Well, Donny, I was taught to not let a-holes shut me up. I was also taught to take responsibility of allowing people to shut me up when I know they don't have the right to do so. People shutting up and then going around whining that they have been "silenced" are pathethic.
Ket’s Handy Checklist for Not Getting Called Racist, Misogynist, Fill-in-the-Blank Phobic
□ Don't say racist, misogynist, fill-in-the-blank-phobic things.
Seriously, who cares what people call you?
"Today, those on the left are allowed to say whatever they want with zero consequences. They’re allowed to question anyone, protest anyone, and start riots in opposition to anyone, and nothing will happen in return."
Except that the internet is filled with male rights activists and trumpettes who will try to make liberals cry by screaming at people who say anything they dislike. You get invited to Hannity, and praised for being so brave. :-D
Nevertheless, words aren’t violence. They’re just words. Said someone very early on in this book. I suppose it applies just to your words. If someone says something "mean" about you, then it's all blizzard out there. Can't see your hand from all the snowflakes being upset and angry for having been offended.
"Conservatives, on the other hand, are told to shut up and stay in the shadows. Countless times on college campuses I’ve had scared conservative students come up to me to say thank you for making them feel normal and welcome in their school. It is that bad and worse. Below is the first paragraph of an op-ed piece written last year by a student on the staff of the Yale Daily News .
Republicans are single-handedly destroying the Yale community...."
Oh my goodness! Come on, junior! Read on, and even you must realize it's satire! Lily Rogers is Conservative. This is a more serious version of the above, also written by her: Yale's Culture of Disallowing Discourse
OK, Ben Shapiro...
"I met Ben Shapiro only once, but anyone who’s read a few lines of his work can tell straightaway that he is not a “fascist” or a member of the KKK. In fact, he’s among the few people in this country who have been willing to speak the truth about the Democrat Party’s association with racism, slavery, and the KKK. He’s also an Orthodox Jew, which would probably make it hard for him to be a Nazi, too. And, he’s not a Donald J. Trump supporter."
I'm sure he's willing to talk crap about the Democrat Party, but he's not "among the few people" who have been willing to do so. Seems to me most every USonian is willing to spout any crap they can get their hands on about their opponents. I'd have more respect if he was willing to speak the truth about the Republican Party's association with racism, but that he does not do.
Also "he's also an Orthodox Jew, which would probably make it hard for him to be a Nazi, too"... it would, if antisemitism is considered to be an essential part of being a Nazi. It doesn't make it hard for him to be a Fascist though.
And, yeah, he is a Donald J. Trump supporter. He wasn't, but he changed his mind.
"Before Shapiro’s appearance, the University of California, Berkeley, smugly released this message: “Our commitment to free speech, as well as to the law, mandates that the students who invited Shapiro be able to host their event for those who wish to hear him speak.”
In other words, yeah, we’re committed to free speech, and we’re so gloriously tolerant of other opinions that we’ll let this event go on as planned."
No, it wasn't smug. It was a reminder of freedom of speech to the lefties who thought it was offensive to have Ben Shapiro spout his ideas against gays, women, liberals, and everything else he isn't, but the majority of Berkeley's students are, and against what Berkeley has stood for since its founding. It wasn't meant for deplorables like you, so you don't get it.
I'm pretty sure you haven't met any of the students who were scared because they very well knew the message of hate and intolerance Ben Shapiro has been spreading since he was a teenager. The offer of counseling services was to tell them that they have been heard and they didn't need to be afraid, even when the Conservative students seem to go out of their way to invite the most controversial speakers. Milo whateverhisnameis, and Ann Coulter? Why not invite KKK while you're at it.
Because most of the students aren't rioters. Most of the students just want to get along with their studies. There are over 40.000 students at Berkeley, and just "hundreds of protesters", and I would guess quite a lot of them didn't even go to Berkeley. You seem to be fully oblivious of the underbelly of internet and how quickly word gets around.
"anyone who wasn’t upset like a little baby about it"
Yes, because you have never complained with one word when you are the object of hate campaigns. :-D
"Berkeley spent $600,000 for security for Shapiro" - to say something everyone knew already, something he has said several times elsewhere, something he keeps saying.
"You couldn’t have a rally or hold an event unless it was sanctioned by the university, and the university wouldn’t sanction anything it thought was too inflammatory (read: interesting)."
Sounds like they should have kept the rule. It would have saved them $600.000 for security, and $500.000 for damage.
But they didn't, they did what they could to get the speech go on as planned, they tried to prevent the students from going berserk, and they were willing to pay to provide safety to the speaker, and here you are accusing them of stifling free speech. You really are disgusting.
On October 13th, a Democrat speaker was interrupted by Trump supporters
So, Erika Christakis and the Halloween controversy.
I suppose none of you ever understood the point the minority students were trying to make. It wasn't because they expressed themselves poorly, it's because you simply refuse to acknowledge the fact that you don't understand another human being's reality being elementally different from yours.
