U. of Chicago tells SJWs to shove it

[Kingmaker]

I give content notices when subjects like rape or child abuse come up in texts we're reading

I didn't say you're wrong to do so.

Except you said "their absence is the baseline", which implies the exact opposite of this stance. Either professors should give content notices, or their "absence should be the baseline".

I think you should probably read that paragraph as a whole, rather than getting tunnel vision over trigger warnings.

[maraxus2]

Trigger warnings are just one thing being called out, and the significant thing is that it sets their absence as a baseline. The letter overall is almost certainly aimed at the recent campus protests that have cropped up regarding speech on campus, controversial speakers (which has included a ton of people who really should not be controversial), and so on. The core message for students is that you - not the school - bear the central responsibility for dealing with things that upset you.

Oh please. As though dis-inviting public figures with an extensive history of public comment (e.g. Condi Rice or George Will) has a negative impact on student education or free speech. It's not like Milo Yiannopoulos is going to hold any student audience in rapt attention, outside of his involuntarily celibate campus conservative supporters.

In my experience, the vast majority of students don't give even a scintilla of a shit about most of this stuff, particularly at the big public universities. This is just shouting into the void and obsessing over a cultural signifier that does not, and will not, materially impact most student's lives.

[Kingmaker]

Well, it obviously bothered enough of them to spark large student protests over the last year and attract counter-commentary from archconservatives like Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt, so v0v

[maraxus2]

Well, it obviously bothered enough of them to spark large student protests over the last year and attract counter-commentary from archconservatives like Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt, so v0v

And? There were lots of reasons why we had so many campus protests last year. Free speech restrictions, or the desire for them, had nothing to do with the protests. Conflicts with school administration had everything to do with them.

Incidentally, if students bear the central responsibility for dealing with things that upset them, isn't protesting the quintessential way of dealing with it? Or did you mean "The core message for students is that you - not the school - bear the central responsibility for dealing with things that upset you, but only in a way that doesn't inconvenience anyone?"

[Kingmaker]

edit: nevermind. I concede the point.

[Patroklos]

I was actually surprised when I heard it as well to be honest. Local talk radio is mostly left, and sometimes off the wall crazy left here (which is far different from VA/SC where I lived most of my life). It is very common for people to identify themselves or their groups as SJWs. Its possible they are trying the "take it back" tactic as unlike a term like "teabagger" the label is not derogatory in construction, but rather via association.

Where do you live, exactly? I've lived all over CA, and the Bay Area is the only place where talk radio could reasonably be considered left-of-center. Most of the guys down south, John and Ken for example, are just to the right of Genghis Khan.

Monterey, so basically an offshoot of the bay area as far as media is concerned.

[Wild Zontargs]

In any case, I still think that the term "SJW" is largely a meaningless slur, which is applied by the alt-right types against anyone they consider too progressive as a way of discrediting them and expressing derision for them and their politics. I never hear anyone describe themselves as an SJW. Its a pejorative. Its pretty much the alt-right equivalent of someone on the Left labeling every conservative a Teabagger.

I'm going to be honest, every time I see someone use the acronym SJW my opinion of them goes down a tick.

[...]

The people I see saying "SJW" most often tend to show stunning levels of callousness and contempt towards the actual problems of any group they've elected not to care about. It's their code phrase for "people who care more than I do, and that's annoying."

Guys, we went through this the last time it came up in Election Sticky II. TRR, I know you were there, and I'm pretty sure Simon was around for this. To quote my own post at the time:

Thanks to the people over at RationalWiki*, here's Social Justice Warrior used positively and non-ironically in 2001, 2007, and 2008. More examples are available at that wiki. Additionally, here's Laurie Penny 'reclaiming' the term in 2014. There are many people "in the wild" currently using the term to describe themselves on social media.

* the page has changed significantly since then, so the link is an archived version now. Apparently, RW noticed that their own article supported the unironic use by their own side, and decided to rewrite history to support the current party line.

"SJW" is an accepted term on both sides of the debate, and is self-applied by some people on the Left-most side of the debate. Also, it's most frequently Libertarian Left vs Authoritarian Left, rather than Left vs Right.

[maraxus2]

Monterey, so basically an offshoot of the bay area as far as media is concerned.

Really? You have the CSUMB radio station and some of the UCSC radio station down there, but you also have 1460 in Salinas and 860 in SF, on top of KSCO in Santa Cruz. All of these radio stations are pretty right wing. Plus that whole area is more Salinas Valley than it is Bay Area - older and more conservative too.

Which local talk radio stations are left wing, in your estimation?

[Flagg]

I'm going to be honest, every time I see someone use the acronym SJW my opinion of them goes down a tick.

Agreed. It's the PC version of "pussy", "hippy", or "queer". It also reeks of privilege of people who've never been in a situation where you do need safe spaces.

Calling people SJWs is largely the preserve of people for whom the entire world is a "safe space" where they can expect not to have their assumptions about society or other people challenged to any great degree.

Pretty much. And then when you try to explain it to them they just act like Doctor Zaius from Planet of the Apes and cover their ears and shut their eyes.

[ray245]

Calling someone an SJW usually tends to be people who aren't really good at having a debate with anyone that questioned the problems with the existing status quo.

I was called an SJW by someone who felt that there is nothing wrong with the casting system in Hollywood, and the person basically spent half the time convincing others that I called him a racist.

[Simon_Jester]

Which (almost) never fucking happens.

But it still happens. Though of course it rarely happens, it wouldn't be so darn newsworthy and getting panties bunched up if it was a common occurrence. But its probably becoming more common. Or its just seeming more common because of social media (or should I say social justice media, original joke do not steal).

Oh, crap like this used to happen all the time. Only it was happening to gay professors being forced to step down by people afraid they'd teach TEH GAY to their college students. Or to people with weird religious beliefs that offended the (im?) Moral Majority. Or to women who couldn't get men to even hear what they were saying about how certain practices were actively resulting in women getting raped or beaten up, because ho ho hoh, isn't it silly how those wimminfolk do go on?

Except that when it happens ten times to members of a minority and the news reports nothing, it's not a problem. But when it happens once, in low key, to a white dude who feels vaguely resentful of minorities, OH MY GOD NATIONAL EMERGENCY.

General content warnings for the course are insufficient in my experience. It does have to be a topic by topic thing, because people dont keep that shit in working memory.

That seems odd. College students are stupid but I shouldn't think that stupid. They shouldn't forget what class they are taking. You deal in insects, students of yours should understand that you are going to talk about insect stuff that people might find creepy and it will continue that way until the day they graduate the class. Medical students should know that its going to be ongoing icky stuff. History students should know stuff like rape, genocide, and torture never went out of style.

I mean I suppose a warning for more gratuitous stuff couldn't hurt but in some classes everything could be considered gratuitous. And there needs to be some responsibility on the student to know what they are getting into before they sign up.

