Are we going to admit Universities are producing thin-skinned people?

[Michael Hardner]

5 minutes ago, WestCoastRunner said:

 For some reason being called a racist is taboo. 

Maybe 50 years of racist caricatures in popular culture might have something to do with it ?  We were taught Sounder in junior high.  Simple morality is what it is.

[Michael Hardner]

1 minute ago, TimG said:

You are missing the point. When you use labels like that in a public debate you are using it as an excuse to avoid an actual discussion of the issues. Instead of looking at the nuance of the arguments being made you want to label it as 'untouchable' and impute the motives of the people advancing the argument. 

Ok, out of curiosity would YOU ever call an argument or a person by that label and why or why not ?

[WestCoastRunner]

2 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Not if it is brought up for discussion.  I certainly can't see that being a problem.  I would only see it being an issue if it was used to shut down a discussion. 

If someone on this forum is called a racist why not address the accusation and delve into it deeper instead of whining to the mods that they can't handle it. It's just a word and it can evolve into a constructive conversation.  

 

[Guest]

Just now, WestCoastRunner said:

If someone on this forum is called a racist why not address the accusation and delve into it deeper instead of whining to the mods that they can't handle it. It's just a word and it can evolve into a constructive conversation.  

 

I agree.  I have never reported anyone and would much rather have an open discussion about the issue.

 

[TimG]

3 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Ok, out of curiosity would YOU ever call an argument or a person by that label and why or why not ?

Well, this entire discussion has made me analyze my own rhetoric more and realize I pull the same stunts with different words. But acknowledging that I need to take my own advice does not mean my point is wrong.

Edited December 22, 2016 by TimG

[WestCoastRunner]

6 minutes ago, TimG said:

You are missing the point. When you use labels like that in a public debate you are using it as an excuse to avoid an actual discussion of the issues. Instead of looking at the nuance of the arguments being made you want to label it as 'untouchable' and impute the motives of the people advancing the argument. This poisons public discourse and encourages people you disagree with to adopt the same propaganda tactics. Now if you don't care about a reasoned debate and like the current toxic environment then keep labeling people as racist for expressing ideas you disagree with. 

Not true. If I used the word I would be challenging that person and asking for further dialogue.  I'm not choosing to poison the conversation. You are using the label poison to define my argument. 

Edited December 22, 2016 by WestCoastRunner

[TimG]

4 minutes ago, WestCoastRunner said:

If someone on this forum is called a racist why not address the accusation and delve into it deeper instead of whining to the mods that they can't handle it. It's just a word and it can evolve into a constructive conversation.  

Because in most cases it is a not a constructive criticism. You can refute arguments you see as "racist" without using the word. In particular, you need to remember that many (if not most) people do not accept your definition of racism so using the label means nothing. You have to state exactly what the issue is and why you think it is bad without resorting to cheap shorthand that only serves to poison the discussion.

Edited December 22, 2016 by TimG

[WestCoastRunner]

Just now, TimG said:

Because in most cases it is a not a constructive criticism. You can refute arguments you see as "racist" without using the word. In particular, you need to remember that many (if not most) people do not accept your definition of racism so using the label means nothing. You have to state exactly what the issue is and why you think it is bad without resorting to cheap shorthand.

I don't think it's cheap shorthand and many other people don't as well. You are trying to tell me what words I can and cannot use in a conversation. 

[Argus]

1 hour ago, drummindiver said:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/three-protesters-shut-me-down-once-they-wont-do-it-again/article1461799/

The way to end this sort of thing is that if these are students at the university, expel them, and if they're not, arrest them and charge them with trespassing, then sue them for all additional costs incurred by the people whose speech they disrupted.

[Michael Hardner]

3 minutes ago, TimG said:

Well, this entire discussion has made me analyze my own rhetoric more and realize I pull the same stunts with different words. But acknowledging that I need to take my own advice does not mean my point is wrong.

It's comforting though not surprising that you follow principles, but I was actually asking about the term 'racist' specifically.  I don't use the term 'snowflake' but I know what it means and I would tacitly accept the term in some instances - fair or not.  I would also recognize the behavior it describes, in fact I HAVE done that.  I don't think I would ever use the term to someone who fits the description, but rather speak to their values.

ex. Bad: "Sorry, snowflake suck it up people aren't going to listen to you" Better: "You know, I hear you.  The world is cruel.  Reach out to others for strength because it isn't going to change"

[TimG]

4 minutes ago, WestCoastRunner said:

I don't think it's cheap shorthand and many other people don't as well. You are trying to tell me what words I can and cannot use in a conversation. 

I am telling you that your word choices have consequences that you refuse to acknowledge. Using the term "racist" poisons the discussion and creates polarization. If that is your objective then use the word. If it isn't then maybe you should rethink your word choices.

