW I'm a deeply flawed person who is ignorant of a vast wealth of knowledge. I don't claim to know better than others on every topic and I expect to be called out when I start spouting erroneous BS.

So no, the RISK I take is that others may not agree with ME. Yet instead of just keeping my mouth shut and being "nonjudgmental", which is the SAFE option, I voice an opinion or offer my input. I may help someone, I may learn something, I may be momentarily embarrassed or I may piss someone off.

Feel free to judge me. I welcome it.

[ November 19, 2015, 01:46 PM: Message edited by: D.W. ]
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
. I WANT to be educated and informed when I make mistakes.
What about when you don't make a mistake? Do you want someone to jump on you and attempt to educate you, even though you know you did what you intended to? Or when they try to teach you how to do something that you're not interested in doing? Wouldn't you prefer it if hey first asked "Is that what you meant to do?" or "What are you trying to accomplish?", or even, heach "Would you mind a bit of advice?" Or is it better that they stop you from doing what you're doing and insist that you need to listen to them tell you how to do things according to what they think you're trying to do (or should be trying to do) without ever stopping to check to see if their advice is wanted or even needed.

If you're driving to the store, would you simply just shrug and say "They're just trying to be helpful" if you had a passenger that was insisting on telling you how to make each traffic maneuver as if you were a new driver wile also getting upset that you're not following their careful instructions on how to get to the bank?
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
o no, the RISK I take is that others may not agree with ME. Yet instead of just keeping my mouth shut and being "nonjudgmental", which is the SAFE option, I voice an opinion or offer my input. I may help someone, I may learn something, I may be momentarily embarrassed or I may piss someone off.
Who said anything about keeping your mouth shut? You wouldn't consider first asking what kind of help they'd appreciate from you? Or even questions about what they're doing to try to understand what they might need? You'd just jump in and start dictating whatever you imagine might be helpful based on what you'd be doing, without any regard to what they want?
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
quote:
What about when you don't make a mistake? Do you want someone to jump on you and attempt to educate you, even though you know you did what you intended to? Or when they try to teach you how to do something that you're not interested in doing? Wouldn't you prefer it if hey first asked "Is that what you meant to do?" or "What are you trying to accomplish?", or even, heach "Would you mind a bit of advice?" Or is it better that they stop you from doing what you're doing and insist that you need to listen to them tell you how to do things according to what they think you're trying to do (or should be trying to do) without ever stopping to check to see if their advice is wanted or even needed.
If I didn’t make a mistake, I’ll defend my statement / position. If I know the “additional info” they are using to correct me and chose to make my decision despite it, I’ll let them know. If I’m not interested, I’ll tell them. (so they don’t waste their time) As for my preference on how they present themselves it’s just that, a preference. If I find value in what they say or am receptive to feedback the methods matter little to me.

I do fully comprehend that delivery matters. You need to approach everyone differently. Some people like blunt and direct, some people need to be correct and the only way to ever persuade them is to convince them they came up with the new idea by themselves. Some people will tune you out if you use profanity or appear aggressive in any way. Some people will ignore you if you are too timid or quiet and not assertive. If I care about YOU as an individual I may go out of my way to find out how YOU best are made receptive to new information or being critiqued or corrected. By default, I don’t go to that much effort.

Now the last part you mention “stop you from doing what you are doing.” I’m not normally interested in pointing out logical fallacies but this one just kinda smacks me in the face. I’m not stopping anyone. I’m not counter protesting, blocking people from entering spaces, making threatening remarks or anything. I’m asking questions and making suggestions. I’m talking. Anyone who feels threatened by that or feels I’m “stopping them” from anything by doing so is worth poking at. For if they can’t be taught how asinine that belief is, they should at least have value as a source of amusement for the rest of us.

Here’s a pro tip for internet debates and discussions. I can’t even “stop you” and force you to read what I write. You can scroll on by and ignore anything with my name attached to it. Dialogue (at least online) requires mutual consent. Now maybe in person, on campus for instance, they need to curb some more hot headed confrontations from happening. That seems to be part of what is being requested. The form that takes is of interest to me. I respect not wanting to be verbally assaulted but how you stop that without sheltering people, to their personal detriment, is not an easy task. Yes, people need a foundation and an ability to find emotional shelter at times. However if you create an environment which insures a resulting fragile group who believes they can “choose” to block out reality you are doing them a serious disservice.

“Hey, there’s this pitfall on the path you appear to be setting out on. Mind your step.”
If someone responds I need to mind my own business and I couldn’t possibly understand the path they are setting on or what lead them to start down it, I can either warn them more enthusiastically or shrug and move on to the next person until I lose interest. As my interest is mostly contained with… well here rather than say standing on campus preaching to the passing students, it’s really rather inconsequential.

I think I’ve stated this before but my participation here is entirely selfish. I’m not some altruistic missionary trying to sell you all on how to live your life according to D.W. My ego doesn’t need any wins here. I find the differences in how we all see the world and the conclusions we draw from what we see interesting. That’s the end of it. That, and lurking is boring…

quote:
You'd just jump in and start dictating whatever you imagine might be helpful based on what you'd be doing, without any regard to what they want?
Yep. If by dictating you mean offering my perspective without any demand or expectation of it being followed.
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
. I WANT to be educated and informed when I make mistakes.
What about when you don't make a mistake? Do you want someone to jump on you and attempt to educate you, even though you know you did what you intended to?
This is a very funny question for you to ask. I hope you can see why.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
. I WANT to be educated and informed when I make mistakes.
What about when you don't make a mistake? Do you want someone to jump on you and attempt to educate you, even though you know you did what you intended to?
This is a very funny question for you to ask. I hope you can see why.
Absolutely. And I'm perfectly willing to entertain the notion that you're intentionally being degrading and insulting if that's really what you want to cop to.

I know very well that my position on this is likely to make you uncomfortable. I can also, quite clearly see that you're not exactly being dogpiled by a large number of people pointing this out here. You're representing the status quo here, so you're going to have to expect that you'll have to deal with criticism, and perhaps even defend it from time to time.

But, of course, you haven't really actually defended what you're doing, just criticized me for pointing out that it was insulting to the protestors and based in outright ignorance. Heck, you've even agreed that your acting out of ignorance, but still haven't justified why you feel that using ignorance as a basis to criticize people it a reasonable position to start from.
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
It DOES make us uncomfortable. Mostly because you speak with such surety that everyone understands your position and the logical assumptions which support it. When we ask you to back up a moment and explain it, your responses seem to indicate you think we are trolling you.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
If I didn’t make a mistake, I’ll defend my statement / position. If I know the “additional info” they are using to correct me and chose to make my decision despite it, I’ll let them know. If I’m not interested, I’ll tell them. (so they don’t waste their time) As for my preference on how they present themselves it’s just that, a preference. If I find value in what they say or am receptive to feedback the methods matter little to me.
3.4.5,6 times over? If every time you tried to do something, at least one if not many people came out of the wood work to offer you advice? It's one thing to say you can shake it off when it's not something you're constantly pushing back against, It's quite another when people are constantly on you and doing it without end.

quote:
m asking questions and making suggestions.
If you'll look at the behavior I was criticizing, it was actively skipping that first part, in any honest manner. In fact the people defending it have been defending the notion that it should be perfectly fine to start with making suggestions, at best, if not being out right critical or even degrading, based on a complete, acknowledged lack of knowledge aside from superficial reports.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
It DOES make us uncomfortable. Mostly because you speak with such surety that everyone understands your position and the logical assumptions which support it. When we ask you to back up a moment and explain it, your responses seem to indicate you think we are trolling you.