Thing is, you say all this stuff like 'History students know about genocide and torture. Biology students know about how rape affects evolution in animals. Psychology students know about how they'll be discussing incest and serial killers."

Except we learn about this in college. I mean seriously, do you expect it to be taught at the high school level? Do you expect eighteen year olds headed for college to spend their summer studying all the depraved crap their high school teachers tried to paint over while teaching them about the world as children?

College is, almost by definition, the place where scholars go to learn things that can only be explained to adults. That includes a lot of shit that not every adult is fully comfortable with.

I think the problem for most people is the fact it seems to be giving special treatment to some people and allowing them to get a grade without going to class. Again its probably not that common but its common enough where some people think its a problem.

Again, when a dozen well connected fratboys get gentleman's C's while paying someone to write their papers for them, it's not a problem, or at least it's not news. If a rape victim skips a lesson on forced mating in ducks and turns in the homework later after studying it themselves while braced to withstand a nervous breakdown... OH MY GOD NATIONAL EMERGENCY!

Riiiiight.

I'm and presumably people like the drama queens at the University of Chicago are using the tumblr-esq definition. I doubt there would be much worry about safe spaces if they followed the "no bigotry" definition. The worry over safe spaces is worry over the spaces that exclude people, that attempt to censor speech, that try to imply disagreement or having different opinions is bigotry.

There are plenty of people whose idea of free speech includes their right to call gay people by homophobic slurs, to express aggressively ignorant and derogatory opinions of minorities, and (if male) to routinely insult women and expect them to like it.

These people will definitely "worry," because...

Nobody but the most stupid stupid person would have a problem with a bigotry free area where people can still freely express themselves. Plenty have problems with zones of censorship.

Well, guess what kind of person shows up a lot when you start telling people "no, you can't say that, it's a stupidly obvious insult to black people" or whatever...

I mean, you can legitimately talk about how exclusion and segregation become a problem when you try to control access and nail up "no outsiders allowed" signs in places. But let's not pretend this is what the average Internet guy using the acronym SJW is actually talking about.

"SJW" is an accepted term on both sides of the debate, and is self-applied by some people on the Left-most side of the debate.

And yet it is virtually unused by the left among themselves

Also, it's most frequently Libertarian Left vs Authoritarian Left, rather than Left vs Right.

"Libertarian left" and "authoritarian left" are problematic terms. Because "don't let the state inconvenience me" is arguably a "libertarian left" position. But by that standard, plantation owners and medieval aristocrats were left-libertarian because they wanted freedom for themselves. Conversely, you could be arguing that anyone who says "you ass, don't do that, it's rude and stupid" is staking out an "authoritarian left" position, because you should be allowed to be as rude and stupid as you want without consquence!

[Alyrium Denryle]

That seems odd. College students are stupid but I shouldn't think that stupid. They shouldn't forget what class they are taking. You deal in insects, students of yours should understand that you are going to talk about insect stuff that people might find creepy and it will continue that way until the day they graduate the class. Medical students should know that its going to be ongoing icky stuff. History students should know stuff like rape, genocide, and torture never went out of style.

I mean I suppose a warning for more gratuitous stuff couldn't hurt but in some classes everything could be considered gratuitous. And there needs to be some responsibility on the student to know what they are getting into before they sign up.

Spoken like someone who has never taught.

Just so you know: Myself, Simon, and Terralthra have or do teach at the university level. Simon currently teaches at the high school level.

But yes, they are that stupid. Or really, it is not stupidity. It is an outside context problem. I work with insects, but I have taught general biology and that covers all sorts of stuff. My other usual courses--zoology and ecology--also cover a wide variety of things in more detail.

1) The student might know I work with insects going in, but that does not mean they even have a starting place to even consider all the body horror that goes along with insects in real life. They think of insects in terms of butterflies, bees, and the odd beetle. Maybe cockroaches. I dont need to warn them about their insect phobia for example. However, when I start talking about decomposition, I might need to warn them that they will see images of human corpses from the Body Farm.

2) No, they dont necessarily know those things going in. That is why they are in my class. I was odd, I was dissecting road kill when I was nine. Most of my students were premed and dont know the first thing about the natural world going in, or who are only in my class to meet general studies requirements. People who have been bionerds their entire lives are maybe 10%. That ratio gets better in the upper division classes, but it is still mostly premeds.

3) No one ever reads the syllabus, and when they do they forget what is in it. They also tend to tune out the first day of lecture. Also, a warning in the syllabus or on Day One is of limited utility because people dont know what their headspace will be weeks in advance.

How often do you have to do that? Would you penalize someone who continuously has a "bad mental state" and cannot attend classes they find objectionable?

The only time it has ever been a problem was when someone's snake phobia became an issue in a zoology class (only class that fit into her schedule). She was from Nigeria and had a rather understandable fear of snakes given that. Even images of snakes caused her to bolt. Lizards did not bother her. I made sure to use a lizard on the practical exam and it was fine.

I think the problem for most people is the fact it seems to be giving special treatment to some people and allowing them to get a grade without going to class. Again its probably not that common but its common enough where some people think its a problem. And while it might not be a problem for you at wherever you are but it might be a problem for others. It might cause too much of a disruption to have to baby several students who cannot attend class for whatever reason.

Lots of people skip class in college. Some do well, some don't, that is on them. When I was still teaching I had an open door policy on getting my notes for people who missed class, and made office appointments.

My little speeches only let people know it is socially acceptable to get up and leave if they need to. They dont actually get preferential treatment with respect to what help I was willing to offer.

I'm and presumably people like the drama queens at the University of Chicago are using the tumblr-esq definition. I doubt there would be much worry about safe spaces if they followed the "no bigotry" definition. The worry over safe spaces is worry over the spaces that exclude people, that attempt to censor speech, that try to imply disagreement or having different opinions is bigotry.

Nobody but the most stupid stupid person would have a problem with a bigotry free area where people can still freely express themselves. Plenty have problems with zones of censorship.

Speaking as a gay person.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

That is so cute.

There are states where it is illegal for teachers to say anything non-negative about being gay because that is "propaganda". I live in one of them.

Try again.

Though in some ways there is a fundamental problem with safe spaces or atleast people in them. No nothing like that, dammit Jim I'm an asshole not a bigot, but in the fact safe spaces are supposed to be a place where people need not fear being "uncomfortable, unwelcome or challenged". For some people any discussion they do not like makes them "uncomfortable", any person they believe is an "oppressor" or whatever makes them feel unwelcome, and any disagreement is a "challenge". Look at the problems male rape survivors have getting into rape safe spaces or the incredibly terrible transphobic treatment transwomen take traveling to safe spaces for women. Or the exclusion of white people from meetings of people of color (by grabthar's hammer I hate using that term) because just the presence of whitey make them feel uncomfortable. A safe space is only safe for them if they exclude, if they segregate, if they censor.

