Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I agree that the tone of comments should be on a level with that expected in the writing at the university in question. But I don't think that students should be allowed to veto conservative course content as long as it isn't overtly racist or sexist.
Why would you support a veto of "overtly racist or sexist" comments? That is completely at odds with the spirit of truth-seeking.
I would also note that there's a cottage industry devoted to complaining about "politically correct" anything. Actually it's probably a full blown industry since there are best-selling books that bash colleges.
Protests on college campuses have been happening since the 1930s. They didn't exist much before that because before the 30s college was mostly for the well-to-do only. Campuses back then had a lot of communist speakers... in the 60s obviously with the counter-culture and Vietnam War raging was when it was most intense. Also a lot of activity in the 70s.
The idea that we're going to stop campus protest is silly. There are organizations in college towns that exist to organize protests. A speaker that goes against the grain in a college town runs the risk of getting shouted down. That's kinda how it goes.
The question is, how does the university administration handle it?
Last edited by redguard57; 08-30-2016 at 09:41 PM..
Iv'e seen/heard Ben Shapiro. There schools have not a chance beating him in a debate. He always refutes the BS/doubletalk and makes his detractors look like blue-ribbon chumps. So they cower away and hide.........
Of course they can't out-debate someone like Ben Shapiro or Ted Cruz. Why do you think they feel "unsafe"? Surely they can't be serious that these people are right-wingers armed to the teeth and planning to kill the little snowflakes?
There is a legitimate question as to what constitutes hateful, abusive, and provocative. So if one group finds things hurtful it should not be said? Isn't that how we go into this situation to begin with? Someone will always be offended. Depending on the subject many may be offended but that should not stop the discussion. Nothing should be off the table. If you don't want to see David Duke don't go, you don't get to cancel the appearance.
One problem is that the contemporary social justice movement draws no difference between verbal and physical violence... Dissenting views to the ever-changing movement line are interpreted as oppressive... Oppression is violence. Thus, exposure to viewpoints, history, data, facts, etc that they don't agree with is interpreted as active violence towards those who don't agree with such things, and no different than being dealt a beating.
Thus, an economist who works for the World Bank or IMF coming to speak to finance majors about the economy in the developing world is an act of violence.
A course syllabus that includes an autobiography of a working class white male is an act of violence towards POC and women, because the book doesn't do enough to address white male privilege or include minority voices and viewpoints - even though the class discourse and discussion would do just that.
However, if a radical Muslim speaker comes and advocates killing apostates, or a radical feminist speaker comes and advocates the compulsory castration of men, well, they are just giving a voice to the oppressed. This is interpreted as anti-violence in nature, despite direct calls for physical violence.
One problem is that the contemporary social justice movement draws no difference between verbal and physical violence... Dissenting views to the ever-changing movement line are interpreted as oppressive... Oppression is violence. Thus, exposure to viewpoints, history, data, facts, etc that they don't agree with is interpreted as active violence towards those who don't agree with such things, and no different than being dealt a beating.
Thus, an economist who works for the World Bank or IMF coming to speak to finance majors about the economy in the developing world is an act of violence.
A course syllabus that includes an autobiography of a working class white male is an act of violence towards POC and women, because the book doesn't do enough to address white male privilege or include minority voices and viewpoints - even though the class discourse and discussion would do just that.
However, if a radical Muslim speaker comes and advocates killing apostates, or a radical feminist speaker comes and advocates the compulsory castration of men, well, they are just giving a voice to the oppressed. This is interpreted as anti-violence in nature, despite direct calls for physical violence.
It is awful, really.
I see some evidence of that direction slowing. I recently heard a transsexual woman make a pretty air-tight case against the hyper-feminist view that gender is merely a social construct.
There is a legitimate question as to what constitutes hateful, abusive, and provocative. So if one group finds things hurtful it should not be said? Isn't that how we go into this situation to begin with? Someone will always be offended. Depending on the subject many may be offended but that should not stop the discussion. Nothing should be off the table. If you don't want to see David Duke don't go, you don't get to cancel the appearance.
You are conflating two different things -- safe-spaces which assure that marginalized and disadvantaged groups can meet without fear of being rousted by reactionaries -- and garden variety protests against the appearances of people the protesters find objectionable. I don't frankly see a viable argument against either one.
You are conflating two different things -- safe-spaces which assure that marginalized and disadvantaged groups can meet without fear of being rousted by reactionaries -- and garden variety protests against the appearances of people the protesters find objectionable. I don't frankly see a viable argument against either one.
Well, I've asked some questions here and then did further investigation.
"Safe space" is a far broader concept than merely defining a specific area of safety. The concept involves making, essentially, all of space and time "non-conflictive" for the LGBT community.
The "Safe Space" concept is essentially the same thing as Sharia law--just for the LGBT community rather than Islam. Just as Islam divides the world into "Dar al Islam" and "Dar al Harb," the "safe space" divides the world into areas where there is no conflict with LGBT (the "safe space") and the area where there might be conflict--a very precise analog. So just as radical Islam seeks to make all the world "Dar al Islam" where all conflicting ideas have been eradicated, the radical activists of the "safe space" concept seek to make all the world a "safe space" where all conflicting ideas have been eradicated. It is intended to encompass all aspects of human interaction, all the time, everywhere, including the revision of history into its concepts.
It's not a matter of not being "rousted by reactionaries," it's a matter of ensuring no source of conflict can exist.
There needs to be a state funeral to bury COMMONSENSE with dignity. I never saw the obit so cannot be sure when it died but for sure COMMONSENSE is gone.
RIP.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