DO I really need to explain why being rude and insulting to people, while making assumptions based on ignorance is a poor way to show interest in a subject?
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
Some times yes. Because you see insults at times when none are intended and assume ignorance without seeing it demonstrated.

Everyone who reaches a conclusion which differs from your own is NOT by default ignorant.

Everyone making a suggestion is NOT by default being rude.

Everyone who tells you something you don't want to here is NOT by default being insulting.

As to your point about the exhaustive nature of being offered advice repeatedly or constantly, I take that as a damn good indicator I may have my head up my ass.

Some times, motives don't matter. I know that may seem like an awful thing to say but it's true. Some times people don't NEED to know or research the history of a subject. They can tell you, "Umm, that thing you just did, here's how it looks to me. You may want to consider doing something else unless that's your intent."

Upon discovering the WHY, or your feelings on it, the "how it looks" or "here is the most likely repercussions as I see them" aren't going to change. Now if that reaction is what was desired, cool. If it's not, arguing with me that I shouldn't see things that way or people shouldn't react that way is pissing in the wind.

[ November 19, 2015, 05:02 PM: Message edited by: D.W. ]
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
Some times yes. Because you see insults at times when none are intended and assume ignorance without seeing it demonstrated.


As you say below, intent is not what matters. Something is insulting based on what it communicates to the person who hears, not what the speaker meant to say. And that definitively demonstrates ignorance, unless you assume the speaker meant to be insulting.

quote:
Everyone who reaches a conclusion which differs from your own is NOT by default ignorant.
Indeed. Those that reach conclusions despite not having information are ignorant. Particularly when they've admitted they don't have information, but are still jumping to conclusions absent evidence.

quote:
Everyone making a suggestion is NOT by default being rude.
If the person or people they are making the suggestions to did not solicit them, then yes, they absolutely are.PResuming that you know that others, without at least asking if it's okay to offer your advice is an assertion that they're less capable than you are, an assumption that is rude to make out of ignorance.

quote:
Everyone who tells you something you don't want to here is NOT by default being insulting.
Indeed, but not relevant to my position here.

quote:
As to your point about the exhaustive nature of being offered advice repeatedly or constantly, I take that as a damn good indicator I may have my head up my ass.
Indeed? And you don't see who it might not be just a little insulting or diminishing to communicate that to someone who actually knows exactly what they're doing? I mean, we're getting back to the notion of a microaggression here as discussed on another thread. You're an expert in your field, but because you have a minority status of some sort or another, every assumes that you need advice in you area of expertise. That they're doing you a favor by giving you advice. (Ref, also: "Mansplaining")

quote:
Some times, motives don't matter. I know that may seem like an awful thing to say but it's true.
Why would that seem awful to me? I've made that point over and over again.

quote:
Some times people don't NEED to know or research the history of a subject. They can tell you, "Umm, that thing you just did, here's how it looks to me. You may want to consider doing something else unless that's your intent."
SOmething that's fine to do to someone operating from the status quo- who's representing a a well established an known position that needs to be challenged. It's not okay when applied to someone coming from below- trying to bring new information or a request to change to the table.

quote:
Upon discovering the WHY, or your feelings on it, the "how it looks" or "here is the most likely repercussions as I see them" aren't going to change.
Sure, but your knowledge of whether that was the intended effect can very easily change, or whether the person cares about the repercussions you're talking about.

quote:
Now if that reaction is what was desired, cool. If it's not, arguing with me that I shouldn't see things that way or people shouldn't react that way is pissing in the wind.
the problem comes when that reaction is what was desired and you've become the 10,000th person that could have figured that out by asking a few simple questions first that might have held them explain the situation instead of jumping right in and summing they didn't know what they were doing simply because you didn't know what they were doing.
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
Well said on it being insulting because that's how it's received. That does fit my point exactly. However that STILL doesn't demonstrate ignorance. Ignorance is just the logical conclusion you reach based upon the reaction you observe.


When I suggest I don't know something or don't understand it, that is typically because I have formed a picture in my head of the situation that does not follow my logic. When this happens I enter into a discussion with the full knowledge that one of three things are true.

1. I am missing key information and the situation is different than my assessment.
2. The situation is as I see it but there are repercussions which nullify or balance heavily against those I believe make the situation illogical or flawed.
3. It's exactly as I first thought, the situation is a mess and someone should probably point that out to those involved because they are either in error or possibly being manipulated into working against their stated goals.

So you suggest that one should not voice an opinion or raise an objection but should rather ask questions until they know for sure which of those is the case. But not of you, I should apparently walk up to a stranger on my local campus and strike up a conversation on the racism they experience. This MAY help inform me but honestly, I should get on a plane and head to Misou, just to be sure I have the right context. That is as long as doing so wouldn't be seen as intimidating and impose on their desire for a safe space?

OR... I could do what I do here.
1. Voice my assessment and see if anyone refutes it.
2. Voice my concerns about the repercussions of the situation as I see it and see what mitigating or nullifying factors may be present.
3. Blusterously claim I'm correct and get someone worked up enough that they "school me" by laying out the whole "how it really is" in a nice neat package.


In general I see "making others understand your motivations" to be a negative human desire far FAR more often than it being a positive goal. What you should strive for is to understand how your words and actions are perceived. Elicit feedback if it's not obvious. Then if that perception does not match your intent moderate your own behavior.

Sure you CAN change the world but it's going to be damn hard, you are likely to fail and the tide of apathy more than any active opposition is working against you. If there is ever an option to change your own views or behavior try that first.

If someone, particularly of say the majority, offers a suggestion and says, "I would be more receptive to X than to Y." You can either assume negative motives that they are attempting to sabotage you, because they are your opposition, or you could listen to them.

They may be totally superfluous to the discussion, much like I am when it comes to collage policies. If that's the case you can tune them out or decide for yourself if their words have any value. Or, you can get defensive. If they really are your enemy maybe you get some reverse scooby-do action. They put on a white hood and go, "And I would have gotten away with it to if it wasn't for you pesky kids!"

As to your point of "it's not okay when applied to someone coming from below" I reject that. Something is either OK or not OK. There is no double standard. Forcing a double standard exacerbates problems in race relations. You do not fight fire with fire when it comes to inequality. Unless...

Now if a group is talking in terms of revolution and seizing power, be it through force or democratic participation, then fine. Ignore the intrusive condescending outsiders who are terrified of them, and change in general. Go with that narrative, you don't need their permission or approval or even understanding.

If you want someone else to change by choice though, you better figure out what upsets them, what angers them, what frightens them, what strokes their ego and what common causes you have. If they are the majority, and have status quo on their side, that's on you to figure out. Unless you are going to render their desire to change moot at least.

Take power, ally with power, manipulate the powerful or pray.

These kids took power and it impressed me. But I'm jaded and don't see the payoff for their initiative. Maybe this president was an obstacle. I hope so for their sake. I fear that the schools will inoculate themselves from the same expression of power in the future. (That of the threatened football strike.)

To your other points. Taking offense, being insulted or feeling diminished are all choices I make, not things done to me. That is in all likelihood an outlook based on privilege. I have no problem avoiding or verbally shutting down anyone actively trying to psychologically abuse me. To those who say something potentially offensive out of ignorance or just a lack of social graces, I ignore it or try to filter out the noise if I feel they have something of value to say.

If 10,000 people all failed to understand something then either they are irrelevant to you, and you ignore them, or you reassess your methods to avoid the ambiguity in the future.
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
quote:
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
What about when you don't make a mistake? Do you want someone to jump on you and attempt to educate you, even though you know you did what you intended to?