There are reasonable limits. The university discrimination policies for instance. Yes, some people are in fact over-sensitive. And yes, there are long-standing problems with people recognizing the existence of male rape survivors. Sometimes people are assholes.

But people bitching about "safe spaces" bitch about not just the scenarios you describe, but my no bigotry zone as well. Just because the strawman (or strawfeminist) is sometimes real does not mean a strawman is not being committed.

[The Romulan Republic]

In any case, I still think that the term "SJW" is largely a meaningless slur, which is applied by the alt-right types against anyone they consider too progressive as a way of discrediting them and expressing derision for them and their politics. I never hear anyone describe themselves as an SJW. Its a pejorative. Its pretty much the alt-right equivalent of someone on the Left labeling every conservative a Teabagger.

I'm going to be honest, every time I see someone use the acronym SJW my opinion of them goes down a tick.

[...]

The people I see saying "SJW" most often tend to show stunning levels of callousness and contempt towards the actual problems of any group they've elected not to care about. It's their code phrase for "people who care more than I do, and that's annoying."

Guys, we went through this the last time it came up in Election Sticky II. TRR, I know you were there, and I'm pretty sure Simon was around for this. To quote my own post at the time:

Thanks to the people over at RationalWiki*, here's Social Justice Warrior used positively and non-ironically in 2001, 2007, and 2008. More examples are available at that wiki. Additionally, here's Laurie Penny 'reclaiming' the term in 2014. There are many people "in the wild" currently using the term to describe themselves on social media.

* the page has changed significantly since then, so the link is an archived version now. Apparently, RW noticed that their own article supported the unironic use by their own side, and decided to rewrite history to support the current party line.

"SJW" is an accepted term on both sides of the debate, and is self-applied by some people on the Left-most side of the debate. Also, it's most frequently Libertarian Left vs Authoritarian Left, rather than Left vs Right.

I'll accept that it may have originated as a positive term from people on the Left.

However, in my personal experience, at this point it has been thoroughly highjacked by the alt-Right as a derogatory slur, and that is the context in which it is now almost universally used.

Nonetheless, I will accept that it may be used differently in some contexts. I have not done a comprehensive survey of every social media post in existence. You can tell by how I still have some sanity.

[Patroklos]

Monterey, so basically an offshoot of the bay area as far as media is concerned.

Really? You have the CSUMB radio station and some of the UCSC radio station down there, but you also have 1460 in Salinas and 860 in SF, on top of KSCO in Santa Cruz. All of these radio stations are pretty right wing. Plus that whole area is more Salinas Valley than it is Bay Area - older and more conservative too.

Which local talk radio stations are left wing, in your estimation?

Are you in the business or something, because I can't name an AM radio station from anywhere I've lived? When not listening to NPR which is my go to I just spin the AM dials. Less and less because I encounter the described behavior. I have no regular station or show to provide to you and to be clear I am talking about AM.

[maraxus2]

Are you in the business or something, because I can't name an AM radio station from anywhere I've lived? When not listening to NPR which is my go to I just spin the AM dials. Less and less because I encounter the described behavior. I have no regular station or show to provide to you and to be clear I am talking about AM.

No, but we had a campaign down in that neck of the woods a few months ago. Some of the local right-wingers were taking my candidate to task over some trivial bullshit, not that it ended up mattering very much. Anyway, it was important to learn the station that was blasting us, hence I know a little bit about the media environment down there.

[Wild Zontargs]

Also, it's most frequently Libertarian Left vs Authoritarian Left, rather than Left vs Right.

"Libertarian left" and "authoritarian left" are problematic terms. Because "don't let the state inconvenience me" is arguably a "libertarian left" position. But by that standard, plantation owners and medieval aristocrats were left-libertarian because they wanted freedom for themselves. Conversely, you could be arguing that anyone who says "you ass, don't do that, it's rude and stupid" is staking out an "authoritarian left" position, because you should be allowed to be as rude and stupid as you want without consquence!

Well, I suppose it's "problematic" due to lack of context? I'm referring to social authoritarianism and social libertarianism in the political sphere. There's a world of difference between "please don't do that, you're upsetting me" and "nobody should be allowed to do that, because it might upset someone". Gandhi'll ask you to leave the commune if you don't knock it off, while Stalin will shoot you and ship your family off to Siberia. Now, the differences we're dealing with here are rather less stark than that, but it's on the same axis. Libertarians will call you an asshole for being rude, but admit that you might have a point if the facts support it. Authoritarians will try to get you fired from your job and blacklisted from your industry, because you're one of those filthy -ISTS and shouldn't be allowed to exist in 2016.

[Dragon Angel]

Look at the problems male rape survivors have getting into rape safe spaces or the incredibly terrible transphobic treatment transwomen take traveling to safe spaces for women. Or the exclusion of white people from meetings of people of color (by grabthar's hammer I hate using that term) because just the presence of whitey make them feel uncomfortable. A safe space is only safe for them if they exclude, if they segregate, if they censor.

With all respect, one of these is not like the others.

I agree that it's bullshit that male rape survivors have trouble getting recognition in survivor spaces, and trans people being denied entry into spaces corresponding to their gender is horrid. But, situations such as white people being denied entry into spaces for people of color have contextual and nuanced reasons.

For an example, educational programs. This involves a different group--a women-only space--but, bear with me. There are groups that host classes in New York City that teach programming courses to women and people who identify as neither sex, explicitly excluding men on the reasoning that groups teaching programming courses to all genders are a dime a dozen, and that hacker culture still has general problems with casual misogyny. Having seen this misogyny, transphobia, and such personally, I can see why this idea has merit.

As another example, there are professional listings which only include the names of only people of color, in an effort to equalize diversity in the workforce since HR departments still pull tricks like weeding people out with "foreign"-sounding names. I can also see why this idea has merit.

Now, do I personally agree these segmented spaces should exist? Honestly, I'm mixed, perhaps because of my personal beliefs of humanity as a whole, but I don't have any problems with them being around and I can certainly see their benefits outweighing any potential negatives. I say this as a white trans woman who would be accepted into the women-only space, but still denied listing on the directory of people of color.

Out of curiosity too, why do you hate the term people of color? I find it useful to describe people who are not white nor necessarily completely black, and "nonwhite" probably is okay too but most black, Latino, etc. people I know have used PoC so I just go along with it.

"SJW" is an accepted term on both sides of the debate, and is self-applied by some people on the Left-most side of the debate. Also, it's most frequently Libertarian Left vs Authoritarian Left, rather than Left vs Right.

I'll accept that it may have originated as a positive term from people on the Left.

However, in my personal experience, at this point it has been thoroughly highjacked by the alt-Right as a derogatory slur, and that is the context in which it is now almost universally used.

More, I believe SJW originated as a descriptor for people who campaign for ridiculous premises like "watching anime and listening to J-pop is cultural appropriation of the Japanese", "liking David Bowie's music is being a pedophilia and rape apologist", or think the presence of marginalized characters with any negative human personality flaws as being complete bigotry. Often, without even belonging to the groups they're making asinine assertions about. However, thanks to the alt right antifeminists and co, it now means the shitty definition of today's.

