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

[Guest]

No, it looks more like a case of being bone-headed.

Speaking of thin what the hell are the poor righties going to do when it's becoming more obvious all the time how silly a lot of PC is starting look to everyone these days? How long it will take conservatives to come up with a new shtick is anyone's guess but given the ease with which one can tickle their racist bone I fear they're trying on the PC shoes themselves these days and I think they rather like the fit.

When it comes to PC, I don't think silly counts. Or if it does, there is no upper limit.

[Guest]

This doesn't seem like a case of someone being "thin skinned".

Dictionary.com says

"sensitive to criticism, reproach, or rebuff; easily offended; touchy"

I think it applies, just for the easily offended bit.

[The_Squid]

No, it looks more like a case of being bone-headed.

Speaking of thin what the hell are the poor righties going to do when it's becoming more obvious all the time how silly a lot of PC is starting look to everyone these days? How long it will take conservatives to come up with a new shtick is anyone's guess but given the ease with which one can tickle their racist bone I fear they're trying on the PC shoes themselves these days and I think they rather like the fit.

Exactly... they like to set up straw men that claim "Lefties" support political correctness... it gives them something to argue against and light their hair on fire over.

[eyeball]

Well, obviously, just as you can't speak for all righties, I can't speak for all lefties. I'm sure the lady in question probably leans a little left, when all's said and done, notwithstanding her arm raising and head shaking. I don't think there would have been too many righties among those upset be her movements, though.

Maybe we should all try speaking out against the crew we're normally associated with more often.

Edited April 5, 2016 by eyeball

[eyeball]

When it comes to PC, I don't think silly counts. Or if it does, there is no upper limit.

It certainly has it's place. It's just simple politeness after all. If there's an upper limit to that I'd probably be puking before I ever got there.

Edited April 5, 2016 by eyeball

[eyeball]

Exactly... they like to set up straw men that claim "Lefties" support political correctness... it gives them something to argue against and light their hair on fire over.

I'd be more than happy to let them have it with a bucket of cold water.

Maybe even hit them with the bucket for good measure sometimes.

[Guest]

It certainly has it's place. It's just simple politeness after all. If there's an upper limit to that I'd probably be puking before I ever got there.

I like politeness. I'm generally very polite.

I just don't think it can be mandated.

[Guest]

Exactly... they like to set up straw men that claim "Lefties" support political correctness... it gives them something to argue against and light their hair on fire over.

Do you not think that if you asked them they would self identify as left wing?

[eyeball]

I like politeness. I'm generally very polite.

I just don't think it can be mandated.

Not completely, but I don't think it should be so automatically expected as a given in the absence of no mandate whatsoever.

[eyeball]

Do you not think that if you asked them they would self identify as left wing?

Your question suggests lefties are ashamed of themselves or that pigeon-holing one is like scoring some coup. What's your point?

[Guest]

Your question suggests lefties are ashamed of themselves or that pigeon-holing one is like scoring some coup. What's your point?

Not at all. My comment was in reply to The_Squid who seemed to be implying that they might not be left wing, those outraged by a hint of disagreement in their safe space.

[The_Squid]

Do you not think that if you asked them they would self identify as left wing?

Do all right wingers share the values of anti-abortion religious nuts?

Wherer did I say they weren't "left wing"?

Edited April 5, 2016 by The_Squid

[Guest]

Do all right wingers share the values of anti-abortion religious nuts?

Wherer did I say they weren't "left wing"?

No, but how would you describe those who do?

[eyeball]

No, but how would you describe those who do?

Partisans first?

[cybercoma]

Actually no. People on the 'left wing' side of any issue are the only ones demanding that opposing views be silenced by the state.

People on the other side don't make demands, they just do things like deny marriage licenses to people or pass laws making it virtually impossible to have an abortion or whine about "taking Christ out of Christmas" and so on and so on.

[cybercoma]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/03/student-accused-of-violating-university-safe-space-by-raising-he/

I think it was the microagression thread where posters were denying that this is not a thing. University seems to be a place where open debate is not welcome.

Many comedians now refuse to appear in Universities.

Aren't you the same poster who criticized the "public shaming" of that dentist who shot the lion? I guess people are only free to express themselves when you agree with them, huh?

[Guest]

Partisans first?

That too, but I don't remember seeing the term too often on here.

[Boges]

Aren't you the same poster who criticized the "public shaming" of that dentist who shot the lion? I guess people are only free to express themselves when you agree with them, huh?

I think the whole idea that people are defined on the Internet by a single act that others feel outraged by is a troublesome trend.

I don't see how that falls into the same category as people being shouted down for having vigorous debate about an issue.

How is that an unsafe space?

[eyeball]

I think the whole idea that people are defined on the Internet by a single act that others feel outraged by is a troublesome trend.

How do you feel about it when a PM identifies an opposition leader as a terrorist for the entire planet to see?

Is it really any wonder kids aren't going nuts too?

[Moonlight Graham]

OP happened during a University student council meeting. Cesspools of irrationality. Nuff said.

[Moonlight Graham]

The students in the OP would be breaking the law in Canada and just because TimG's crystal-ball says nothing would happen, it doesn't change the FACT that BDS is illegal in Canada. The motion passed 229 to 51, but sure your 'hunches' are stronger than facts.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/parliament-votes-to-reject-campaign-to-boycott-israel/article28863810/

Keep saying how it's the pc side trying to make things illegal though, bet that's a lot more fun for you.

I don't think BDS is illegal here, the motion was to "condemn" BDS movements, not to make it illegal as far as I can tell.

[BC_chick]

I don't think BDS is illegal here, the motion was to "condemn" BDS movements, not to make it illegal as far as I can tell.

No Harper specifically added nationality to the list of discriminated groups and his government says a 'zero tolerance' towards BDS movements which they said is anti-Semitic and falls under hate-crimes.

Trudeau's motion basically set the stage to continue the status-quo above and as it stands at this moment in Canadian history, indeed, the law is set up in a way that BDS supporters could be charged with a hate crime.

Never before could a divestment against a COUNTRY been considered hate-crime. Now it can.

[BC_chick]

Voting to condemn something is not making it illegal. It was a statement, not a law.

I answered to MG above on the details.

[BC_chick]

I'll repeat my point again. The OP makes it sound like the anti-BDS student in the story is being silenced where in our own country, our government passed a motion condemning BDS and last year Harper has set to set whereby BDS supporters could be charged with hate crime.

In other words, the anti-BDS student in the OP cannot be charged with anything under any existing Canadian law, whereas the BDS supporters could.

Who is really silencing who and who is the one with the thin skin?

[TimG]

In other words, the anti-BDS student in the OP cannot be charged with anything under any existing Canadian law, whereas the BDS supporters could.

This is called a strawman. No one accepts your ridiculous suggestion that someone could be charged with a hate crime in Canada for simply supporting BDS. Any conclusions you draw from this absurd premise are equally absurd no matter how many times you repeat them.