This is a very funny question for you to ask. I hope you can see why.
Absolutely. And I'm perfectly willing to entertain the notion that you're intentionally being degrading and insulting if that's really what you want to cop to.

Do you mean to say I'm being insulting to the protest, or to you? I don't know if you understand my comment the way I meant it so here it is: You asked whether, when doing something correct, you would want someone else to jump on you and 'educate you' when you already know what you're doing. I was pointing out the irony that you have outright discounted the possibility that anyone in disagreement with you here does know what they're saying and what the implications are, and you're jumping on them anyhow to 'educate them'. I thought it was a cute omission of the possibility you might be talking about yourself inadvertently.

This isn't to say that we don't value your feedback, I learn a lot from it. But you might consider that you're not the only one who may have a reasonable perspective on issues such as this one, and that 'correcting us' - with the implicit premise that we must be definition be wrong simply because you see it that way - puts you in the position of doing what you accuse us of doing.

Just saying.
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
It's not irony when there is a double standard in place because of an existing power imbalance. Now wipe that grin off your face Fenring. [Razz]
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
You asked whether, when doing something correct, you would want someone else to jump on you and 'educate you' when you already know what you're doing. I was pointing out the irony that you have outright discounted the possibility that anyone in disagreement with you here does know what they're saying and what the implications are, and you're jumping on them anyhow to 'educate them'.
No, I fully get that you may intentionally be trying to undermine degrade the protestors, but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you're not being malicious.

quote:
But you might consider that you're not the only one who may have a reasonable perspective on issues such as this one, and that 'correcting us' - with the implicit premise that we must be definition be wrong simply because you see it that way - puts you in the position of doing what you accuse us of doing.
If we were talking about perspectives on the issues, sure. But My point here is orthogonal to the issues, and specifically focused on the insults and dehumanizing attitude being convey though them that are preventing easy discussion of the actual issues.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
It's not irony when there is a double standard in place because of an existing power imbalance. Now wipe that grin off your face Fenring. [Razz]

Indeed- there's a huge difference between a revolt by people who are oppressed and police action to quell a rebellion by an oppressive established power. They may look similar abest context- they're effectively the same tool in the toolbox- buy why the tool is being applied and to what end matters far more than the tool itself.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
Well said on it being insulting because that's how it's received. That does fit my point exactly. However that STILL doesn't demonstrate ignorance. Ignorance is just the logical conclusion you reach based upon the reaction you observe.


No, it's giving the benefit of the doubt. Ignorance means that they're are being unintentionally insulting and distracting. A lack of ignorance would mean that they're actively being malicious and trying to degrade the protestors to distract from understanding them.


quote:
So you suggest that one should not voice an opinion or raise an objection but should rather ask questions until they know for sure which of those is the case.
Rasing an option, stated as such is one thing. Stating that opinion as a fact is quite another. There's a wide difference between "Their behavior seems pretty aggressive from what I've heard" and "They're being unnecessarily violent" (especially when the facts of the situation suggest that they're not being violent at all, violence was just an accusation made by people looking to discredit the protest, without any factual basis)

[quote But not of you, I should apparently walk up to a stranger on my local campus and strike up a conversation on the racism they experience.[/quote]
Why not of me. I've said a few time that I'd be willing to help research if people would back off the accusations and ask non-judgemental questions instead.

what I did say, though, is that it's not your place to _demand_ that I answer questions. If I do so, it's because I've decided that it's worth my time to help you do the research necessary, not because I have an obligation to find answers for you. I'm willing to help on equal terms, I'm not interested in acting on subservient ones.

quote:
OR... I could do what I do here.
1. Voice my assessment and see if anyone refutes it.
2. Voice my concerns about the repercussions of the situation as I see it and see what mitigating or nullifying factors may be present.
3. Blusterously claim I'm correct and get someone worked up enough that they "school me" by laying out the whole "how it really is" in a nice neat package.

And in the process you churn up additional resentment toward the protesters, propagate false accusations against them that undermine and degrade them, and effectively try to manipulate people into doing research for you. All while conveying an attitude that suggests that you'r not honestly interested in understanding, just axe grinding.

I mean, it does get you results, but in the process it reinforces the social structures and hierarchy that create the problems to begin with. It feeds a narrative where the dominant factions of society see it as right and proper to demand service from the less dominant and be as disrespectful as they want with the weaker portions of society required to show a preponderance of evidence to defend themselves, while dismissing the notion that the more powerful should take equal responsibility to educating themselves and for making the effort to actively treat others with respect.

quote:
What you should strive for is to understand how your words and actions are perceived. Elicit feedback if it's not obvious. Then if that perception does not match your intent moderate your own behavior.
Indeed. And I'm giving you feedback so you can do just that.

quote:
If someone, particularly of say the majority, offers a suggestion and says, "I would be more receptive to X than to Y." You can either assume negative motives that they are attempting to sabotage you, because they are your opposition, or you could listen to them.
If your goal is to be a better servant of the majority, sure. But if you do that then the best you can achieve will be how to be the perfect servant of the majority. If your goal is equal treatment or the assertion of rights that should not be conditional on the sufferance of the majority, then that undermines your efforts.

quote:
As to your point of "it's not okay when applied to someone coming from below" I reject that. Something is either OK or not OK. There is no double standard. Forcing a double standard exacerbates problems in race relations. You do not fight fire with fire when it comes to inequality. Unless...
Fire is just a tool. A doctor using fire to cauterize a wound is acting a much different ethical ground than an interrogator using it to elicit information. Above and below do matter, because power applied downward is oppressive, while power applied upward is revolutionary. The result may not alway be what was intended in either case but it's a false equivalence to suggest that tit's the tool that defines the legitimacy of the act, not the context in which the tool was applied.

quote:
Now if a group is talking in terms of revolution and seizing power, be it through force or democratic participation, then fine. Ignore the intrusive condescending outsiders who are terrified of them, and change in general. Go with that narrative, you don't need their permission or approval or even understanding.
And there you're getting it. The status quo only changes through such strong pushes. It actively defends itself from anything less.

quote:
If you want someone else to change by choice though, you better figure out what upsets them, what angers them, what frightens them, what strokes their ego and what common causes you have. If they are the majority, and have status quo on their side, that's on you to figure out. Unless you are going to render their desire to change moot at least.
And the status quo _never_ chooses to change. It only ever changes when its been forced to. The kids at the university tried for a long time along those principles. They finally moved to protest when they had completely exhausted those possibilities and gotten no meaningful response. When they saw no option left but to make the situation untenable for everyone so that some form of change would have to happen, and to make it clear that they could do so again if the change did not include measures that would address their needs.

quote:
These kids took power and it impressed me. But I'm jaded and don't see the payoff for their initiative. Maybe this president was an obstacle. I hope so for their sake. I fear that the schools will inoculate themselves from the same expression of power in the future. (That of the threatened football strike.)
We'll see. They're not at the endgame yet, and if they pet themselves on the back and call this a victory before they've seen substantial change to rectify the problems that brought them out in the first place, then perhaps it will have been a wasted effort. It's not over till it's over, and we haven't seen yet what the ultimate outcome is.

quote:
To your other points. Taking offense, being insulted or feeling diminished are all choices I make, not things done to me.
You forget that these discussions are happening in a wider field. If you discredit the protesters as being violent and misguided, you will lead other people to take your word for it instead of looking into the situation for themselves. They don't even have to know you said something for your words and assumptions to do damage to their credibility, especially if you are asserting things about them without evidence to back up the assertions, because your words become evidence for other people to repeat or escalate.