I've known leftists who have worn the label with pride as part of this reclamation, but there are also a growing number of leftists (including the harder ones) I know who dislike it, since we're all well aware of the toxicity that sometimes happens. We're also well aware that this is such a minority of leftists that the right-wing's caricature of everything left-wing is just as literally asinine as any old-school meaning of SJW believed.

It's kind of sad that the right has been having more and more power in hijacking terms of the left, where we have to constantly come up with new terms that basically mean the same as the old ones and are on the defensive. It's absolutely ridiculous that trigger warnings, safe spaces, social justice, privilege, problematic, et. al. have such opposite definitions in the mainstream but I guess this is what we mean when we talk about structural oppression.

There's a world of difference between "please don't do that, you're upsetting me" and "nobody should be allowed to do that, because it might upset someone". Gandhi'll ask you to leave the commune if you don't knock it off, while Stalin will shoot you and ship your family off to Siberia. Now, the differences we're dealing with here are rather less stark than that, but it's on the same axis. Libertarians will call you an asshole for being rude, but admit that you might have a point if the facts support it. Authoritarians will try to get you fired from your job and blacklisted from your industry, because you're one of those filthy -ISTS and shouldn't be allowed to exist in 2016.

And you have, as others have pointed out, the people who think Gandhi's "please don't do that, you're upsetting me" here is way too far and we should have absolutely no limits on speech. Call all the black people, homosexuals, trans people, all the slurs you like and anyone who disagrees is a lefty monster!

It's much too easy to classify any form of moderation in any space as authoritarian and going too far. Try to claim the mods on this forum, for instance, shouldn't do their jobs because it's infringing on your First Amendment Rights, and you'd be justifiably laughed out the door with a nice red spot on your ass.

[Joun_Lord]

Oh, crap like this used to happen all the time. Only it was happening to gay professors being forced to step down by people afraid they'd teach TEH GAY to their college students. Or to people with weird religious beliefs that offended the (im?) Moral Majority. Or to women who couldn't get men to even hear what they were saying about how certain practices were actively resulting in women getting raped or beaten up, because ho ho hoh, isn't it silly how those wimminfolk do go on?

Except that when it happens ten times to members of a minority and the news reports nothing, it's not a problem. But when it happens once, in low key, to a white dude who feels vaguely resentful of minorities, OH MY GOD NATIONAL EMERGENCY.

I'm quite aware that similar shit has happened to minorities, women, and others in the past and still does today. I've had my own enjoyable experiences being an atheist in a very Christian area while going to skool.

But just because its happened to one group of people doesn't mean its okay for members of another to have the same thing happen (which I'm not implying that is what you are implying). As infantile as it might be to say, bad shit happening is bad no matter what. Also water is wet and Trump is a cunt.

Also I don't think the bullshit is just about fucking a white male being offended that them there mean gurls and brown people are excluding them from their clubs. Censorship on campuses presumably affects a great many beyond cis het christ white males though even if it only did I fail to see how that is any more acceptable then good ol' boys acting like (being) fuckheads towards women and minorities.

NONE of it should be acceptable.

Thing is, you say all this stuff like 'History students know about genocide and torture. Biology students know about how rape affects evolution in animals. Psychology students know about how they'll be discussing incest and serial killers."

Except we learn about this in college. I mean seriously, do you expect it to be taught at the high school level? Do you expect eighteen year olds headed for college to spend their summer studying all the depraved crap their high school teachers tried to paint over while teaching them about the world as children?

College is, almost by definition, the place where scholars go to learn things that can only be explained to adults. That includes a lot of shit that not every adult is fully comfortable with.

My college experience was shorter then a Hollywood star prison stay and I'm not exactly the brightest bulb in the toolshed and yet I was mostly aware of that shit. Though to be fair I also read a crapton as a youth though I'm relatively certain little about evolution and biology or psychology.

That at least to me seems like some incredibly basic shit that even a high school student should know. Not detailed files on the inns and outs of animals going in and out or how serial killers weren't breast fed as children but a general understanding of what those subjects might cover.

Even if for some reason they were so sheltered as to not know psychology deals with crazy people, bugs deals with bugs, biology deals with fleshy bits, and medicine deals with blood and guts and piss and puke and ocular jelly, before going in they could put in some research. Libraries still exist (thank fuck) and everyone but me and the chick from 50 Shades of Grey have phones connected to the internet. Even a quick googles search should tell them that shit is going to be on the test for those courses.

Now this isn't me saying or typing or projecting words onto my screen with the power of my MIND!!!!! that there shouldn't be warnings for course with shit that might disturb. But I am saying that some of the responsibility should fall on the shoulders of people getting into the stuff.

There are plenty of people whose idea of free speech includes their right to call gay people by homophobic slurs, to express aggressively ignorant and derogatory opinions of minorities, and (if male) to routinely insult women and expect them to like it.

Well part of that is part of free speech. Sucky as it might be part of free speech is allowing bigoted morons to say bigoted moronic shit. Free speech guarantees the rights of assholes like the Westboro church to go and say some of the most vile and disgusting shit ever uttered from a human mouth since the invention of language.

Banning speech doesn't only ban the shit we might find offensive because everyone finds different things offensive. You and I might find the fundie ass fucks screaming about how "God Hates Figs" and other stupidly stupid shit to be offensive. The world would probably be an objectively better place if they'd shut the fuck up and fuck off. But other people might think you or I saying "gay people deserve to be treated like human beings" to be offensive. Who decides what speech is to be banned?

If you want free speech, you need free speech for everyone.

That said free speech doesn't cover harassment and there is nothing about free speech that guarantees people will accept what garbage might roll out of some shitboxes mouth. Though there seems to be some confusion about what constitutes harassment. Saying to someone "all gays deserve to die because I'm a closeted asshole who can't get over my love for cock so imma attack others to feel better about myself, also my name is Fred Phelps" is harassment. But some might say saying anything negative is harassment, just saying stupid shit like "I don't think gay people should be allowed marry because the bible" or "I don't believe people are born gay because clearly I know better then medical doctors and actual gay people". Could maybe be considered a bit insulting though not personally, as in its not directed at individuals, and stupid as fuck or atleast highly ignorant but is it harassment? Should it be stopped just because it might be insulting even though its not a malicious insult? How many licks does it take to get to the center of tootsie roll tootsie pop?

[/quote]Well, guess what kind of person shows up a lot when you start telling people "no, you can't say that, it's a stupidly obvious insult to black people" or whatever...

I mean, you can legitimately talk about how exclusion and segregation become a problem when you try to control access and nail up "no outsiders allowed" signs in places. But let's not pretend this is what the average Internet guy using the acronym SJW is actually talking about.[/quote]

See above about the problems with understanding what is harassment. When does expressing an unpopular opinion go from just saying something unpopular to being something considered insulting or harassing?

