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

[-1=e^ipi]

On 3/22/2017 at 3:54 PM, Michael Hardner said:

Do you think that they would admit they don't support freedom of speech ?

Nah. They would say, 'I support free speech, but free speech doesn't include hate speech or offensive speech'. And of course everything they disagree with is hateful and offensive. They justify being against free speech by redefining free speech so it doesn't mean free speech anymore. It is very Orwellian.

[Argus]

The three main 'protected' groups of identity politics are, in order of priority, blacks, LGBT and women.

To these, three others have become solidified, in the US, as Hispanics, native Americans, and the disabled. And now, fairly recently, Muslims have been added to this list of protected groups. Anything which offends any single member of any of these 'marginalized' groups is cause for demonstrations and gnashing of teeth. Anything which is said or done, however much we might consider it intellectually justified, such as criticizing aspects of Islamic doctrine, is now seen as an attack on a marginalized group. And there is no acceptance of the right to do so whatsoever. Nor is proportion something illiberal liberals understand. Thus we saw all that screaming and accusations and demands for resignations and literally crying at Harvard over the fact some teacher didn't particularly care about concerns that some Halloween costumes were seen as cultural appropriation and dared to say so. There's an excellent discussion of the problems on university campuses (safe spaces, trigger warnings, microagression) between Sam Harris and psychologist Jonathan Haidt here, which points out how the phenomenon has recently escalated. Haidt makes the point several times that if you haven't been on a university campus in the last couple of years you don't understand how serious a threat to academic freedom it's all become.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K92rOsjyLBs

[-1=e^ipi]

50 minutes ago, Argus said:

The three main 'protected' groups of identity politics are, in order of priority, blacks, LGBT and women.

You forget muslims. In Sweden, 'anti-racists' protest gay-pride parades in muslim areas. So muslims > LGBT people in terms of the progressive stack hierarchy.

[Argus]

6 minutes ago, -1=e^ipi said:

You forget muslims. In Sweden, 'anti-racists' protest gay-pride parades in muslim areas. So muslims > LGBT people in terms of the progressive stack hierarchy.

In Canada, you're probably correct. Certainly none of the progressive social justice warriors has ever or ever will dare to challenge or even mention the homophobic beliefs or statements inherent within Islam. 

[hot enough]

59 minutes ago, Argus said:

In Canada, you're probably correct. Certainly none of the progressive social justice warriors has ever or ever will dare to challenge or even mention the homophobic beliefs or statements inherent within Islam. 

They are hereby mentioned. And it is further noted just how long and how hard you homophobic, racist christians have hated and lobbied against allowing such people to have a place in society.

Dog almighty, such flaming hypocrites!

[Argus]

1 hour ago, hot enough said:

They are hereby mentioned. And it is further noted just how long and how hard you homophobic, racist christians have hated and lobbied against allowing such people to have a place in society.

I don't believe there was ever a time in Christianity when homosexuals were executed. I could be wrong. I'm no expert. Certainly portions of the Old Testament speak poorly of them. But Christianity has not been much about the Old Testament for centuries.

[hot enough]

31 minutes ago, Argus said:

I don't believe there was ever a time in Christianity when homosexuals were executed. I could be wrong. I'm no expert. Certainly portions of the Old Testament speak poorly of them. But Christianity has not been much about the Old Testament for centuries.

You really have to get up to speed, Argus. And when this great christian wasn't advocating war crimes he was supporting those war crimes in Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Nicaragua, Guatemala, ... .

When Billy Graham Urged Nixon to Kill a Million People

http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/11/01/when-billy-graham-urged-nixon-to-kill-a-million-people/

[Argus]

An interesting talk on social justice warriors that infest elite schools, and their influence and motivation by Jonathan Haidt.

This extreme value placed on inclusiveness and diversity has led to being extremely intolerant of anyone who says anything which makes a member of a protected group uncomfortable.

An attempt at disagreeing and debating something which is so tightly and closely believed is actually seen as an attack on their existentialism, and is therefore violence, and cannot be tolerated.

Students learn to start every analyses with a privilege check, and to judge the validity of what is being said by the privilege of whomever is speaking. If it's a white male then they're just defending their privilege. If it's a member of a protected group, then it's considered to be more reliable.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3z6IZdeZYA

Edited April 5, 2017 by Argus

[Guest]

Bias Response Teams! 

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/bias-response-teams-campus-censorship-at-its-most-sinister/19660#.WOkEwWf4B9A

Best not have an Enchilada unless you're Mexican. 