quote:
If 10,000 people all failed to understand something then either they are irrelevant to you, and you ignore them, or you reassess your methods to avoid the ambiguity in the future.
It's not a failure to understand anything, It's making a different assumption about your knowledge and capability based on your appearance. This is something that happens with extreme frequency to women and minorities that are are professionals or experts in their field. (Many, many black and women lawyers will, for example be happy to tell you about being asked to go grab coffee when showing up to represent a client because people can't seem to realize that they're the expert and not a clerk or office staff, whereas a white man showing up in the same way gets asked or even assumed to be a professional)
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Back in the days when liberals had principles, the cure for ignorance was knowledge, not silence or public shaming
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
quote:
No, it's giving the benefit of the doubt. Ignorance means that they're are being unintentionally insulting and distracting. A lack of ignorance would mean that they're actively being malicious and trying to degrade the protestors to distract from understanding them.
Pyrtolin I expect part of the issue is when I and Fenring poke at you for your attitude, we see your responding as if it's obvious any criticism and probing should be lumped in with those making accusations and being malicious or degrading. Now there has been a little of that early on that was openly hostile. Claims of thugary and violence when those labels must be stretched beyond the norm in order to apply.

So your points stand. Open maliciousness and degradation should be opposed. I think the part that strikes us as odd is your statements seem to illustrate a binary view. You are either on the correct side or you are a hostile opponent. There appears to be no room for criticism as far as you are concerned. Any attempt to do so is seen as a blatant insult and those who do so are lumped in with the defamers, saboteurs and bigots. Only questioning, if done in an acceptable format on the terms of those being questioned is a valid response; if we happen to be so dense we don’t grasp in its entirety what the protesters want and why they are going about it the way they are. (And it better damn well be followed up with some vigorous head nods and assenting noises)

quote:
Why not of me. I've said a few time that I'd be willing to help research if people would back off the accusations and ask non-judgemental questions instead.
Because you see nothing BUT accusations so void out your own offer. You are right though, you don’t owe any of us an answer. Though stating things as if you have the answer and infantilizing all those here by suggesting they just need to open their eyes and look to find them is another thing. If it were that easy there would be no question. What they are asking is to see the world through your eye’s because you are reacting to something different than what they see.

And honestly, I’m not picking apart the protestors or their tactics anymore. I threw out my two cents and it’s a wait and see situation. Either their actions will improve things or it won’t. It’s the attitude that you put forward that any group can be beyond reproach that I find disgusting. It is an attitude that precludes equality.
quote:
And the status quo _never_ chooses to change.
This is a fairy tale you are telling yourself. At least as it relates to the western nations. Are our societies still deeply flawed? Yes. But they do choose to change. And no, that doesn’t mean sit around and wait for them to do so. I’ll say it one more time, I agree with the students expressing power the way they did and making demands for action. I just have my doubts their demands will have any lasting effect. Maybe knowing they won the staring contest is enough? Maybe toppling a figurehead is enough? Maybe the safe spaces and systemic racism issues were all a smokescreen for highlighting the problems of big money involved in college football and how it distorts the priorities of an establishment of learning into a business. By taking out the businessman they can change it. How do you disprove ulterior motives or politely ask someone if their coattails have some extra weight attached?

Here’s another nasty tactic. If someone is frustrated to a point of defensiveness and their position remains steadfast, that’s a good sign they are being honest with you. Though they may not like you anymore and your assurances come at the cost of respect or likeability…

quote:
We'll see. They're not at the endgame yet, and if they pet themselves on the back and call this a victory before they've seen substantial change to rectify the problems that brought them out in the first place, then perhaps it will have been a wasted effort. It's not over till it's over, and we haven't seen yet what the ultimate outcome is.
And here you hit on my initial criticism. If you are throwing your weight around, everything aligned and you have serious leverage to get your demands, go for the end game! I see them now as a spent force. I see that they surrendered their power after getting their demand met. (the firing of the president)

Possibly that will be enough but to me, that’s a gamble. They wiped the board clean and rolled the dice. There is no guarantee they will get anything but consolation and words of sympathy and understanding and promises (that may or may not be empty). Why not go for the end game when they had the leverage? Is that impossible? Is the only route a glacial incremental one? What are the damages of pushing too far too fast? What would it look like once you get what you want? Will you know it once you arrive? Is it insulting to even ask these things? [Razz]
quote:
and effectively try to manipulate people into doing research for you.
Guilty.
quote:
All while conveying an attitude that suggests that you'r not honestly interested in understanding, just axe grinding.
I’ll have to work on my communication skills further then if that’s the case. Though I expect you are projecting a bit for that conclusion. I have no axe to grind in this. I mean you could believe I’m a closet racist and attempting open sabotage I suppose. That could lead you to attributing my statements this way. Though I think if you read back through them, you would see that I would be playing a very subtle game. This gives me too much credit and insults me all at the same time. I have no tools at my disposal to dissuade you from that conclusion if that’s the case. I try to be honest even when (or particularly when) I’m doing something ugly or rude.
quote:
I mean, it does get you results, but in the process it reinforces the social structures and hierarchy that create the problems to begin with. It feeds a narrative where the dominant factions of society see it as right and proper to demand service from the less dominant and be as disrespectful as they want with the weaker portions of society required to show a preponderance of evidence to defend themselves, while dismissing the notion that the more powerful should take equal responsibility to educating themselves and for making the effort to actively treat others with respect.
Yet it has an entirely different effect when applied “bottom up” instead of “top down” as you like to say. I do that too.
quote:
Indeed. And I'm giving you feedback so you can do just that.
And it’s appreciated. I mean, we’re still talking. When everyone just agrees this place is a snooze fest. You get a fragment of a story when nobody feels it’s worth scrutiny.

Diplomacy, intimidation, seduction, manipulation and force are all important tools. You can choose not to employ some but never forget they are available to all and some will use them even if you do not. You can choose your own code but not dictate the code of others. Well unless you are a forum moderator. Then I suppose you can. [Wink]

[ November 20, 2015, 11:44 AM: Message edited by: D.W. ]
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Back in the days when liberals had principles, the cure for ignorance was knowledge, not silence or public shaming

It still is, but the information is out there. What we're talking about is the response to those that are just looking to make you do busywork or otherwise not actually interested in learning, vs those who make the effort to ask for it earnestly.Why should I do your homework for you if you're going to imperiously demand that I feed you information that you could find yourself if you looked when there are other people that I could be engaging with that are expressing an honest and non-judgemental interest in learning?
 
Posted by LetterRip (Member # 310) on :
 
Something is insulting based on the intent of the person making the statement. Someone can be insulted based on their perception of the statement.

So someone can be insulted by something that is not insulting; and something can be insulting without someone being insulted.

[ November 20, 2015, 11:58 AM: Message edited by: LetterRip ]
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
What, pertinent to this topic, do you have to teach?
I'm not asking this to be rude, just that you seem to indicate you COULD do so but are choosing not to. Which is fine, but comes off as petty.

What homework would you suggest others do?
Again, you have no obligation to even do this much work, but stating it the way you do suggests that some of us are in need of this information but it's beneath you to point the way, let alone spell it out for us. Neither may be your intent, but this is the internet, we invent our own subtext as we read.


What happens if someone has the raw data and facts and fails to reach the same conclusions?

Is there a worthiness threshold that must be passed to earn such a lesson or be pointed towards the research material? Must one prove receptive to your conclusion before being given the information used to support it?

