U. of Chicago tells SJWs to shove it

[Joun_Lord]

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.

I'll admit I am a bit naive when it comes to such things.

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.

I know the historical wrongs made by white people. Minorities, even some other white people, got a raw deal. Now I ain't going to say its all in the past and therefore all better because even I'm not that naive. But I will say we should be striving for equality, to move beyond the horrors of the past into a future free of terrible racism.

To do so one must understand the past so we might learn from it, so we might never ever fucking ever repeat it. Burying our heads in the sand and saying "la la la" allows the past to be repeated. But not only whites should be learning from the past. Others should learn the ills of prejudice too so as to not do the same damn thing.

Some black club telling a white person they aren't allowed is nowhere near as bad as other crimes committed in the past by whites (and not doubt still perpetrated some) but its still a crime, its still prejudice. Yes its got a history behind it of white people doing it first but you can't fight prejudice with prejudice, two wrongs don't make a right. They are both undesirable, historical weight behind one or not.

Yeah thats probably my privilege talking but also the talk of someone who honestly believes in equality. And I don't believe equality can be achieved by more inequality.

Now I acknowledge that maybe there is a real world need for some inequality (positive inequality I guess). Things like affirmative action is inequality but done so in order to level the playing field. Grants for less well off people, minorities of all kinds. From what I heard even being from Appalachia can get you some minority grants. Its not equality, the government is handing off the same grants to well off people especially white people from well off areas. But those grants help minorities get helping hand to compete with more well off people.

But I don't see denying entry based on race or gender or religion or whatever to a meeting or establishment as on the same grounds as providing a boost to a less fortunate group.

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 don't actually think its thats extensive. Other then a few noisy attention whore assholes in mainstream and crap tons of internet groups who existence is debatable, I don't believe most black oriented groups are prejudiced against all white people. I believe, I hope, that people who have suffered from prejudice and profiling would know the pain and danger of it and not do it themselves.

It would be like me as a atheist doing religious prosecution. I know whats its like to have a hard time because of my religion (or rather lack of) and so I know I wouldn't want to give people shit for their religion. But I'm sure some atheists do attack people for their religion because they are massive douchebags who think because they were attacked they have cause to attack.

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.

You can disagree because you are not a number, you are a free woman. Them dictating what you can call them would be like you dictating what they can call you. Do you think if you said white people should be called the Floofypants anyone would be inclined to listen? Its best to follow the term they want because it would be rude to not do so but you can have an opinion on it and even choose to not use it if you wanted to be a d-bag. I choose to dislike "people of color" because it sounds racist as crap, that my opinion rightly or wrongly.

And no I don't disagree with the concept of color even if I have trouble seeing it sometimes. Not because I'm some post racial person or something but I bit colorblind literally.

I believe in equality and believe are terms should reflect that. It should not be terms that have one race against every other race unless its done in an equal manner. "People of color" does not seem equal.

Beyond that it doesn't take into account the context. It lumps everyone together except white people. What does a African American male in Failifornia have in common with an Asian woman in asia? The fact they aren't white? Other then that they have two completely different lives, experiences and histories. Why are they lumped together. I mean lumping everyone into a solid homogeneous race is bad enough considering the cultural differences even of the same race have but lumping a bunch of races together solely for the fact they aren't white seems really stupid.

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.

I'm aware of the transphobia some in the LGBT community have. Even in my limited experiences in bumfuck nowhere I've seen some gay people acting like tools towards trans people. One of my friends adoptive dads actually got into a fist fight at some gay club because some idiots there made a scene because they brought their friends who was I guess a transvestite, he was as far as I knew a dude who wore dresses. For some reason that offended them.

Allies was probably the wrong word, but as a part of the group. If you are involved with a group you want to be part of it, to be officially part of it. To use a completely stupid example say I was involved with a group that wanted to restore the Old Dead Star Wars EU. I don't actually have a stake in the fight because I thought the old EU was so terrible that even the ascended fan fiction that was The Force Awakens was superior, I'm not one of the EU'ers. But I'm sympathetic to their plight, I may not have a stake in the fight or even be affected considering my EU books are mostly long since gone but all that shit means something to them and I want to help.

But what if the only way I could help was from them outside. Couldn't join the group, couldn't attend the meetings, couldn't be a part of it except as an outsider. I'd not feel like my contributions are being appreciated or even that I can give all that I can give.

Yeah thats probably a terrible example but a bit of how people excluded from groups might feel. If there was an Olympics for bad example I'd take home the gold for sure.

[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

Ummm... Greg Lukianoff used to work for the California ACLU and is a self-described liberal. What?

