Jump to content

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


Boges

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Argus said:

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.

Not biting.  See my #2 above.  You want me to defend these groups you make up but I'm just not interested today, sorry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was a story on the CBC today about a new requirement from the BC government for all post secondary institutions to adopt sexual assault policies. These policies are to guide the universities in their mandatory investigation of such complaints and how to hold hearings. It left me thinking... shouldn't all post-secondary institutions also have policies on, say, murder, and armed robbery and violent assault? On fraud and kidnapping and burglary? 

Now some silly people might get the idea that these are all crimes, and that universities are neither equipped nor normally tasked with investigating criminal offenses, let alone having trials about them, but for some weird reason that doesn't seem to apply to sexual assault allegations. Apparently the snowflake generation can find police and courts to be too intimidating. They want a warm, comforting, uncritical hearing when they feel they've been abused by some nasty male type. And universities and government are eager to give in to their desires. After all, aren't university students all small children in desperate need of care, guidance and protection?

And children never lie, you know, although of course they do, actually, but never mind. The point is that often enough when these complaints about having been sexually assaulted are held up to critical eyes they seem hard to justify, and we can't have that. Every complaint which doesn't result in a conviction is a complaint which was treated unfairly. And since the damn courts continue to insist on things like 'proof', which is, after all, nothing but a eurocentric cultural relic defended only by privileged white men, the universities will have to take on the task themselves.

Universities, after all, rarely concern themselves with such ideals.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-post-secondary-sexual-assault-policies-a-start-but-fall-short-experts-say-1.4078365

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Argus said:

1) There was a story on the CBC today about a new requirement from the BC government for all post secondary institutions to adopt sexual assault policies. These policies are to guide the universities in their mandatory investigation of such complaints and how to hold hearings. It left me thinking... shouldn't all post-secondary institutions also have policies on, say, murder, and armed robbery and violent assault? On fraud and kidnapping and burglary? 

2) Apparently the snowflake generation can find police and courts to be too intimidating. They want a warm, comforting, uncritical hearing when they feel they've been abused by some nasty male type. And universities and government are eager to give in to their desires. After all, aren't university students all small children in desperate need of care, guidance and protection?

3) And children never lie, you know, although of course they do, actually, but never mind.  

1) I don't see anything wrong with prioritizing certain issues.

2) Let's not tag people with pejorative terms, if we're hoping to have productive dialogue.  After all, you have been offended on here several times in the past few days.  I have decided that playing your playbook back to you doesn't help you with clarity so maybe we can just try to use neutral language here ?

3) Yes they do but it's not the first thing that one thinks of if they complain about being assaulted, for example.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1) I don't see anything wrong with prioritizing certain issues.

2) Let's not tag people with pejorative terms, if we're hoping to have productive dialogue.  After all, you have been offended on here several times in the past few days.  I have decided that playing your playbook back to you doesn't help you with clarity so maybe we can just try to use neutral language here ?

3) Yes they do but it's not the first thing that one thinks of if they complain about being assaulted, for example.

 

First of all can I say your newfound refusal to parse these discussions makes them much more difficult to understand? WTH anyway? Have you been possessed by the ghost of Big Guy?

Second, sexual assault definitely SHOULD be a priority issue. But what legitimate studies have told us is that the hysteria about a 'culture of rape' on campuses is so much nonsense, and that the sexual assault rates are actually lower than in surrounding populations, and lower even when age is taken into consideration. It is, therefore, simply another crime that might occur on campus and crimes should be investigated by police and dealt with by courts. 

Third, either university students are adults or they are not. If they are not then they should not be permitted to vote, or drink, or have credit cards or make any decisions on their own, and there should be a curfew at their dorms. If they are adults they don't need university administrators holding their hands and substituting their own highly incompetent investigative and interviewing abilities for that of trained police. Such policies are part of what infantalizes university students.

Fourth, substituting the passive term suggesting I have been 'offended' is disingenuous. You deliberately intended to cause offense. Man up about it. And that is only my 'playbook' when dealing with people who deliberately intend to insult and offend me. I return the favour. 