[Argus]

Free speech on campus does not include speech which offends social justice warriors. 

In the last few weeks there has been a lot of news about free speech on university campuses.  Typically, one group of students invites a high-profile speaker to give a talk and another group of students agitates until the speaker is shut down.

But it’s not just high profile speakers who are getting shut down on university campuses. Students are being silenced too. But not all students, just those who don’t conform to the accepted ideologies that now dominate Canada’s universities. My story is just one example.

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/christine-schuknecht-at-wilfrid-laurier-university-do-as-the-campus-thought-police-dictate-or-else

[Argus]

Too funny, and who knows, not that far from true.

BERKELEY, CA—Advising students to remain in their dormitories and classrooms until the situation was resolved, the University of California, Berkeley declared a campuswide lockdown Thursday after several loose pages from The Wall Street Journal were found on a park bench outside a school building. 

http://www.theonion.com/article/berkeley-campus-lockdown-after-loose-pages-wall-st-55815?utm_content=Main&utm_campaign=SF&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=SocialMarketing

[Bonam]

I'm starting to see the results of all the "thin skinned" people being produced in my social media feeds. Very frequently now I have seen instances of someone posting whatever on social media, for all the world to see. Inevitably, someone will sometimes post an unkind comment or criticism. And when they do, it's as if the world has ended... article after article, blog after blog, thousands of comments of debate, every time anyone says anything unkind in the slightest. People are utterly shocked and dismayed that an action they took or statement they made could illicit anything but universal praise. And if the person who made the post that was criticized in any way was a woman, it is instantly assumed that any criticism is sexism. If the person who made the post that was criticized was a minority, it must have been racism. And of course if the person who made the post that was criticized was a white male, they should "check their privilege" and just stop posting since they're using up air that could have been better used by someone more worthy. 

The utter inability to process even the most slightly negative feedback coupled with an overriding assumption that all reality is rooted in racial and gender identity has pretty much completely taken over social media as far as I can see. 

[Bob Macadoo]

17 hours ago, Bonam said:

I'm starting to see the results of all the "thin skinned" people being produced in my social media feeds. Very frequently now I have seen instances of someone posting whatever on social media, for all the world to see. Inevitably, someone will sometimes post an unkind comment or criticism. And when they do, it's as if the world has ended... article after article, blog after blog, thousands of comments of debate, every time anyone says anything unkind in the slightest. People are utterly shocked and dismayed that an action they took or statement they made could illicit anything but universal praise. And if the person who made the post that was criticized in any way was a woman, it is instantly assumed that any criticism is sexism. If the person who made the post that was criticized was a minority, it must have been racism. And of course if the person who made the post that was criticized was a white male, they should "check their privilege" and just stop posting since they're using up air that could have been better used by someone more worthy. 

The utter inability to process even the most slightly negative feedback coupled with an overriding assumption that all reality is rooted in racial and gender identity has pretty much completely taken over social media as far as I can see. 

So the criticism is fair but the response is unacceptable....or is it the volume of response......there are that many people who disagree?

[Michael Hardner]

17 hours ago, Bonam said:

The utter inability to process even the most slightly negative feedback coupled with an overriding assumption that all reality is rooted in racial and gender identity has pretty much completely taken over social media as far as I can see. 

It seems that the idea of objectivity is hated by groups.  They can't accept criticism and they enjoy criticizing across cultural gaps.  I find it helpful, sometime, to point out (subtly, or insidiously) that the groups they imagine are not as they appear to be.

For example - people who criticize those who don't agree with their politics must necessarily accept that the disagreeable ones have equal voting power and a voice.  The choice then becomes retreat or engagement.  The former approach means losing influence over the discussion, while the latter requires the difficult art of discussion.

[Argus]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

 The choice then becomes retreat or engagement.  The former approach means losing influence over the discussion, while the latter requires the difficult art of discussion.

Can you have a meaningful discussion with people who feel that any challenge to their beliefs is assaultive?

[Michael Hardner]

3 minutes ago, Argus said:

Can you have a meaningful discussion with people who feel that any challenge to their beliefs is assaultive?

Every group acts that way at least to a degree.  Objectivity is impossible and the idea of one group putting together an objective assessment of another on MLW in particular is laughable.

[Argus]

2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Every group acts that way at least to a degree.  Objectivity is impossible and the idea of one group putting together an objective assessment of another on MLW in particular is laughable.