One might think that adult can be left to make up their own mind of whether they want to engage in racism or not, but - come on. If that was true, there wouldn't be any racism in the world.
I haven't seen the message Erika Christakis is responding to, but I doubt there was anything inappropriate in it. I have seen her message, and yes, it is insensitive. Cultural appropriation and ethnic slurs are not "a little bit obnoxious… a little bit inappropriate or provocative or, yes, offensive". It's not harmless. It's not "a thing that troubles you". To tell the minorities that they should just ignore this is... yeah. She deserved every bit of it.
The response from Yale students shouldn't have shocked anyone. They were correct.
And they were not an "angry mob attacking people". They were very upset, but all of them were doing their best to stay calm. Some managed better than others. There were people who were telling their friends off when they interrupted the professor. He was given a fair chance. The problem was that he didn't understand what they had done wrong.
Christian military commander who tried to cancel Halloween.
"A professor of math education at the University of Illinois wrote a paper declaring that math—that’s right, just good old math —was actually racist because it “operates as whiteness… and who is seen as part of the mathematical community is generally viewed as white.”"
Rochelle Gutierrez is brilliant. It doesn't surprise me at all that you don't get what she's actually saying.
But here's something to read for those who'd like to understand at least a little.
Rochelle Gutierrez: The Hero Mathematics Needs and Deserves
"Not long ago, 1,300 students at Oberlin College in Ohio signed a petition that would make a C the lowest grade that a student could receive in classes there. That was done, according to the letter, so that “no student would be made to feel less than ‘average.’” Sort of defeats the mathematical notion of “average.”"
That's not why they did it.
Denied: College refuses academic leniency for student protesters
Oberlin President Marvin Krislov denied the petition, but granted emergency incomplete requests for students who were impacted by the aftermath of the Mike Brown, Tamir Rice and Eric Garner cases.
"Another student demanded that before his class read Antigone , a classic Greek play that includes rape and violence, the professor should give “trigger warnings” so that no one would be “traumatized” by the violence in the play."
Just mock the rape victims, no-one's expecting anything else from you. Now, those who aren't insensitive assholes, might find this interesting:
In the Culture War Between Students and Professors, the University Is the Real Enemy
(Seriously, how many minutes would it take to warn the students of alarming content? TV does it all the time. Conservatives are banning books because of what's in them. "Is there homosexuality in this book, because if there is, I don't want to read it!" is a question often asked on GoodReads.)
"Everyone seems to have accepted the notion that college students need to be protected from ideas that make them uncomfortable. Instead of going to college to be challenged, they go to college to be coddled and sheltered from things they don’t like."
Straight men’s physiological stress response to seeing two men kissing is the same as seeing maggots
People Caught On Camera Calling Mum 'Disgusting' For Breastfeeding In Public
Just another day a woman was yelling at Salvation Army soldiers collecting donations because they were wearing masks.
A lot of adults get very upset, when they see someone obviously not Christian, or obviously a Democrat. So - your argument is very hollow.
Racism is not "a thing they don't like".
Banning books because they talk about things someone doesn't want to hear about is "coddling", trigger warning is not.
"And this isn’t only an inference. The students have admitted it themselves. In a survey done in 2017, just after my father was elected and the fervor on campus was at its worst, 58 percent of college students said it was “important to be part of a campus community where I am not exposed to intolerant and offensive ideas.” When you narrow the respondents down to the ones who identify as “liberal,” the number goes up to 68 percent."
It's not inference at all. You are just picking random things and assuming they must mean one thing, because you don't understand what they really mean, and then you draw wrong conclusions of them.
A good example is that survey.
Views among college students regarding the First Amendment: Results from a new survey
The Myth of the Campus Coddle Crisis: The Coddling of the American Mind
"In June of that year, a liberal professor named Lisa Feldman Barrett from Northeastern University published an op-ed in the New York Times titled “When Is Speech Violence?” Now, you might think, as I do, that the whole text of the article could have run about two words—“It isn’t”—but Professor Barrett went on for about eight hundred. “If words can cause stress, and if prolonged stress can cause physical harm, then it seems that speech—at least certain types of speech—can be a form of violence,” she wrote."
It's 912 words. If you read it, you didn't understand it.
"But scientifically speaking, it’s not that simple. Words can have a powerful effect on your nervous system. Certain types of adversity, even those involving no physical contact, can make you sick, alter your brain — even kill neurons — and shorten your life."
If you don't believe this, if you seriously believe that words are just words, then why are you so upset about people calling you a racist, a traitor, and dozens of other things? Why are you so upset about what happens on the internet? It's all just words. If #theresistance doesn't mean anything, why do you even bother mentioning it?
"If you’ve never heard of these things, allow me to define “microaggression” for you. Coined by a professor at Harvard University in the late 1970s, the term refers to harmless questions and statements that, although pure or benign in intention..."