Edited by Argus
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Argus said:

1) First of all can I say your newfound refusal to parse these discussions makes them much more difficult to understand? WTH anyway? Have you been possessed by the ghost of Big Guy?

2) Second, sexual assault definitely SHOULD be a priority issue. But what legitimate studies have told us is that the hysteria about a 'culture of rape' on campuses is so much nonsense, and that the sexual assault rates are actually lower than in surrounding populations, and lower even when age is taken into consideration. It is, therefore, simply another crime that might occur on campus and crimes should be investigated by police and dealt with by courts. 

3) Third, either university students are adults or they are not. If they are not then they should not be permitted to vote, or drink, or have credit cards or make any decisions on their own, and there should be a curfew at their dorms. If they are adults they don't need university administrators holding their hands and substituting their own highly incompetent investigative and interviewing abilities for that of trained police. Such policies are part of what infantalizes university students.

4) Fourth, substituting the passive term suggesting I have been 'offended' is disingenuous. You deliberately intended to cause offense. Man up about it. And that is only my 'playbook' when dealing with people who deliberately intend to insult and offend me. I return the favour. 

1) I don't refuse to parse such issues, not sure what you mean there.

2) That's interesting information, can you give a cite ?  Information as such is a factor in prioritizing issues but not the only factor.   Humans react emotionally on all issues (eg. immigration) so providing a statistic isn't usually enough to placate them.

3) Yes I concur they're adults.  I don't see how that precludes them from asking their university to pay attention to their concerns.

4) Please don't read my mind.  I will admit and being provocative at times, but overall I am trying to get us on the same page with regards to objectivity.  As such, I play back certain terms in the hope that people can see how they don't effectively provide for dialogue.  But I think yesterday I said I would stop doing that.  You used the term 'snowflake' today, so how would you like me to respond ?  Should I be just using objective terminology and allow you to use loaded terms such as that ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1) I don't refuse to parse such issues, not sure what you mean there.

Demonstrably untrue. You stopped cutting up posts and now leave everything in place and put numbers in front of it all.

8 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

2) That's interesting information, can you give a cite ?  Information as such is a factor in prioritizing issues but not the only factor.   Humans react emotionally on all issues (eg. immigration) so providing a statistic isn't usually enough to placate them.

It's not a secret.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/campus-assault-rates-troublingly-low-indeed/article23023464/

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rsavcaf9513.pdf

https://www.jamesgmartin.center/2016/10/really-rape-culture-campuses/

 

8 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

3) Yes I concur they're adults.  I don't see how that precludes them from asking their university to pay attention to their concerns.

Where do you work? Do they have an investigative team for the purpose of looking into rapes and then having trials? Have you ever worked anywhere or been a member of any group which would investigate rape reports and have hearings to decide on guilt or innocence? Paying attention to concerns involves things like ensuring proper lighting, or warning students not to binge drink. It does not involve holding kangaroo court trials.

 

8 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

4) Please don't read my mind.  I will admit and being provocative at times, but overall I am trying to get us on the same page with regards to objectivity.  As such, I play back certain terms in the hope that people can see how they don't effectively provide for dialogue.  But I think yesterday I said I would stop doing that.  You used the term 'snowflake' today, so how would you like me to respond ?  Should I be just using objective terminology and allow you to use loaded terms such as that ?

I'm going to assume you are not of college age. That, in fact, you're probably older than me. So even by the wildly elastic yardstick for judging personal insults here my snowflake comment cannot be construed to be insulting to you. Should I take it then that any time I use any kind of disrespectful term for any kind of group whatsoever you feel offended and thus justified in making personal attacks? I haven't noticed you getting upset when I say nasty things about Republicans, for some reason. So I assume if I mock groups you disapprove of it's okay?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Argus said:

1) Demonstrably untrue. You stopped cutting up posts and now leave everything in place and put numbers in front of it all.

2) It's not a secret.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/campus-assault-rates-troublingly-low-indeed/article23023464/

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rsavcaf9513.pdf

https://www.jamesgmartin.center/2016/10/really-rape-culture-campuses/

 

3) Where do you work? Do they have an investigative team for the purpose of looking into rapes and then having trials? Have you ever worked anywhere or been a member of any group which would investigate rape reports and have hearings to decide on guilt or innocence? Paying attention to concerns involves things like ensuring proper lighting, or warning students not to binge drink. It does not involve holding kangaroo court trials.