After all, an ignorant opponent falling at shadows is much preferred over one who is informed and can spot flaws. Better to bolster the ranks of zealots than to spend time on those who may be critical thinkers.

The enemies of equality and integration do this, it's a proven tactic. Why shouldn't one pick up the loaded gun when you see it's effectiveness as it's turned against you daily?

[ November 20, 2015, 12:23 PM: Message edited by: D.W. ]
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
d. I think the part that strikes us as odd is your statements seem to illustrate a binary view. You are either on the correct side or you are a hostile opponent. There appears to be no room for criticism as far as you are concerned. Any attempt to do so is seen as a blatant insult and those who do so are lumped in with the defamers, saboteurs and bigots. Only questioning, if done in an acceptable format on the terms of those being questioned is a valid response; if we happen to be so dense we don’t grasp in its entirety what the protesters want and why they are going about it the way they are. (And it better damn well be followed up with some vigorous head nods and assenting noises)
That's only because you seem to be equating a rejection of unsupported criticism with a demand for support. And the way you ask questions does matter significantly. if you signal, by how you phrase your questions that you're JAQing off, trying to ask loaded or leading questions, or otherwise suggesting that you're not actually interested in the answers, but trying to prove a point under the guise of asking questions.

quote:
Though stating things as if you have the answer and infantilizing all those here by suggesting they just need to open their eyes and look to find them is another thing. If it were that easy there would be no question. What they are asking is to see the world through your eye’s because you are reacting to something different than what they see.
Except that, by and large I'm not reacting, in fact I'm avoiding reacting, because I haven't really had the time to do the research. In fact I've been called several times on not clearly taking a position, almost in the same breath as being accused of wanting unconditional support at times. My point hasn't been "this is the position you should take because of information you don't know" but rather "you're taking an unfair position before you have all the information". The response has been to assert a false dichotomy along the lines of "IF you say we shouldn't attack them, then you must be saying we have to agree with them" as if there wasn't a middle ground, where one reserves judgment until all the facts have been sorted out.

quote:
This is a fairy tale you are telling yourself. At least as it relates to the western nations. Are our societies still deeply flawed? Yes. But they do choose to change.
Can you point to any major social change that's come about just because people asked really nice? Every major change has taken a fight. HAs taken people standing up and standing firm against attacks from the status quo until it became clear that they wren't moving until change was made. Not every protest has resulted in successful change, but not successful change has been made without pushing the majority until they accepted the change; it's never preemptively abdicated power simply on the basis of it being the right thing to do or being asked nicely to do so.

And that comes from the simple nature of day to day human awareness. You see the problems that are your own, because they're part of your life. You don't see the problems of others unless you make an effort to look for them. If you don't see and feel a problem, you feel no motivation to fix anything. You either need to make an exceptional effort to see and feel the problems of others, or others need to make an exceptional effort to make it impossible for those people to remain unaware of them.

quote:
It’s the attitude that you put forward that any group can be beyond reproach that I find disgusting. It is an attitude that precludes equality.
I don't think that they're beyond reproach; I think that reproach should come from a place of well informed criticism, not a superficial understanding without making an effort to find facts to back the accusation.

quote:
And here you hit on my initial criticism. If you are throwing your weight around, everything aligned and you have serious leverage to get your demands, go for the end game! I see them now as a spent force. I see that they surrendered their power after getting their demand met. (the firing of the president)
To my understanding they tried to get what they wanted, but the president wouldn't give it to them. Wouldn't even really try to understand what tehy wanted. I honestly don't know the degree to which they explicitly made having him step down a demand of theirs or if he stepped down because he simply wasn't up to the task.

The protesters couldn't directly accomplish what they want from the protests, because they're not the president, not the administration. They need changes that can only be made at that level to start making progress.

The lever they used for the protest is still sitting there. It won't be as much of a surprise next time, but that's not part of its power. They've proven they have a big stick, so perhaps talking softly will work better now that people respect it for what it is.

quote:
I’ll have to work on my communication skills further then if that’s the case. Though I expect you are projecting a bit for that conclusion. I have no axe to grind in this. I mean you could believe I’m a closet racist and attempting open sabotage I suppose
This is really a numbers game- it's not that it's what you wanted to communicate, but its what's communicated because the vast majority of people who evince the same attitude are conveying that. If you don't make yourself stand out from the crowd, then you blend into the crowd and end up getting treated with the same defensive skepticism as they do.

You double down on that when you say things that imply that you should get special respect from them because you've got the power of the majority on your side. When you apply exactly the kind of power that they're trying to escape to the argument, you blend even further in to the profile of people trying to attack, you don't help yourself stand out as someone actually willing to listen.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
Something is insulting based on the intent of the person making the statement. Someone can be insulted based on their perception of the statement.

So someone can be insulted by something that is not insulting; and something can be insulting without someone being insulted.

Hmm. I think that definition of insulting is frighteningly reasonable. Do you know how many university positions would have to be eliminated if we took the word the way you describe? It would set university tuition levels back a decade.
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
quote:
but rather "you're taking an unfair position before you have all the information".
When someone makes this statement, I expect them to fill in some of that information. Otherwise they would have said, “That seems harsh, are you sure you have all the relevant information?” I may reevaluate my statement and decide if I brought my own baggage to the position or feel comfortable with my initial position. By using the word “unfair” in your rebuttal you imply you have information I don’t or I am being intentionally unfair.

Through discussion we could possibly establish if I’m being intentionally unfair. If you follow up such rebuttals with insistence that the information is out there, but you are too busy to show it to me, I then become skeptical of your position. It’s not an invitation to more introspection and investigation before voicing an opinion as you seem to believe you are making. It reads as teasing, stalling or deflecting.

It’s the same reason some people of privileged classes balk at being told they are part of the problem.

You are being unfair.
How so?
You just are.
You are being racist.
How so?
You just are.

Now maybe I am being unfair and maybe I am doing something motivated by racism. However if one makes this accusation, if they want to be taken seriously, they should be able to articulate an answer. Preferably one which can be acted upon and changed rather than pointing out a stain on one’s existence that must be acknowledged yet can never be altered.

quote:
Can you point to any major social change that's come about just because people asked really nice?
With enough homework I’m sure I could… [Wink] But that wasn’t my point. My point was that those protests you say are a requirement for every social change are means to get the status quo to CHOOSE to “stop being ****ty.” I was going to say “share power” or “surrender power” but those assume that those in power have something to lose, which I am not sure I believe. Then again it’s possible we’re talking past each other on this point and agree.
quote:
And that comes from the simple nature of day to day human awareness. You see the problems that are your own, because they're part of your life. You don't see the problems of others unless you make an effort to look for them. If you don't see and feel a problem, you feel no motivation to fix anything. You either need to make an exceptional effort to see and feel the problems of others, or others need to make an exceptional effort to make it impossible for those people to remain unaware of them.
This isn’t wrong but it’s just one possibility. I see other people’s problem through the lens of my own experiences. “If it was ME I’d go about solving this problem by doing X not Y.”

I know full well that this line of thinking comes with its own pitfalls. However, a view from outside is often valuable. Moreover, a view from someone, nominally at least, of the status quo may hold the key to how you would influence them to change. Because that is what this is about right? The status quo needs to change. You are either in violent revolution or you are on a campaign to influence the group with power.

quote:
The lever they used for the protest is still sitting there. It won't be as much of a surprise next time, but that's not part of its power.
I fear you are wrong on that. Hopefully not, as I believe it’s a leaver they will likely need to employ again. Big sticks are sometimes taken away and broken by those telling you what you want to hear until you are disarmed.
quote:
You double down on that when you say things that imply that you should get special respect from them because you've got the power of the majority on your side.
I… what? Did I just get blended together with some larger “you”, or was this directed at me specifically? I really HAVE dropped the ball on my ability to communicate if you meant me!