Oh, no. They are not harmless and not pure or benign in intention. The people engaging in microaggressions might not be totally aware of the harm and malign of their words and actions, but the objects of their attacks are very aware of it. They are based on prejudice.
You even talk about them, against you.
"Maybe you’re stuck in an elevator with someone, and you think a quick icebreaker might make the ride go faster. Well, not so fast, say the liberals. Next time you’re in an elevator with someone of a different ethnic group, put your head down, shut up, and think about your white privilege."
Wouldn't it be nice, but I'm pretty sure you don't even know what white privilege is. Maybe just treat the other person like, you know, other person? Behave normally. I mean, it's totally fine to ask "where are you from", but when they respond "I'm from Logansport, Indiana", the correct response is something like "I have never been to Indiana, what's it like there?" and not "No... where are you really from. They don't have people who look like you in Indiana, you must be an immigrant."
It's really not difficult.
"When you stop thinking that the intent of people matters, you take away all incentive to talk things out like adults."
No. Intent is only important when it comes to compensation and punishment. If you kill someone, the fact that you didn't intent to kill them doesn't much matter to the person you killed or their loved ones. It only matters in if you are condemned of murder or involuntary manslaughter.
One could also point out that there are hundreds of thousands of words in the English language, and you won't die if you choose not to use a handful, in consideration of the other person. That is what talking things out like adults mean, not demanding your "right" to blurt out any crap that comes to mind. There are things like tact, kindness, and manners, even though you people try to erase them by calling them "being PC".
"It also accepts the premise that speech is violence, making it seem perfectly fine that any violence you do in return for that speech is justified. It’s no wonder that students have decided it’s okay to throw rocks, turn over cars, and beat “Nazis” with flagpoles."
Except that that survey you spoke of earlier also asked this question:
"A student group opposed to the speaker uses violence to prevent the speaker from speaking. Do you agree or disagree that the student group’s actions are acceptable?"
81% of responders disagreed. It is not acceptable to use violence to prevent the speaker from speaking. 80% of Democrats, 78% of Republicans, and 84% of Independents. 90% of women, 70% of men.
"I mean, if speech really is violence and accusing someone of a crime counts the same as punching someone in the face, there are a whole bunch of reporters at CNN I’m sure my family and I would love to see brought up on charges."
You are confusing concepts here.
Speech can really be violence. Sometimes it's even a crime. Not in USA, though.
Accusing someone of a crime can also sometimes be a crime. Ever heard of defamation?
Punching someone in the face can also sometimes be a crime.
Then there's the intent, gravity, motivation... was it in self-defense?
It's not like you are innocent of this.
"If I’ve learned one thing about children—and human beings in general—it’s that they can thrive only when they’re challenged. Just as your muscles won’t grow if you don’t put them under the stress of weight lifting and your mind won’t expand if you don’t fill it with difficult thoughts, books, and arguments, people can’t grow if they’re not made uncomfortable, or at least challenged, sometimes."
Not true. People who have grown up in very safe and loving and kind circumstances are stronger and healthier than people who have grown up in very unsafe, challenging and hard circumstances.
"Things in this third category actually become stronger the more pressure you apply to them. They can’t survive without stress and tension. This is the way human beings are, especially as children. The more stress we endure—to a point, of course—the stronger we become."
"To a point"... that's the point, isn't it. Most minority people have been exposed to more violence and stress already when they are at the college, most white people EVER will. You among them. The people talking about microaggressions have been on the receiving end of more racism than you ever will. They are asking for an environment where their race, ethnicity, religion, gender is not an issue, where they can focus on studying, learning, being challenged by the questions that arise from what they are learning, and not by stupid people.
"It’s our time to try out different ideas, talk things out with people our own age, and be exposed to all kinds of things we won’t see once we get out into the real world. For this to be effective, it has to include ideas that some people would consider “offensive.” Otherwise, there’s no opportunity for growth."
Are you seriously saying that minorities are not exposed to racism, microaggressions, macroaggressions, xenophobia and stupid people outside the college, and that's why this should be allowed to happen inside? How stupid can you be?
"If you’ve been paying attention to this chapter, you might get the impression that all college campuses are horrible all the time"
You have mentioned three... colleges? And a couple of instances that weren't much related, most were not even close the truth. And there's over 5000 of them in USA. Why would someone get an impression that that's all the college campuses? Is that what you tried to do? Is that what you built your idea of how horrible and antifa infested the campuses are today? What? Seriously?
And then he tells a story about a party with over 1000 people and some college girls decided to take off all their clothes... and you talk about how handsome you are?
In five years that could be Kai.
Think about her climbing naked on a table in a college party to get to some dude old enough to be her dad...
I don't think you see that story as funny any more. I certainly hope you don't.
No comments:
Post a Comment