Edited December 22, 2016 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

2 minutes ago, Argus said:

The way to end this sort of thing is that if these are students at the university, expel them, and if they're not, arrest them and charge them with trespassing, then sue them for all additional costs incurred by the people whose speech they disrupted.

It's draconian.  Students protest, that's what they do.  Administrators are better politicians than you or I, plus they have a good vision for what the response would be to a crackdown.  Protesters, though, have to live with the fact that their actions have consequences.  They could have been removed and still made their point.  

[WestCoastRunner]

8 minutes ago, TimG said:

Well, this entire discussion has made me analyze my own rhetoric more and realize I pull the same stunts with different words. But acknowledging that I need to take my own advice does not mean my point is wrong.

The problem is that no one wants to censored by the words they choose. I choose my words carefully and I only choose them to encourage discussion. Racist is a valid word that should be cast out into the sunshine for all to discuss and debate. It shouldn't be a bad word that is banned to the hinterland. It is a common word spoken widely and shouldn't be disbarred. 

[WestCoastRunner]

4 minutes ago, TimG said:

I am telling you that your word choices have consequences that you refuse to acknowledge. Using the term "racist" poisons the discussion and creates polarization. If that is your objective then use the word. If it isn't then maybe you should rethink your word choices.

That is your opinion but I am telling you that when this word is brought up in the sincerest forms of dialogue it's not poison. You are choosing to label it as poison. 

[Michael Hardner]

WCR, the practical issue here is that you are insulting, or at the very least lecturing somebody.  Calling THEM a racist, versus something they said, or even better framing it as your perception {Hmmm... what you said seems racist to me.  Can you explain that ?} would be better to achieve an understanding.  If, that is, what you want to do.  And if not, then why are you talking to this person ?  Why not just strike them ?

 

I encourage you to seek out a podcast called 'You Are Not So Smart' and how they changed peoples' minds with 'Deep Canvassing'.

[TimG]

1 minute ago, WestCoastRunner said:

 It is a common word spoken widely and shouldn't be disbarred. 

F*** and s*** are common words. That does not mean they are appropriate. The problem with racism is you define in ways that others reject. So what is the point of using it? Do you want every discussion to degenerate into an argument over the meaning of the word?

[TimG]

2 minutes ago, WestCoastRunner said:

That is your opinion but I am telling you that when this word is brought up in the sincerest forms of dialogue it's not poison. You are choosing to label it as poison. 

You are simply fooling yourself and choosing to be blind to the way the word is perceived by other people. 

[Argus]

2 minutes ago, WestCoastRunner said:

That is your opinion but I am telling you that when this word is brought up in the sincerest forms of dialogue it's not poison. You are choosing to label it as poison. 

Generally speaking, if such a word is flung into people's faces in public, violence is often the result. People like to do it on the internet because they feel safe from retaliation.

 

[Argus]

8 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

It's draconian.  Students protest, that's what they do.  Administrators are better politicians than you or I, plus they have a good vision for what the response would be to a crackdown.  Protesters, though, have to live with the fact that their actions have consequences.  They could have been removed and still made their point.  

A university should be a place of free speech. Those who do not respect free speech have no place on a university campus and should be removed permanently.

[WestCoastRunner]

10 hours ago, TimG said:

F*** and s*** are common words. That does not mean they are appropriate. The problem with racism is you define in ways that others reject. So what is the point of using it? Do you want every discussion to degenerate into an argument over the meaning of the word?

If someone is getting so upset about being called that and not delving into why someone would call them that, then something else is going on. 

I have been called a radical feminist, man hater, told to f*** off when I express my opinions among other atrocious posts. I have always asked why I am called those things. 

I am only speaking for myself but I know the difference between a racist and someone expressing concerns. 

Edited December 22, 2016 by Michael Hardner
profanity

[WestCoastRunner]

4 minutes ago, TimG said:

You are simply fooling yourself and choosing to be blind to the way the word is perceived by other people. 

But not all people. 

[Michael Hardner]

4 minutes ago, Argus said:

A university should be a place of free speech. Those who do not respect free speech have no place on a university campus and should be removed permanently.

Ok, are you referring to the protesters or the speaker ?

[WestCoastRunner]

6 minutes ago, Argus said:

Generally speaking, if such a word is flung into people's faces in public, violence is often the result. People like to do it on the internet because they feel safe from retaliation.

 

You haven't understood a word that has been said. 

[TimG]

2 minutes ago, WestCoastRunner said:

But not all people. 

Chances are who ever you call a "racist" rejects your definition of the word so the label is meaningless to them. As I said, if you objective is to poison the discussion then use the word. If you actually want a constructive debate then find another way to express your opinion.

[Argus]

4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Ok, are you referring to the protesters or the speaker ?

Clearly to the protesters.