And this goes beyond some fatasses flapping their cheeto dust covered sausage fingers on the internet in a duel of words where ones sides ammunition is "SJW" and the others is I guess "racist". The fact this is about a actual physical University that isn't some made up bullshit like Trump U makes that abundantly clear.

Spoken like someone who has never taught.

No, god no. Do I look crazy to you? Don't answer that.

I think teaching a bunch of snot nosed punks, being packed into a classroom with a bunch of hormonal animals would be close to hell. Though admittedly I don't have the highest opinion of children or young adults or really even people in general. I'm very much not a people person like at all.

But yes, they are that stupid. Or really, it is not stupidity. It is an outside context problem. I work with insects, but I have taught general biology and that covers all sorts of stuff. My other usual courses--zoology and ecology--also cover a wide variety of things in more detail.

Well I could see a problem if going into a subject something comes up that might not be expected, if a course covers a wide range of topics.

1) The student might know I work with insects going in, but that does not mean they even have a starting place to even consider all the body horror that goes along with insects in real life. They think of insects in terms of butterflies, bees, and the odd beetle. Maybe cockroaches. I dont need to warn them about their insect phobia for example. However, when I start talking about decomposition, I might need to warn them that they will see images of human corpses from the Body Farm.

Perhaps my perspective is skewed from growing up in a rural area so I'll admit I might have a different understanding of creepy crawlies compared to someone living in a concrete jungle. As a wee lad growing up on a farm I got to see a variety of potentially horrifying insect related things like maggots, giant ass spider nests, and people covered in bees (so glad I'm not allergic or I would have been boned, my family raised bees for a time and I put on the bee suit on occasion to smoke them where my stepdad was deathly allergic to their stings).

2) No, they dont necessarily know those things going in. That is why they are in my class. I was odd, I was dissecting road kill when I was nine. Most of my students were premed and dont know the first thing about the natural world going in, or who are only in my class to meet general studies requirements. People who have been bionerds their entire lives are maybe 10%. That ratio gets better in the upper division classes, but it is still mostly premeds.

I still think there should be some pretty basic knowledge stuff some people should have. Even if they for whatever reason might not know bugs are too them icky, wars are hell, and blood is bloody there should be some impetus upon the students to crack open a fracking book or smartphone to do a bit of preparatory research before going in.

3) No one ever reads the syllabus, and when they do they forget what is in it. They also tend to tune out the first day of lecture. Also, a warning in the syllabus or on Day One is of limited utility because people dont know what their headspace will be weeks in advance.

That seems to be their own fault for not following that old tech expression "Read The Fucking Manual". Though I guess that is a good point about forgetting it for those who read it and not knowing how one might feel weeks in advance. Someone could easily know about something going in and think they can handle it but on the actual day they have to face it maybe not be able to.

The only time it has ever been a problem was when someone's snake phobia became an issue in a zoology class (only class that fit into her schedule). She was from Nigeria and had a rather understandable fear of snakes given that. Even images of snakes caused her to bolt. Lizards did not bother her. I made sure to use a lizard on the practical exam and it was fine.

Like I said before, the worry of students being such delicate flowers is probably overblown. And I don't think what you did is unreasonable. Giving some allowance to a legitimate phobia is considerably different then babying some 20 something baby because they are upset.

Lots of people skip class in college. Some do well, some don't, that is on them. When I was still teaching I had an open door policy on getting my notes for people who missed class, and made office appointments.

My little speeches only let people know it is socially acceptable to get up and leave if they need to. They dont actually get preferential treatment with respect to what help I was willing to offer.

Is there not an attendance requirement? Missing tons of class seems like no way to prepare for a job, very few careers are going to be forgiving if someone doesn't show up for work.

Which I think is part of the problem with giving them notes and junk, college as far as I am aware is helping train people to get jobs. I'm betting it is exceedingly rare for a job to allow an employee to get notes for a missed day of work.

It also seems to take more of your time then should be necessary catering to students who failed to show. You taught your course, it should not be on you to gives notes and stuff to people who couldn't be bothered to show or stay. You may not mind but I'm sure others do. Others may not be so generous with their time as you.

Speaking as a gay person.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

That is so cute.

There are states where it is illegal for teachers to say anything non-negative about being gay because that is "propaganda". I live in one of them.

Try again.

Yeah and those states are run by those previously mentioned "stupid stupid people", people so stupid even their stupid is stupid. Stupid people gonna act like stupid people.

There are reasonable limits. The university discrimination policies for instance. Yes, some people are in fact over-sensitive. And yes, there are long-standing problems with people recognizing the existence of male rape survivors. Sometimes people are assholes.

But people bitching about "safe spaces" bitch about not just the scenarios you describe, but my no bigotry zone as well. Just because the strawman (or strawfeminist) is sometimes real does not mean a strawman is not being committed.

Turns out there is assholes on both sides of the debate. Which makes this whole thing even more annoying considering alot of it is no doubt two sets of extremists screaming their damn bloody fool heads off.

[Joun_Lord]

With all respect, one of these is not like the others.

I agree that it's bullshit that male rape survivors have trouble getting recognition in survivor spaces, and trans people being denied entry into spaces corresponding to their gender is horrid. But, situations such as white people being denied entry into spaces for people of color have contextual and nuanced reasons.

For an example, educational programs. This involves a different group--a women-only space--but, bear with me. There are groups that host classes in New York City that teach programming courses to women and people who identify as neither sex, explicitly excluding men on the reasoning that groups teaching programming courses to all genders are a dime a dozen, and that hacker culture still has general problems with casual misogyny. Having seen this misogyny, transphobia, and such personally, I can see why this idea has merit.

As another example, there are professional listings which only include the names of only people of color, in an effort to equalize diversity in the workforce since HR departments still pull tricks like weeding people out with "foreign"-sounding names. I can also see why this idea has merit.

Now, do I personally agree these segmented spaces should exist? Honestly, I'm mixed, perhaps because of my personal beliefs of humanity as a whole, but I don't have any problems with them being around and I can certainly see their benefits outweighing any potential negatives. I say this as a white trans woman who would be accepted into the women-only space, but still denied listing on the directory of people of color.

Out of curiosity too, why do you hate the term people of color? I find it useful to describe people who are not white nor necessarily completely black, and "nonwhite" probably is okay too but most black, Latino, etc. people I know have used PoC so I just go along with it.

I have less of a problem with single gendered programs like the example of a computer course but in some ways it could be considered problematic. Having a computer class only for women could be a good thing, no doubt is a good thing, because of the all too real problem of misogyny in tech circles both casual (like idiots thinking women are automatically less skilled at computers because they have vaginas) and overt.

But its somewhat of a problem because it implies the only way for women to learn is to exclude men, the only way for them to be safe is to not have guys around. In some cases that might be true but not always. It paints an entire gender as untrustworthy for the actions of a few.