[ November 20, 2015, 01:59 PM: Message edited by: D.W. ]
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:

quote:
You double down on that when you say things that imply that you should get special respect from them because you've got the power of the majority on your side.
I… what? Did I just get blended together with some larger “you”, or was this directed at me specifically? I really HAVE dropped the ball on my ability to communicate if you meant me!
No you haven't, you always err on the side of expressing doubts about your own position. Perhaps overemphasized at times, but a good sentiment. I usually take it as a passive premise that I will discuss points made by anyone if they think I've made a mistake, but you state that premise verbatim.

There is no exit (to quote Sartre) from a Kafkatrap of this type:

-I think those people should uphold a certain standard of decent behavior.
-Decent by whose standards?
-Just, you know, decent, like respectful people.
-So you want them to respect you even though you don't respect them?
-No, I think everyone should be respectful.
-So you're saying they should respect the majority and the status quo?
-No, I think some types of behavior will be counterproductive to their cause.
-So you're saying you won't acknowledge their cause unless they bow to your standards of decency?
-They're not my standards, they are just reasonable standards that allow humans from all over the world to have discourse with each other.
-The point of their cause is to change the standards.
-So anyone who is 'punching up' can behave any way and this is beyond criticism? There are no standards except for the majority?
-So you admit you want to force them to live by your standards! Now you see you are an oppressor after all.
-... (game over)

[ November 20, 2015, 02:13 PM: Message edited by: Fenring ]
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
What, pertinent to this topic, do you have to teach?
I'm not asking this to be rude, just that you seem to indicate you COULD do so but are choosing not to. Which is fine, but comes off as petty.


It appears, at least, that I'm somewhat more familiar with testimony about what life is like for black people in our society, given some of the questioning (if not outright denial) of their experience that's come up. I can talk a bit about what seemingly innocuous assertions are far more loaded they seem due to historical use and overall context.

But as I said, I'm not one to go on a deep dig here. My bone here was about the upfront attacks being made, despite people admitting that they didn't actualyl know enough to support those attacks.

quote:
What homework would you suggest others do?
Again, you have no obligation to even do this much work, but stating it the way you do suggests that some of us are in need of this information but it's beneath you to point the way, let alone spell it out for us. Neither may be your intent, but this is the internet, we invent our own subtext as we read.

Look into the situation at the university ask about how long the problems have been going on, what other ways that they've taken to try to address the issues. It seems like it would also be useful to dig into the modern black experience in the US- ask why they've be so threatened by the things that seem like they're just things that you could shrug off.

If you're concerned about the cold shoulder the reporter got, it would also be good to look at the history of media in relationship to protest events and explanations of why being able to control messaging are important.

quote:
What happens if someone has the raw data and facts and fails to reach the same conclusions?
Then we have grounds for discussion and explaining why we interpret the facts differently.

quote:
Is there a worthiness threshold that must be passed to earn such a lesson or be pointed towards the research material? Must one prove receptive to your conclusion before being given the information used to support it?
No, one simply must not communicate open hostility to it. And a bit of a sense of humility- keeping in mind that your favor or hostility aren't, ultimately relevant, particularly if you're already communicating hostility.

That's one of the key points regarding freedom and equality that's important to really get a handle on. If we're free and equal, the fact that you like me or don't like me doesn't, on a functional level, matter. It only matters if you have power over me, and thus are not actually equal.

I might want you to like me or agree with me on a personal level, but that's a personal matter, not a matter of power.

quote:
After all, an ignorant opponent falling at shadows is much preferred over one who is informed and can spot flaws. Better to bolster the ranks of zealots than to spend time on those who may be critical thinkers.
THink of it from the perspective of figuring out where to invest resources? Should I invest more energy in someone that expresses honest curiosity, or someone that expresses hostility? Remember, again, that I don't really need to convert you; I'm not looking to serve or reinforce whatever position of power you may represent. IF I'm going to make that kind of effort, why shouldn't I at least reserve it for someone with enough structural power to make a difference?
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
quote:
I might want you to like me or agree with me on a personal level, but that's a personal matter, not a matter of power.
quote:
Remember, again, that I don't really need to convert you; I'm not looking to serve or reinforce whatever position of power you may represent. IF I'm going to make that kind of effort, why shouldn't I at least reserve it for someone with enough structural power to make a difference?
You dance right at the edge of my point but reach a conclusion opposite to mine. That’s why I find this so interesting.

If you have a stake in changing the status quo you absolutely DO need them to like you. The ONLY way you can avoid that is violent revolution. You may use shock tactics to make people pay attention but their use must be measured against your ability to make them like you at the end of the day. That assumes you want change.

This rational on my part for example cannot explain social media participants obsession with followers or likes or retweets. Sometimes attention for attentions sake is enough to motivate people. Sometimes a particularly shrewd politically minded student is building their networking and political chops and may not care if real change happens as long as it furthers their ambition.

Is it potentially insulting to bring up such possibilities? Absolutely, but I have this hair brained idea that everyone, and in particular college students, should be skeptical. Not paranoid mind you, but on guard against being duped, used or placated.

As to the last point of why invest time or effort in someone like me, who stated plainly is not in a position of influence as I see it? Good point. I just like typing to prove I exist. It sooths me as I clutch terrified to the back of the omnipresent beast of oppression while it crushes those beneath its feet.

[ November 20, 2015, 02:59 PM: Message edited by: D.W. ]
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
When someone makes this statement, I expect them to fill in some of that information. Otherwise they would have said, “That seems harsh, are you sure you have all the relevant information?” I may reevaluate my statement and decide if I brought my own baggage to the position or feel comfortable with my initial position. By using the word “unfair” in your rebuttal you imply you have information I don’t or I am being intentionally unfair.
The act of judging without complete information is, in and of itself, de facto unfair. I don't need to have more information, just to know that you're jumping to conclusions based on your own lack of information.

You may be right, even. The fact that you got there based on bias and not based on facts makes it unfair regardless.

think of a court case- it's possible for people who are clearly and obviously guilty to have to be let go because of prosecutorial error. It's not that they weren't guilty, but rather because the argument made against them was unfair.

quote:
This isn’t wrong but it’s just one possibility. I see other people’s problem through the lens of my own experiences. “If it was ME I’d go about solving this problem by doing X not Y.”
Which, as you note, has a major flaw- namely that hey're not you, and are operating from a different baseline. It may also have the flaw that they've already tried X and it completely failed to work.

quote:
I know full well that this line of thinking comes with its own pitfalls. However, a view from outside is often valuable. Moreover, a view from someone, nominally at least, of the status quo may hold the key to how you would influence them to change. Because that is what this is about right? The status quo needs to change. You are either in violent revolution or you are on a campaign to influence the group with power.
One of the features of the status quo is that it's visible. It's not exactly a secret where it stands. It makes itself know to everyone as part of how it maintains itself. And part of the status quo is that those that it factors control the gates to power. If you feed that dynamic you're not really breaking it just shifting around within it.

quote:
I fear you are wrong on that. Hopefully not, as I believe it’s a leaver they will likely need to employ again. Big sticks are sometimes taken away and broken by those telling you what you want to hear until you are disarmed.
If the NCAA and university funding system is overhauled as a result of this, so that sports have less power, that would be an unexpected and unintended windfall fix to a separate problem. That's going to take time in and of itself, though, so the stick is pretty clearly still sitting there.

quote:
I… what? Did I just get blended together with some larger “you”, or was this directed at me specifically? I really HAVE dropped the ball on my ability to communicate if you meant me!
That's definitely in the general, but you have been postulating that they should be seeking how to appease the majority, even in what I'm replying to here. You're setting the football up, suggesting that if they respect the power of the majority and try to appeal to it in just the right way, that maybe, for once, things will be different.