 

4) I'm going to assume you are not of college age. That, in fact, you're probably older than me. So even by the wildly elastic yardstick for judging personal insults here my snowflake comment cannot be construed to be insulting to you. Should I take it then that any time I use any kind of disrespectful term for any kind of group whatsoever you feel offended and thus justified in making personal attacks? I haven't noticed you getting upset when I say nasty things about Republicans, for some reason. So I assume if I mock groups you disapprove of it's okay?

 

1) This is easier than using the 'quote this' feature

2) Thanks

3) I didn't know about these trials.  Can you cite those ?

4) I'm not insulted, and it isn't even against the rules I don't think.  I would call it an insult against no one in particular.  But it shows that you aren't looking at the issue objectively.  Do you see me use the term right-wing kooks ?  How about extreme right wingers ?  Is there a difference in those terms ?  I will use the latter when I try to frame how popular the viewpoints being expressed are.  Can you tell how I feel about the people I'm referencing ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
9 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

It would be nice if this was fake news, but I suspect it is not.  At what point did they go from being thin skinned to absurdly moronic?

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/bret-weinstein-and-the-cowardice-of-college-leaders/19885#.WS40uWf4B9A

...like ‘Phnom Penh 1975’.

How accurate a description can one make??

Enter young girl with plastic bags and zip-ties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, bcsapper said:

It would be nice if this was fake news, but I suspect it is not.  At what point did they go from being thin skinned to absurdly moronic?

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/bret-weinstein-and-the-cowardice-of-college-leaders/19885#.WS40uWf4B9A

The responsibility ultimately lies with taxpayers. This is a public university. The school's leadership should be changed and the students and faculty involved expelled. That is unlikely to happen, though. In Ontario, and in Canada, we see the same sorts of things, with placid, progressive administrations and violently anti-democratic students permitted to act out their intolerance. There are no good universities in Canada in terms of intellectual freedom, and precious few in the US. Harvard and Yale caved in to the demands of the PC stormtroopers long ago. Most ivy league schools have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Argus said:

The responsibility ultimately lies with taxpayers. This is a public university. The school's leadership should be changed and the students and faculty involved expelled. That is unlikely to happen, though. In Ontario, and in Canada, we see the same sorts of things, with placid, progressive administrations and violently anti-democratic students permitted to act out their intolerance. There are no good universities in Canada in terms of intellectual freedom, and precious few in the US. Harvard and Yale caved in to the demands of the PC stormtroopers long ago. Most ivy league schools have.

I hope you weren't waving your hands when you made those points!  Who knows what damage you could have done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes...unchecked PCness can lead to this kind of absurdity......of course comparing it to Khmer Rouge activities is its own kind of crazy.

This doesn't negate the validity, but just like Argus' indignation.....everything in moderation.

19 hours ago, bcsapper said:

It would be nice if this was fake news, but I suspect it is not.  At what point did they go from being thin skinned to absurdly moronic?

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/bret-weinstein-and-the-cowardice-of-college-leaders/19885#.WS40uWf4B9A

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

An interesting column by Debra Soh in today's Globe.

We are barrelling toward a future in which the greatest minds must be more preoccupied with who might possibly take offence to their ideas than whether they are factually correct. Banning controversial speakers and unpopular opinions may seem harmless at first glance, but it sends a larger chill across campuses, an anti-intellectual shift that is derailing our fundamental pursuit of knowledge and the truth.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/we-need-to-protect-free-speech-on-campus/article35476933/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/4/2016 at 6:13 AM, Boges said:

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.