The same as excluding white people from "PoC" meetings, it implies the only way for them to get anything done is not to have white people around, that white allies of the cause of racial equality are less important then everyone else, are not equal, that just being around white people will make them uncomfortable.

Discriminating against someone for the race or gender is generally a bad thing whether its some white shitbags not letting black people in their racist ass country clubs or black people not letting white people in their less racist ass clubs.

Though I acknowledge there can be some good reasons for having "segregated" events and there is some damn good reasons why some people might be excluded. Men DO prey on women and act like sexist shitbags, whites HAVE historically been oppressors towards non-whites (and white's with different religions and from different places and poor whites) but surely there is a problem with painting an entire people with a broad brush?

As for my problem with "people of color", there are multiple reasons. First it sounds far too much like the old racist (though still quite current for Cliven Bundy) term "colored people".

Second it seems incorrect because with the exception of literally black people and albinos everyone's skin is colored. Black and white are not colors but very few people can actually be considered truely white or black both physically and genetically.

Third, its seems pretty insulting both to white fucks and everyone else that "people of color" is literally everyone that isn't white. It implies white people are an other and everyone else is the same. Asians, africans, natives, all just lumped in together.

I think mostly its because I'm a no life nitpicky bastard though.

[Balrog]

NY Times

Going after trigger warnings and safe spaces is low hanging fruit and not all that noteworthy,

Their are appropriate circumstances for safe spaces and trigger warnings (one should certainly not be forced to confront things they find traumatic in all times and all places), but they can be overused.

The backlash, however, could easily be as harmful, or more so, as the overuse.

Given some of the recent examples of blatant overuse (i.e. Mizzou) the backlash is not nearly at that point though. When the legitimate safe spaces do come under attack then it would be cause for concern.

but I do like the idea of taking a stand against the banning or disinviting of controversial speakers when a few students raises a stink about it. I would argue one need only look at the deafening echo chamber created by the right to see why screening speakers for the correct political viewpoint can easily become problematic (intentional word choice) and start a slippery slope.

I mostly agree with this, in and of itself.

Though I would point out that the words "slippery slope" are often immediately followed by the word "fallacy" for a reason.

Only when use fallaciously.

In any case, I still think that the term "SJW" is largely a meaningless slur, which is applied by the alt-right types against anyone they consider too progressive as a way of discrediting them and expressing derision for them and their politics. I never hear anyone describe themselves as an SJW. Its a pejorative. Its pretty much the alt-right equivalent of someone on the Left labeling every conservative a Teabagger.

You haven't traveled in the same circles I have then, or for a non-anecdotal example read past versions of social justice warrior when it did talk about "reclaiming" the phrase. Regardless of people trying to "reclaim" it or using it non-pejoratively, it remains an effective descriptive term in the same way Teabagger is still useful to describe idiots of a certain mindset who ruin life for everyone else (and was itself used non-pejoratively at first).

I'm going to be honest, every time I see someone use the acronym SJW my opinion of them goes down a tick.

Because it's generally a sign that this person sees all left-wing positions in the culture war as one big unified blob. That they cannot tell them apart, and attribute extremist positions to moderate people. And that they are the sort of person who will reply to "I have been injured!" with "no you haven't, shut up and go away!"

You're wrong, but I won't hold that against you. It is very easy to tell a SJW from "normal" progressives (for example, they don't see the word normal as being problematic or a micro-aggression). The latter fight for important things like ending discriminatory practices or widening the social safety net; the former are living, breathing examples of the Tocqueville effect. They also tend to grab the most attention and drive the conversation in unhelpful ways.

That said, I am against censorship. Even fascists dare to have a say. Let them say what they think. Attempting to silence even the ugliest viewpoints results in creating an aura of martyrdom which is essential for cult-like following.

Fight the enemy by being smarter, not by being just as dumb as these assholes.

I didn't expect you to agree with the sentiments of the UC letter, but it's good to know we're both on the same side on this issue.

A faculty member of U of Chicago was on NPR earlier today and said that while obviously faculty are for academic freedom and lack of censorship, they wished the President had been a little more circumspect. There's nothing wrong with content notices for disturbing topics. The university hasn't told professors not to have them, there's no policy not to have them, and most professors who deal with such matters give content notices as a matter of routine.

Just like the last time this topic came up, a teacher warning students beforehand that they will be shown (as a personal example) pictures of burn victims for educational purposes is perfectly legitimate.

On top of that, I don't see any of these champions of free speech arguing that the MPAA or ESRB ratings are stifling free speech, or that epilepsy warnings on video games with flashing lights are bad. It's pretty clearly a case of, "I don't care about these things, so I don't see why anyone else should."

I'd say because the MPAA or ESRB isn't aimed at protecting the customer from themselves, but to allow the customer's parents to decide for them if they are ready for the content or not. Because they're children and don't have the capacity to decide for themselves if they want to watch two consenting adults get it on or run from magical undead trying to eat them.

Out of curiosity too, why do you hate the term people of color? I find it useful to describe people who are not white nor necessarily completely black, and "nonwhite" probably is okay too but most black, Latino, etc. people I know have used PoC so I just go along with it.

For myself, usually because it does the same thing people complain the acronym SJW does, lump a large group of people with different experiences, challenges and viewpoints into one homogenous blob.

[Dragon Angel]

But its somewhat of a problem because it implies the only way for women to learn is to exclude men, the only way for them to be safe is to not have guys around. In some cases that might be true but not always. It paints an entire gender as untrustworthy for the actions of a few.

The same as excluding white people from "PoC" meetings, it implies the only way for them to get anything done is not to have white people around, that white allies of the cause of racial equality are less important then everyone else, are not equal, that just being around white people will make them uncomfortable.

This reminds me of cases people make against affirmative action rules, where people say affirmative action tends to make everyone believe the nearest marginalized person only received their spot because affirmative action gave it to them. I'd argue this is a complete fallacy; whether or not affirmative action, or <marginalized group>-exclusive spaces exist, the same types of people would still believe said marginalized person does not deserve their spot. Rooted in bigotry, subtle or overt, the existence of a helper program is only something they can latch onto for some sense of "legitimacy".

Until they learn otherwise, a bigot will be a bigot for any reason they can grab onto. Ridding a good idea because it may potentially trigger bigots is just shortsighted at best.

Discriminating against someone for the race or gender is generally a bad thing whether its some white shitbags not letting black people in their racist ass country clubs or black people not letting white people in their less racist ass clubs.

Well, I honestly wouldn't feel good either if I was denied entry into a space with prejudiced intent against white people, but on the other hand I wouldn't have to care because there are thousands of other spaces that wouldn't and would probably welcome me moreso simply because I'm white. Subconscious bias still exists, and the balance of power still favors white people in the world. I have the privilege of having more spaces open to me because of my skin color, whereas historically black people have not.