BUt it never works. You never break power by appeasing it, you just reinforce it.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
If you have a stake in changing the status quo you absolutely DO need them to like you. The ONLY way you can avoid that is violent revolution. You may use shock tactics to make people pay attention but their use must be measured against your ability to make them like you at the end of the day. That assumes you want change.

No you don't. We're not a purely democratic system, such that we need to win popularity contests. We're a republic founded on the principle that some rights are not subject to popularity contests. SO they don't really need to be popular, they don't need to get any given person to like hem, they just need to force the system to give them a hearing an make their case to the people with their hands on the levers of power.

In the case of the univeristy, they need to make their point to the president, or failing him, to the university board. IF you end up not likeing them in the progress, they may be perosnally sad, but it doesn't really matter in the long run if whoever steps up and makes the changes needed makes the needed changes. Each structural win makes your personal like or dislike of them a little more irrelevant. Eventually, when they hit the point of being equal, where your opinion of them truly doesn't matter, then perhaps they can go back and choose to rebuild bridges, but it'll be from a position of equality, not from a position of trying to gain the favor of your position of social power.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:


We're not a purely democratic system, such that we need to win popularity contests. We're a republic founded on the principle that some rights are not subject to popularity contests. SO they don't really need to be popular,
That's only true in principle. In practice our inalienable rights are subject to constant revision, can be added to and subtracted to by an unexpected oligarchy of "experts" to whom our courts defer their thought. Rights of religion and self defense are becoming unpopular among our oligarchs, and new rights and Orwellian reconstructions of old rights are the increasing norm. The new theology is Panglossian Progress. If a modish trend of thought among our oligarchs is towards X, then X must be all for the best. Because evolution never kills anything that deserves to survive. Right? Of course right.
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
quote:
The act of judging without complete information is, in and of itself, de facto unfair. I don't need to have more information, just to know that you're jumping to conclusions based on your own lack of information.
You do realize you can’t know it’s unfair unless you know there is more information right? You may be technically correct in that you don’t need to know the specifics, but you would still need to know somehow that I wasn’t aware of, or choosing to ignore those specifics.

Fenring is correct that I have the personality quirk (or just insecurity) to state that it is likely I am missing key information. That doesn’t mean I AM, just that I accept it is possible. There is a difference. Now maybe you are saying that having “all the facts” is impossible and it is therefore NEVER acceptable to reach a conclusion or criticize?
quote:
One of the features of the status quo is that it's visible. It's not exactly a secret where it stands. It makes itself know to everyone as part of how it maintains itself. And part of the status quo is that those that it factors control the gates to power. If you feed that dynamic you're not really breaking it just shifting around within it.
I assume you meant “those that it favors”? Even with that correction I still don’t follow this paragraph at all. I THINK you are suggesting that my premise is flawed and there is a third way, which has proven effective in the past or, if tried is likely to succeed. If that was your meaning, I’d be interested in hearing it. If not… sorry, you lost me.

quote:
That's definitely in the general, but you have been postulating that they should be seeking how to appease the majority, even in what I'm replying to here. You're setting the football up, suggesting that if they respect the power of the majority and try to appeal to it in just the right way, that maybe, for once, things will be different.
Your use of appease and respect are totally misplaced here. I have never suggested, nor would I ever suggest that relying on pity or sympathy of those in power is the correct path. I have suggested you listen, and learn. If you want to get crude about it, I’m suggesting you manipulate those in power and show them whenever possible that getting what you want is in their own self interest. Forgive the use of “you” here for those attempting to disrupt the status quo. Anything else was just overly cumbersome to use.

I'm not saying, "Do as I say because I know better." I'm saying, "Listen to what I say and what reactions I (and others) have to your words and actions." Telling me I'm reacting wrongly is ridiculous. Use the tools your opposition hands you. Because they WILL hand you tools to get what they want even if they don't know it. Do it right, and they employ their own power towards the effort of distributing that power to you.

That I see some of the requests as asking for pity or sympathy rather than having real substance is, in fact, one of my critiques of this movement...

[ November 20, 2015, 04:05 PM: Message edited by: D.W. ]
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
Something just dawned on me regarding my observations and your problem with my generalization on how progress can happen. You cite protests and making people take notice and being disruptive as necessary because it's always taken those measures.

The issue is I'm narrowly focused on systemic racism as the issue. Blatant, "throw it in their face that they are breaking the law and you won't be ignored" brand of racism, your point stands. Anything where a concession in changing the status quo results in some background resentment by those in power that they were "forced" to change their ways does nothing to curb systemic / subconscious racism.

Hope that made at least a little sense or adds some context to my rambling.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
You do realize you can’t know it’s unfair unless you know there is more information right? You may be technically correct in that you don’t need to know the specifics, but you would still need to know somehow that I wasn’t aware of, or choosing to ignore those specifics.
There are cases where it's ambiguous. I was not in the case of those opening this thread with attacks, ones that even contradicted information that had been posted here in response to the initial attacks, never mind purely speculative attacks that were presented without any evidence to support them.

quote:
I assume you meant “those that it favors”? Even with that correction I still don’t follow this paragraph at all. I THINK you are suggesting that my premise is flawed and there is a third way, which has proven effective in the past or, if tried is likely to succeed. If that was your meaning, I’d be interested in hearing it. If not… sorry, you lost me.
There is a third way which has worked. Gandhi, figured it out, as did MLK, it's the way that's being exercised by people holding protests and rallies despite the annoyance that others may feel at such actions. Those who stop serving the status quo and make an active effort to disrupt it until their needs are met by those with the power to do so.

quote:
Your use of appease and respect are totally misplaced here. I have never suggested, nor would I ever suggest that relying on pity or sympathy of those in power is the correct path. I have suggested you listen, and learn. If you want to get crude about it, I’m suggesting you manipulate those in power and show them whenever possible that getting what you want is in their own self interest. Forgive the use of “you” here for those attempting to disrupt the status quo. Anything else was just overly cumbersome to use.
It's the right word, no need to apologize for it.

That's exactly what protests, do though. They manipulate the majority through the only technique that's been shown to work; making them just as uncomfortable with the status quo as those that need change, and making it clear that you can keep them uncomfortable for as long as it takes to gain traction.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
The issue is I'm narrowly focused on systemic racism as the issue. Blatant, "throw it in their face that they are breaking the law and you won't be ignored" brand of racism, your point stands. Anything where a concession in changing the status quo results in some background resentment by those in power that they were "forced" to change their ways does nothing to curb systemic / subconscious racism.

IF the change is made to the system, the change is made. Individual resentment over having to make the change is transitory and doesn't really matter in the long run. IF the system no longer gives power to biases then the biases don't matter any more.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:

The issue is I'm narrowly focused on systemic racism as the issue. Blatant, "throw it in their face that they are breaking the law and you won't be ignored" brand of racism,

That last blurb made so little sense to me that I checked four times to be sure DW wrote it.

Refusing to be ignored is racism?

