Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[smjjames]

Apparently not if you're a white American, because the (female) hispanic student was like "we own that spelling". I didn't mention her gender before because it's not relevant to the story, but if she'd had any inkling that could be construed as sexism I'm sure that would have been all over the story too.

Riiiight, just like African Americans 'own' the N word. /s Sounds rather eliteist or something of that hispanic student.

edit: Sarcasm tag added for clarification.

EDIT: Another example is Emory university, where students protested to the administration about someone merely chalking "Trump 2016" around the campus:

One Emory senior bemoaned that the pro-Trump graffiti artists failed to “[t]hink about how your language can be oppressive toward other people.”...


Roughly 40 students gathered shortly after 4:30 p.m. in the outdoors space between the Administration Building and Goodrich C. White Hall; many students carried signs featuring slogans such as “Stop Trump” or “Stop Hate” and an antiphonal chant addressed to University administration, led by College sophomore Jonathan Peraza, resounded “You are not listening! Come speak to us, we are in pain!” throughout the Quad. Peraza opened the door to the Administration Building and students moved forward towards the door, shouting “It is our duty to fight for our freedom. It is our duty to win. We must love each other and support each other. We have nothing to lose but our chains.”

Yeah, so it's oppressive to even mention the word "Trump" at all, and students were demanding that punishment be handed down to people who chalked "Trump 2016" on the footpath. Eventually however the President of Emory put his foot down and himself chalked “Emory stands for free expression!” which pissed off the protesting students no end.

I've heard of that one (though I don't remember the school it happened at, may have been Emory, may have been a different one), it's just a ridiculous manifestation of the safe-space thing and makes people appear extremely thin skinned.

[LoSboccacc]

Riiiight, just like African Americans 'own' the N word. Sounds rather eliteist or something of that hispanic student.

careful there, this forum doesn't understand the difference between using that word as harassment and discussing about that word as harassment.

[smjjames]

Riiiight, just like African Americans 'own' the N word. Sounds rather eliteist or something of that hispanic student.

careful there, this forum doesn't understand the difference between using that word as harassment and discussing about that word as harassment.

Yeah, I meant it kind of sarcastically and tongue-in-cheek. Mainly I was being incredulous at the claim that hispanics 'own' the word and the whole idea of owning a word (though if you get into trademarks and copyrights, that's another thing entirely).

edit: I know what it's missing, the /s tag, as you're right about problems telling tone in this medium.

[Rockphed]

Apparently not if you're a white American, because the (female) hispanic student was like "we own that spelling". I didn't mention her gender before because it's not relevant to the story, but if she'd had any inkling that could be construed as sexism I'm sure that would have been all over the story too.

EDIT: Another example is Emory university, where students protested to the administration about someone merely chalking "Trump 2016" around the campus:

One Emory senior bemoaned that the pro-Trump graffiti artists failed to “[t]hink about how your language can be oppressive toward other people.”...


Roughly 40 students gathered shortly after 4:30 p.m. in the outdoors space between the Administration Building and Goodrich C. White Hall; many students carried signs featuring slogans such as “Stop Trump” or “Stop Hate” and an antiphonal chant addressed to University administration, led by College sophomore Jonathan Peraza, resounded “You are not listening! Come speak to us, we are in pain!” throughout the Quad. Peraza opened the door to the Administration Building and students moved forward towards the door, shouting “It is our duty to fight for our freedom. It is our duty to win. We must love each other and support each other. We have nothing to lose but our chains.”

Yeah, so it's oppressive to even mention the word "Trump" at all, and students were demanding that punishment be handed down to people who chalked "Trump 2016" on the footpath. Eventually however the President of Emory put his foot down and himself chalked “Emory stands for free expression!” which pissed off the protesting students no end.

Back in high school I read "Free Speech for me but not for Thee" by Nat Hentoff.  Campus speech codes were his prime example of censorship by the left.  I'm glad that Emory stood for free speech.  I vaguely remember a university in Chicago issuing similar statements.  In order to properly develop critical thinking, people really need exposure to persistent arguments that they disagree with.  I pity the people who grow to adulthood without actually encountering anyone who is reasonable and completely committed to opposed ideals.

[Strife26]

"Hate speech" is one of those terms that has lost its meaning, to the detriment of basic values and discourse.

[Sergarr]

Apparently FBI had sat on Trump Russia connections file for months and did absolutely nothing. Instead, as we know, they have gone full-throttle after Clinton's email server non-event.

Their partisan attitudes have clearly gone too far, they must be purged from filth that has allowed that to happen and replaced with true defenders of liberty that will make sure that blatant and obvious lies like these will not be allowed to misinform Americans ever again!

[origamiscienceguy]

Keep your hate speech out of this campus!

[wierd]

Reservations--

On the one hand, our intelligence community HAS gotten terribly, terribly out of control, and DOES NOT serve the PUBLIC interest.

On the other, replacing them NOW, under the most shamelessly unfettered-by-oversight congress+executive in over a lifetime-- is probably "A very bad idea."

If you ask me, here is the short list of things that need to happen:

1) No, IC, you DO NOT get to create PsyOps and propaganda for use on the CITIZENS of the US. I dont care what our dumbshit congress did a few years back, that needs to go away.