Though I acknowledge there can be some good reasons for having "segregated" events and there is some damn good reasons why some people might be excluded. Men DO prey on women and act like sexist shitbags, whites HAVE historically been oppressors towards non-whites (and white's with different religions and from different places and poor whites) but surely there is a problem with painting an entire people with a broad brush?

Like I said, I feel uncomfortable that I might be included in someone's negative perception of white people, but I can at least understand why they would feel that way. It's not even been a century since racial segregation in the US and other utterly racist laws in other countries have been repealed; this stuff is still within living memory. I can only imagine it'll fully disappear in at least 100-200 years from now. Far beyond my lifetime. We don't live in a perfect world, and no, I'm not personally responsible for the atrocities committed by those who have lived long before me, but I know my position in society is elevated because of those atrocities. I can only work to use my position to make things better for those who were affected.

As for my problem with "people of color", there are multiple reasons. First it sounds far too much like the old racist (though still quite current for Cliven Bundy) term "colored people".

Second it seems incorrect because with the exception of literally black people and albinos everyone's skin is colored. Black and white are not colors but very few people can actually be considered truely white or black both physically and genetically.

Third, its seems pretty insulting both to white fucks and everyone else that "people of color" is literally everyone that isn't white. It implies white people are an other and everyone else is the same. Asians, africans, natives, all just lumped in together.

On the first point, I can kind of see how you would see that. It's a semantic issue; a friend of mine commented that the phrasing of "colored people" has too much of a traumatic history with her family, whereas phrased differently into "people of color" that history is not so easily associated. Hence the preference.

On the second and third points, you're taking a literal definition into something that is used in a sociopolitical context. Technically by the literal definition yes I do have a "color", and if you go far enough back into my genetic line I probably have black genes somewhere (my mom is from a Caribbean island), but I don't really see myself as having color because my skin is as mayo as any other Southern white. I don't really see myself has having any right to claim it.

The third point especially, the use of nonwhite would still mean the same exact thing, and you used it yourself just here. I don't know what you would prefer instead.

For myself, usually because it does the same thing people complain the acronym SJW does, lump a large group of people with different experiences, challenges and viewpoints into one homogenous blob.

Pursuant to what I said to Joun, yeah the viewpoints and histories of African, Caribbean, Latino, Arab, Asian, Native/Aboriginal, and other communities are all different, but the use of people of color is primarily to relate their collective position against white people. Structurally, each member still has a long way to go until their social positions are comparative to whites, so it is useful when describing marginalized people of race to have a blanket term.

Otherwise yes attempting to use it all the time for every situation with no nuance at all can be problematic, but it in no way can be equated to what SJW has become.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Though I acknowledge there can be some good reasons for having "segregated" events and there is some damn good reasons why some people might be excluded. Men DO prey on women and act like sexist shitbags, whites HAVE historically been oppressors towards non-whites (and white's with different religions and from different places and poor whites) but surely there is a problem with painting an entire people with a broad brush?

I will go into this with a specific example. The LGBTQ community.

White gay dudes tend to take over everything. No matter what group it was originally, if you let My People (white gays) in, our particular interests will eventually completely dominate any activist efforts made. Everyone else gets marginalized or outright thrown under the bus, particularly transpeople, in groups they themselves founded.

So there are very very good reasons to not let white gay dudes in, if you want to focus activism efforts on the needs of gay black people, or transpeople etc. It is not even malice per se, people will naturally want to direct activities toward their own pet projects or interests, but there are so many many more white gay dudes than anyone else with the possible exception of white lesbians (who share many but not all of the same political interests, and of course everyone forgets about bisexual people of various genders) and they tend to be in positions of societal power/have more money. So they eventually take over. This is not even limited to activist groups, but social clubs and recreational venues too.

[Joun_Lord]

This reminds me of cases people make against affirmative action rules, where people say affirmative action tends to make everyone believe the nearest marginalized person only received their spot because affirmative action gave it to them. I'd argue this is a complete fallacy; whether or not affirmative action, or <marginalized group>-exclusive spaces exist, the same types of people would still believe said marginalized person does not deserve their spot. Rooted in bigotry, subtle or overt, the existence of a helper program is only something they can latch onto for some sense of "legitimacy".

Until they learn otherwise, a bigot will be a bigot for any reason they can grab onto. Ridding a good idea because it may potentially trigger bigots is just shortsighted at best.

Bigots are gonna be bigots no matter what, atleast until they get a reality check (if ever that comes their way). Assuming you aren't implying I'm a bigot, probably not but my reading comprehension has been shite lately.

Well, I honestly wouldn't feel good either if I was denied entry into a space with prejudiced intent against white people, but on the other hand I wouldn't have to care because there are thousands of other spaces that wouldn't and would probably welcome me moreso simply because I'm white. Subconscious bias still exists, and the balance of power still favors white people in the world. I have the privilege of having more spaces open to me because of my skin color, whereas historically black people have not.

That is where I respectfully disagree. There have been historically places anyone who wasn't white have been unwelcome except as servants. These places need to be desegregated and to an extent they have been. You don't finish the job though by segregating other areas. You can't fight bias with bias, prejudice with prejudice. Probably my white privilege showing but ALL the barriers should be take down.

Like I said, I feel uncomfortable that I might be included in someone's negative perception of white people, but I can at least understand why they would feel that way. It's not even been a century since racial segregation in the US and other utterly racist laws in other countries have been repealed; this stuff is still within living memory. I can only imagine it'll fully disappear in at least 100-200 years from now. Far beyond my lifetime. We don't live in a perfect world, and no, I'm not personally responsible for the atrocities committed by those who have lived long before me, but I know my position in society is elevated because of those atrocities. I can only work to use my position to make things better for those who were affected.

Yes it is quite understandable why some might have a negative perception of whitey. White people have done some pretty heinous shit, still do some pretty heinous shit at time. There is a whole history books worth of crimes committed by white people in America and beyond in the unimportant rest of the world. These are facts except for really deluded conservatives.

But it is also a fact that using actions committed by a group to punish an individual is wrong. Racist shitbags when they want to whine about BLM (the other one, not the Bundy related one) like to point out how black people make up less then 20% of the population but over 50 percent of the crime, that black on white crime is far more likely to occur then white on black. These are facts. But despite the facts does anyone but racist assholes and more then a few cops believe its right to profile black people as violent criminals?

No, fuck no. Thats wronger then Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump having sex, its just not right. And more then a bit disgusting. Profiling an entire people for the crimes of a few is wrong, punishing people for the sins of their people is wrong, the time on my computer is wrong and I need to fix that, fucking time zones.

On the first point, I can kind of see how you would see that. It's a semantic issue; a friend of mine commented that the phrasing of "colored people" has too much of a traumatic history with her family, whereas phrased differently into "people of color" that history is not so easily associated. Hence the preference.