It would appear as though most of the university's of today are turning out nothing more than a bunch of social justice snowflake warriors who are going to end up with a slap in the face when they have to go out into the real world to find a job. I hope that they don't put down on their resume that they have a degree in social justice? It might get one a job with some far left radical liberal outfit. And I don't know if they would pay well or have great benefits. The whole world is becoming a screwed up place to live thanks to the programs and agendas of zionist globalist elite liberalism. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Argus said:

Banning controversial speakers and unpopular opinions may seem harmless at first glance, but it sends a larger chill across campuses, an anti-intellectual shift that is derailing our fundamental pursuit of knowledge and the truth.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/we-need-to-protect-free-speech-on-campus/article35476933/

Who cares about knowledge and truth compared to the far more immediate concern that someone's feelings might get hurt?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think universities and k-12 schools produce thin-skinned people but I think the parents have a huge part in this blame as well.  You also have to look at society generally as well. People have never been so well-off in human history, which is going mean people won't be as tough as they needed to be in prior generations going back centuries and millennia.

Young people used to have to work hard farming with their family during the summers & fall and in spare time just to survive and hopefully not be called out to serve in wars, now they're living in trendy hipster neighborhood condos their parents bought for them (unless they're living in mommy's basement) driving cars their parents bought for them sipping overpriced Starbucks lattes while out walking their genetically perfected puppies they bought for a bazillion dollars from a breeder.

This is the "Last Man" Neitchze was talking about.  How can you be anything but soft when you've been coddled & spoiled your whole life?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your parents forced you to work 18 hour days on the family farm? I'm doubting it myself. I bet you had to walk uphill all the way to school too and it was uphill both ways.

I think the tough hard working generation that's whinging about how easy and coddled their kids have it are oblivious to how easy they've had it with a whole planet for the easy taking.

It's really easy when you've got abundant natural resources that seemed to go on forever, lax environmental standards, compliant dictatorships willing to rape their land for our benefit and our ability to bankroll it all with borrowed money and a debt we passed on to future generations.

What pampered coddled generation was that again? 

Edited by eyeball
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All that crap in the universities are creating this kind of future for man... um human kind ... 

http://bc.ctvnews.ca/i-do-not-gender-my-child-b-c-baby-issued-health-card-without-sex-designation-1.3490430

 

Quote

A baby in B.C.'s Slocan Valley has been issued what is thought to be the first-ever health card without a gender marker.

Searyl Atli Doty was born in November at a private residence. Because Searyl was not born in hospital, there was no medical genital inspection when the baby was born.

Searyl's parent Kori Doty – who is non-binary trans, meaning they do not fit the male or female binary – said they want to keep the baby's gender off official records.

Well that's gonna screw that kid for the rest of ...  it's life.  I am surprised they are even classifying the child as human. Why not let it figure that out too?

 

I also have to add the part where one parent is 'non-binary trans'.  Can someone explain how that works?

Edited by GostHacked
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, GostHacked said:

All that crap in the universities are creating this kind of future for man... um human kind ... 

http://bc.ctvnews.ca/i-do-not-gender-my-child-b-c-baby-issued-health-card-without-sex-designation-1.3490430

 

Well that's gonna screw that kid for the rest of ...  it's life.  I am surprised they are even classifying the child as human. Why not let it figure that out too?

 

I also have to add the part where one parent is 'non-binary trans'.  Can someone explain how that works?

Somebody has decided to potentially sacrifice their child's future happiness to make a political point. 

It's the same as when parents give their kids dumb names like Moon Unit and Apple.  It's an ego thing.  The parent is essentially saying, "everyone look at me!".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Somebody has decided to potentially sacrifice their child's future happiness to make a political point. 

It's the same as when parents give their kids dumb names like Moon Unit and Apple.  It's an ego thing.  The parent is essentially saying, "everyone look at me!".

Why would not specifying gender on a document wreck a child's life?   

A few years ago I watched a documentary that claimed babies differentiate between male and female from before they can talk, and they can make this determination by watching a baby of the same age walk away from them.   There is no doubt that people are going to recognize this child as male/female even if the kid's gender isn't on his/her government documents.

Also, did you know that people are treated differently depending on what sex they are perceived to be, with women generally considered less credible than men?   There have been countless studies on this so I imagine you are aware.   Perhaps removing gender from documents and forms would progress us all toward more equality, at least until someone is met face-to-face.  

Edited by dialamah
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,764
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    robretpeter42
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...