Emphasis against lawbreaking us racist?
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
quote:
IF the change is made to the system, the change is made. Individual resentment over having to make the change is transitory and doesn't really matter in the long run. IF the system no longer gives power to biases then the biases don't matter any more.
Wow, and I thought I was in dangerous territory of being labeled an idealist.
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
Pete, if you are protesting against the school ignoring people smearing feces swastikas on campus or violent hate crimes you can use antagonistic tactics to demand attention. The attention is important and action must be taken to deal with it as soon as it cannot be ignored.

If you are attempting to combat systemic racism, the type all who are grouped in the status quo are accomplices of (wittingly or not) then you need a different tactic.

One is a demand for the rule of law and justice. The other is in some ways a public relation campaign to erase the line dividing two groups.

Unlike Pyrtolin I don't think the facts on the ground make the sentiment and thinking of the public irrelevant. That sounds like, "People can be as racist as they want as long as they don't have any power over me." I suppose that would be an improvement over the status quo at least. I'll give you that.

And I agree after re-reading. "brand of racism" makes no sense. "racism so overt that you can..."? I don't know, I said I hoped it made sense. Guess not so much. [Razz]

[ November 20, 2015, 04:39 PM: Message edited by: D.W. ]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Thanks for clarifying. I tentatively agree but need to think more about it.

Feces swastikas? Damn.

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

Isn't incoherent noise, arguably just as much "unwitting support" of the status quo as silence or complacency?
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
Seriously? This is the first you have heard of that?
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Seriously.

If that was in your earlier links, I don't know how I missed it.
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
I suspect its not so much that the word isn't getting out, but your sources aren't passing it on. [Wink]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
As one of my sources, Wayward, how do you explain yourself? [Smile]
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Seriously.

If that was in your earlier links, I don't know how I missed it.

I mentioned it several times, but it's actually irrelevant to the discussion because the protesters are concerned with black safety, not Jewish safety. It gets mentioned in some articles as a prime example of how the campus isn't a safe place, but all of the proposed solutions are unrelated to a potential threat against Jewish people (safe spaces for black people, black vigils, etc.). I guess a buddy-walk program would make everyone safe so on that account it's encompassing.
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
I have a new question for anyone interested, although it pertains to things Pyrtolin has said.

One reason Tom, Pyr and some others don't like criticisms leveled against the protesters is because the protesters are "punching up" while criticism coming from white people in regards to a race issue are "punching down." Setting aside potential objections to those terms and accepting them as they are for the moment, we assume from these parameters that 'up' and 'down' in terms of one's punching direction have to do with whether the speaker is in the majority or minority. In terms of a race-based protest the majority, then, is white. That is how intersectionality defines it in this case. Here is my question:

How do you know what part of intersectionality my criticism is based in? Meaning: you assume that when I speak I speak as a white person (which I am) and that I am at least loosely represented by or supported by the majority. Or even more generally, I am empowered by being in the majority whether or not I share anything else with them. But does this interpretation of my position in the schema not presuppose that I, myself, am discussing something race-related? How can you know I should be assessed on a majority-white basis? If we had been talking about cooking recipes, for instance, and detailing how people of certain dietary restrictions aren't treated fairly, my whiteness would be irrelevant for that discussion and instead my majority/minority status would be based on whether I have majority dietary status (can eat most things) or minority (various food intolerances, vegetarian, maybe autoimmune, etc). The matter up for discussion, then, would dictate which intersectional trait is the relevant one to chart and assess as being majority or minority in the power structure.

So here's the question: Just because the protesters are discussing racial matters, why does a comment I make about them have to be evaluated as if it was part of a discussion about racial matters? Maybe I'm talking about food and assessing the diets of the protesters, even though their main interest lies elsewhere? Why must my topic of conversation be limited to the topic they are addressing? I can observe the protesters and conduct a conversation about their hair style preferences, views on racial issues, their favorite tv shows, or any other numbers of subjects that I find it interesting to discuss.

After all, I am surely not a majority-status person in all respects across the map. I can guarantee you, as a matter of fact, that I am in the vast minority in certain respects of my being, and that some areas of life that are probably easy for most of the protesters are hard for me. In the intersectionality schema I'm majority-white, but minority-other things. What if, for instance, I'm a sort of revolutionary-type who is in the vast minority in economic theories, or in politics? What if I wear a beret on my head and fancy myself the next Vladimir Lenin, but my topic doesn't happen to be race relations. When I address things the protesters do, why, then, must my status in relation to them be considered to be majority-white when what I'm on about may in fact have nothing to do with the intersectional interests of race or even of class? I could be coming from a place of oppression when I speak, for instance, and find it very odd indeed to be called a defender of the status quo and part of the majority. Majority in what category? But this question is never asked.

It's assumed that since the protesters discuss race that anyone speaking about them should be categorized on a racial power structure basis, but I don't see that as being sound. I could just as soon choose to discuss or protest what I see as oppression based on hair color (which can exist), and then when people address me on this topic should I feel entitled to them them whether they are among the powerful defenders of the status quo if they have a certain hair color but not another? That would seem to be a very odd way to sort the people who wish to discuss the matter of hair color with me. I would have to obtain a survey of the physical characteristics of those talking with me, and assess the validity of their comments based on their hair color and whether they are punching up or punching down on the subject. And yet something about this scenario seems very wrong to me.

So can anyone explain to me in detail how this all works? Who gets to decide which schema is the 'official one' with which to judge all responders to a comment on a subject? Which line of power is the correct one in a discussion where various people are talking about various things? This is a real question, not a joke.

[ November 21, 2015, 03:37 AM: Message edited by: Fenring ]
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
When in doubt, err on the side of the people protesting against the system. [Smile]

Obviously this isn't totally reliable, but the system isn't the system because it's lacking in power.

If there isn't a system, this concern doesn't generally apply.
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
Tom, my question specifically points to this scenario: What if I'm also protesting something in the system, and my protest is about something different than these protesters? When I make comments about the protesters, whose framework is adopted to determine which of us is evaluated on whose power schema? Like let's say I'm making a class-based protest and I'm poor while these protesters are rich and privileged (the 1%, say), and similarly they are protesting against black discrimination and I'm white. Now I want to comment on their protest and criticize something. Am I punching up, since they're the 1%, or am I punching down, because I'm white? Whose protest prevails in this determination? Note that I may feel that their protest is screwing up my protest and I might want to criticize their methods as casting a shadow over my protest and making people wary about all protests. This would be a significant concern if they happened to get the media spotlight before my protest did. Also what if I felt that as the 1% they had no business advocating for the rights of people who I see as victims in a class-oriented sense, even though they see it as a race-based issue?

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

After all, without questions being asked how can someone know whether my comments are coming from a place of rebellion or from a place of majority status quo? This is especially pertinent since I most definitely am not only a critic of the system but would like to see it radically altered. So why do I not count as a protester too? Because I'm not in high-profile newspapers and holding a picket sign on campus? Pyr already said it wasn't about me physically going back to college and joining a protest there. So what is it about?

[ November 21, 2015, 01:26 PM: Message edited by: Fenring ]
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
Ah. So the question is: which competing underdog gets to be the underdoggiest? I don't think there's really a "precise calculus" that can be universally applied, here -- and neither should there be, since ruthless principle is often the enemy of sensible compassion. But certainly this question is part of why liberal coalitions and conspiracies and the like generally don't exist; it's like herding cats.
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
Ok. But for the purposes of conversation in a place like Ornery, who sets the standard for underdoggiest in a given conversation? Is it fair for one participant to unilaterally decide that one axis of power is going to be the relevant one?
 
Posted by Tom