On the second and third points, you're taking a literal definition into something that is used in a sociopolitical context. Technically by the literal definition yes I do have a "color", and if you go far enough back into my genetic line I probably have black genes somewhere (my mom is from a Caribbean island), but I don't really see myself as having color because my skin is as mayo as any other Southern white. I don't really see myself has having any right to claim it.

The third point especially, the use of nonwhite would still mean the same exact thing, and you used it yourself just here. I don't know what you would prefer instead.

I'm not sure how adding a "of" and changing the words around makes it less objectionable. It still feels like the same term.

The current definition of race had to have evolved from a bunch of slavery bullshit and its continued inaccurate usage is I think terrible. I know the alternatives are little better like "african american" and "caucasion" however. The literal reality of skin color though is the fact its inaccurate that way too. People of eurocommie descent are not people of color despite being pinkish or peachish, people of African descent who come in a whole range of hues are black, and asians are yellow because social inertia. Its like if social inertia said the sky is fire engine red and grass is rainbow colored. Its clearly inaccurate. I assume so anyway.

As for the last, non-white to describe anyone who isn't white seems more palpable because its got similar descriptors for other races. You can say "non-black" or "non-asian" or "non-eskimo". Its not just white people and everyone else like people of color. It makes things I guess more equal. Just semantic bullshit.

I will go into this with a specific example. The LGBTQ community.

White gay dudes tend to take over everything. No matter what group it was originally, if you let My People (white gays) in, our particular interests will eventually completely dominate any activist efforts made. Everyone else gets marginalized or outright thrown under the bus, particularly transpeople, in groups they themselves founded.

So there are very very good reasons to not let white gay dudes in, if you want to focus activism efforts on the needs of gay black people, or transpeople etc. It is not even malice per se, people will naturally want to direct activities toward their own pet projects or interests, but there are so many many more white gay dudes than anyone else with the possible exception of white lesbians (who share many but not all of the same political interests, and of course everyone forgets about bisexual people of various genders) and they tend to be in positions of societal power/have more money. So they eventually take over. This is not even limited to activist groups, but social clubs and recreational venues too.

Surely not letting white dudes in also means they aren't getting the support white guys can provide. They're are cutting out an entire group of allies, a notably numerous, well connected, and powerful group.

Seems like maybe a catch-22 possibly. Try to get the gay male support and they get overrun but if they don't get the support they risk getting overrun because of a lack of resources.

[Flagg]

I love it when people who haven't experienced trauma to the point where they feel the need to isolate themselves tell the people who have what they should and shouldn't feel and ridicule them for needing a place where they can feel halfway comfortable. I mean they go so far as to mock people who have or had severe traumatic experiences as "Social Justice Warriors" )and what's wrong with wanting social justice, anyway?). This is just a case of "I don't care, turn your frown upside down".

[Dragon Angel]

Assuming you aren't implying I'm a bigot, probably not but my reading comprehension has been shite lately.

What? No, not at all. Your reasoning just struck me on the same note as that; even people without bigotry in their hearts can think this sentiment. That's just naivety.

That is where I respectfully disagree. There have been historically places anyone who wasn't white have been unwelcome except as servants. These places need to be desegregated and to an extent they have been. You don't finish the job though by segregating other areas. You can't fight bias with bias, prejudice with prejudice. Probably my white privilege showing but ALL the barriers should be take down.

It kind of is your privilege showing. In a perfect world, I would agree there should be no barriers. That perfect world only exists in the future of Star Trek at the moment though with no end in our lifetimes in sight. Whites being excluded from black clubs is not equivalent to blacks being excluded from white clubs due to history such as exactly what you said. Historically, we haven't had enormous amounts of white people being enslaved by black slave owners. Historically, we haven't had black-majority global powers colonize and rape the resources of white nations, leaving desolation and tribal warfare when they finally left. Historically, we haven't had an all-black national government impose restrictive laws that basically relegated white people as third-class citizens.

What is necessary is ceasing the thought process that these two are at all equivalent. They're both undesirable, but one has vastly more historical weight and trauma behind it. You can't just force all of that out of someone without taking major steps to truly equalize society for every human being of every race. We haven't nearly done that yet.

But it is also a fact that using actions committed by a group to punish an individual is wrong. Racist shitbags when they want to whine about BLM (the other one, not the Bundy related one) like to point out how black people make up less then 20% of the population but over 50 percent of the crime, that black on white crime is far more likely to occur then white on black. These are facts. But despite the facts does anyone but racist assholes and more then a few cops believe its right to profile black people as violent criminals?

No, fuck no. Thats wronger then Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump having sex, its just not right. And more then a bit disgusting. Profiling an entire people for the crimes of a few is wrong, punishing people for the sins of their people is wrong, the time on my computer is wrong and I need to fix that, fucking time zones.

How widespread do you think this "profiling all white people" effect is in terms of organized black-oriented groups? Aside from speaking of certain people on an individual level who have, rational or not, beliefs about white people, and aside from things like the professional listing I mentioned for people of color, I don't believe this is quite as extensive as you think it is.

I'm not sure how adding a "of" and changing the words around makes it less objectionable. It still feels like the same term.

The current definition of race had to have evolved from a bunch of slavery bullshit and its continued inaccurate usage is I think terrible. I know the alternatives are little better like "african american" and "caucasion" however. The literal reality of skin color though is the fact its inaccurate that way too. People of eurocommie descent are not people of color despite being pinkish or peachish, people of African descent who come in a whole range of hues are black, and asians are yellow because social inertia. Its like if social inertia said the sky is fire engine red and grass is rainbow colored. Its clearly inaccurate. I assume so anyway.

As for the last, non-white to describe anyone who isn't white seems more palpable because its got similar descriptors for other races. You can say "non-black" or "non-asian" or "non-eskimo". Its not just white people and everyone else like people of color. It makes things I guess more equal. Just semantic bullshit.

I dunno man. If people in communities of color want me to use that term, who am I to disagree? It's not in my purview to judge what a person of color considers is beneficial or harmful to themself as a white chick.

It sounds like you just really disagree with the concept of color, which sounds like what people say about "not seeing race". You can't just remove all context and expect the people who have been affected by it to agree with that. It just blinds you to why these problems even exist in the first place.

Surely not letting white dudes in also means they aren't getting the support white guys can provide. They're are cutting out an entire group of allies, a notably numerous, well connected, and powerful group.

Seems like maybe a catch-22 possibly. Try to get the gay male support and they get overrun but if they don't get the support they risk getting overrun because of a lack of resources.

Alyrium can provide you more information, but what he says is quite true. I'll also add that there are certain white gays/lesbians who are violently opposed to groups like trans people existing. Look up Cathy Brennan for an egregious example of this.

As far as "allies" are concerned, there is a place for them. However, as they are allies, as in not part of the specific marginalized group, they should not be involved in deciding what is best for that marginalized group. White gays/lesbians should not be deciding matters for trans people, and so on. Listen, yes. Boost their voices, yes. A role in activist decision making? Extremely minimal, at best.