Well, compared to some of the screaming tear-filled confrontations I've seen on video on some university campuses - even over trivial things like Halloween costumes, MLW is an oasis of calm and thoughtful discussion.

[Michael Hardner]

I am really bored with groups trying to criticize other groups.  If you can come up with an objective framework for such discussions to start then that may help attract people.  Otherwise, folks may just see this as cranky old men, privileged complainers, tiresome boomers, white oppressors etc. who won't give an inch ever.

[dialamah]

9 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Every group acts that way at least to a degree.  Objectivity is impossible and the idea of one group putting together an objective assessment of another on MLW in particular is laughable.

 

What a shame people can't "Like" moderator posts.  

[Argus]

3 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I am really bored with groups trying to criticize other groups.  If you can come up with an objective framework for such discussions to start then that may help attract people.  Otherwise, folks may just see this as cranky old men, privileged complainers, tiresome boomers, white oppressors etc. who won't give an inch ever.

Why would I tailor my conversation so as to not offend the ignorant, shuffling herd of social justice warriors? As Rex Murphy pointed out in his column today, if even that paragon of progressive virtue, Justin Trudeau can be seen as a white supremacist and raper of the environment, what hope does anyone across the centre line have of getting a fair hearing from these people?

[Michael Hardner]

2 minutes ago, Argus said:

1) Why would I tailor my conversation so as to not offend the ignorant, shuffling herd of social justice warriors?

2) As Rex Murphy pointed out in his column today, if even that paragon of progressive virtue, Justin Trudeau can be seen as a white supremacist and raper of the environment, what hope does anyone across the centre line have of getting a fair hearing from these people?

1) Who said anything about not offending people.  And again, your need to create another enemy group comes up each time your posts are questioned.

2) Irrelevant point.  Still asking for you to put up some kind of objective framework that can guide us in discussion of culture clash.  Otherwise it's the same 1000 posts of wealthy white plaintiffs complaining about the milleals on their lawn listening to the loud rock n' roll...

[Argus]

8 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1) Who said anything about not offending people.  And again, your need to create another enemy group comes up each time your posts are questioned.

As Haidr said we're a tribal people. Why do you continue to make accusations against me for doing what you do yourself constantly?

8 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

2) Irrelevant point.  Still asking for you to put up some kind of objective framework that can guide us in discussion of culture clash.  Otherwise it's the same 1000 posts of wealthy white plaintiffs complaining about the milleals on their lawn listening to the loud rock n' roll...

Ah, the complaint of the social justice warrior set! I'm a privileged white male! How dare I construct arguments which offend the dainty ears of protected groups! If you want me to stop posting just ban me. You have that authority. And it'll make room for more threads about how evil the west is, how aliens from alpha centauri control Donald Trump's brain, the international Zionist conspiracy, and how free and open a society Turkey has become. Those are clearly the preferred subjects on MLW nowadays.

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1) Who said anything about not offending people.  And again, your need to create another enemy group comes up each time your posts are questioned.

2) Irrelevant point.  Still asking for you to put up some kind of objective framework that can guide us in discussion of culture clash.  Otherwise it's the same 1000 posts of wealthy white plaintiffs complaining about the milleals on their lawn listening to the loud rock n' roll...

I thought it was the same 1000 SJWs complaining about abortion posters, Israel and Ayaan Hirsi Ali speaking at their Uni?  Am I in the wrong thread again?

[Michael Hardner]

10 minutes ago, Argus said:

1) As Haidr said we're a tribal people. Why do you continue to make accusations against me for doing what you do yourself constantly?

2) Ah, the complaint of the social justice warrior set! I'm a privileged white male! How dare I construct arguments which offend the dainty ears of protected groups! If you want me to stop posting just ban me. You have that authority. And it'll make room for more threads about how evil the west is, how aliens from alpha centauri control Donald Trump's brain, the international Zionist conspiracy, and how free and open a society Turkey has become. Those are clearly the preferred subjects on MLW nowadays.

1) I'm not above it, but at times I tire over scapegoating and want something more interesting and productive.  I use the grouping in this context to mirror your terms back at you ?  Don't like it ?  Good.  Let's both stop.

2) I'll stop then, sorry to have offended you.  

How about that framework then ?  Can you do it ?

[Argus]

15 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I thought it was the same 1000 SJWs complaining about abortion posters, Israel and Ayaan Hirsi Ali speaking at their Uni?  Am I in the wrong thread again?

It is interesting how he seems to have turned it around from discussing the raging intolerance of social justice warriors on campus to condemning us for not understanding and being tolerant of THEM.