2) No, IC, you DO NOT get to use secret court rulings, with secret courts, that use secret laws, to justify your operations. Public courts with sealed documents are adequate, and have been adequate for decades.

3) No, IC, you DO NOT get to get around restrictions on spying on citizens by employing foreign intelligence services, and NO, IC, you DO NOT get to trade favors with those agencies with the intel you collected on foreign citizens.

4) No, IC, you do not get to "just sit" on security vulnerabilities you happen to find, as "tactical resources". If you find a security hole in US infrastructure that puts US Citizens at risk by foreign agencies, YOU ARE REQUIRED TO DISCLOSE IT, SO AS TO PROTECT AMERICAN CITIZENS.

[LoSboccacc]

Meanwhile the progressive and open minded college students http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-uc-davis-protest-20170113-story.html

Now now he's kind of an ass and rivel in provocating tumroil but still, you'd expect basic decency in debating ideas ought to be taught at universities.

[wierd]

That is because flagrant bias is considered "intellectualism" today.

I would welcome an honest, and upfront speaker from the DPRK--- Why not get it straight from the horse's mouth? I wouldn't agree with much they had to speak on, but I would welcome the speaker, and encourage attendance of the speech all the same.

These days? "Oh, that's THOSE people! I dont want them in MY campus, no matter how valuable hearing outside views is to having a well rounded world view!"

It used to be, kids were taught the value of being exposed to outside ideas, even if you did not agree with them-- These days, kids seem to be getting taught that outside ideas are wrong, and dangerous, and to be feared-- things that you need to crawl into a safe-space over.

[LoSboccacc]

What I don't understand is why this set of ideas is deemed dangerous when there is a set of ideas actually driving people to kill by truck which gets away scott free.

[Rolepgeek]

What I don't understand is why this set of ideas is deemed dangerous when there is a set of ideas actually driving people to kill by truck which gets away scott free.

Perceived likelihood of influence.

[Reelya]

We'd have to bad Christianity then too, since there have been a number of serial killers who've cited Jesus or God as ordering them to do it.

https://prezi.com/oiyf9ytke1ye/serial-killers-who-kill-in-gods-name/

Spoiler: Disturbing Details (click to show/hide)

Pedro Alonzo Lopez
He's the worst of the worst. He killed and raped 300 young girls across South America. Pedro spent his years in prison professing his love for Jesus, quoting scripture and carving Jesus' likeness into coins. Upon his release from prison, which can be seen on film, he praised the Lord for granting him this, "Great fortune." He claimed by killing these little girls, he was doing them a favor, and for certain, and most importantly, "The work of the Lord." He also claimed Jesus had granted him the power to give life and take it away.
Gary Ridgeway
He would go from door to door advocating for the Pentecostal church and would be infuriated when people refused to listen to him. At home he would sit in front of the television with a Bible open on his lap, and he often cried after attending church services.
He was convicted for 48 murders, luring prostitutes, raping them outdoors, then killing them.
David Berkowitz
He was also called the SON OF SAM, murdered more than 10 women. The newspapers said "He called himself a born again Christian"
The Yorkshire Rapier
He said he "was on a divine mission and felt he had been chosen to hear the word of God." He murdered 11 girls.
Sampson Kanderayi,
He was also caleld The Ax Killer. He killed more than 30 people. The newspaper reported "he did it to appease evil spirits." He was a Christian.
Jeffrey Dahmer
He killed, dismembered, and ate 17 boys and men. He was also into necrophilia so he raped them after he killed them. He was the son of a fundamentalist creationist wife abuser. Yet in 1994, a few years before his death, he asked to be baptized.
Carl Eugene Watts
He was the Sunday Morning Slasher killed 11 women. He said he did it "to eliminate evil spirits".

Most serial killers in the United States were raised by members of the Pentecostal sects, fundamentalist Catholics, Baptists, or Methodists.

So LoSboccacc was fairly clearly taking a shot as Islam there, but look at the overall evidence. People tend to downplay religion and highlight mental illness when the stated religious motive of the murders was Christian (mental illness is primary). But they downplay the mental illness when it's Islam (mental illness is secondary). This might be a case of "people like me" so you downplay whatever you have in common with them as a factor, but "people not like me" you highlight whatever you is not in common.

[wierd]

Non-sequitor.

The argument is not "We should ban dangerous ideas."  The argument is "Why are these students trying to ban speakers based on politics, when speakers spreading actual hate get a free pass?"  EG-- why the hypocrisy?

In other words, it is NOT "I think we should ban islamic speakers too."  It is "Why ban idiots? It clearly is NOT because of hate filled rhetoric, because---"

[LoSboccacc]

Non-sequitor.

The argument is not "We should ban dangerous ideas."  The argument is "Why are these students trying to ban speakers based on politics, when speakers spreading actual hate get a free pass?"  EG-- why the hypocrisy?

In other words, it is NOT "I think we should ban islamic speakers too."  It is "Why ban idiots? It clearly is NOT because of hate filled rhetoric, because---"

Exactly. Completely tangential 'we/they are bad too' argument. Besides, the real issue there comes not from comparing religion by extremists but by moderates - watch which sides gathers a crowd of cheerers/sympathisers when an event occurs and which one denounce and ousts the perpetrators and start thinking how/why.