I was being sarcastic.

[Dragon Angel]

To do so one must understand the past so we might learn from it, so we might never ever fucking ever repeat it. Burying our heads in the sand and saying "la la la" allows the past to be repeated. But not only whites should be learning from the past. Others should learn the ills of prejudice too so as to not do the same damn thing.

Some black club telling a white person they aren't allowed is nowhere near as bad as other crimes committed in the past by whites (and not doubt still perpetrated some) but its still a crime, its still prejudice. Yes its got a history behind it of white people doing it first but you can't fight prejudice with prejudice, two wrongs don't make a right. They are both undesirable, historical weight behind one or not.

Yeah thats probably my privilege talking but also the talk of someone who honestly believes in equality. And I don't believe equality can be achieved by more inequality.

"Crime" is an overly melodramatic descriptor here.

Anyway, you're acknowledging privilege here but in the same breath not extending much empathy beyond attempting to intellectualize something that is inherently emotional. If you tried to tell a black person that they should accept some fantasy perfectly-equal world, then you have to show there is real, significant effort toward building that. Right now, what you're saying are virtual platitudes. Tell them to a black person, and you'd only come off as a total bellend.

Black Lives Matter exists for a damn good reason. Black people and other people of color have been victimized by our society for so long, while our society keeps telling them "but racism is over! but everything is fine!" when ... these are clearly false. It's all well and good to imagine us all working together to end prejudice but you have to convince people you really mean it. There needs to be more work on the part of white people, not more words. Until then, there is no way your "we can't fight a wrong with a wrong" will make any sense. As long as these horrible conditions exist, people of color will want to have spaces where they can feel secure and accepted and not threatened by the continuing shit society around them.

In other words, I don't believe you truly understand what is reality on their front lines.

I don't actually think its thats extensive. Other then a few noisy attention whore assholes in mainstream and crap tons of internet groups who existence is debatable, I don't believe most black oriented groups are prejudiced against all white people. I believe, I hope, that people who have suffered from prejudice and profiling would know the pain and danger of it and not do it themselves.

It would be like me as a atheist doing religious prosecution. I know whats its like to have a hard time because of my religion (or rather lack of) and so I know I wouldn't want to give people shit for their religion. But I'm sure some atheists do attack people for their religion because they are massive douchebags who think because they were attacked they have cause to attack.

It's weird you bring up atheism all the time because right at this moment, we don't have politicians trying to blanket profile atheists as suspected terrorists, nor do we have police forces that are more willing to target atheists for random street searches and more willing to open fire on atheists with guns, nor I hope you understand where I'm going with this metaphor because this comparison of yours is hopelessly inadequate.

You can disagree because you are not a number, you are a free woman. Them dictating what you can call them would be like you dictating what they can call you. Do you think if you said white people should be called the Floofypants anyone would be inclined to listen? Its best to follow the term they want because it would be rude to not do so but you can have an opinion on it and even choose to not use it if you wanted to be a d-bag. I choose to dislike "people of color" because it sounds racist as crap, that my opinion rightly or wrongly.

[...]

Beyond that it doesn't take into account the context. It lumps everyone together except white people. What does a African American male in Failifornia have in common with an Asian woman in asia? The fact they aren't white? Other then that they have two completely different lives, experiences and histories. Why are they lumped together. I mean lumping everyone into a solid homogeneous race is bad enough considering the cultural differences even of the same race have but lumping a bunch of races together solely for the fact they aren't white seems really stupid.

You missed what I said to Balrog:

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.

Sure, I can disagree. There are no thought police to arrest me if I disagree. But I ... don't. Because I'm much more inclined to listen to marginalized thinkers about their own matters than some random white person's opinion. I mean, seguewaying into LGBT here, the word "queer" used to have an extremely bad meaning decades ago but nowadays it is meant as a serious descriptor of non-heterosexuality and gender identity. If gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgender people don't mind its use by everyone else, should the rest of society listen to them, or should they listen to someone outside of the group making statements about what's best for them?

Surely, if you're not a part of those groups, trying to make statements like that is the height of arrogance. Think and believe what you want, because after all we are a free country, but that doesn't change how you come off.

Allies was probably the wrong word, but as a part of the group. If you are involved with a group you want to be part of it, to be officially part of it. To use a completely stupid example say I was involved with a group that wanted to restore the Old Dead Star Wars EU. I don't actually have a stake in the fight because I thought the old EU was so terrible that even the ascended fan fiction that was The Force Awakens was superior, I'm not one of the EU'ers. But I'm sympathetic to their plight, I may not have a stake in the fight or even be affected considering my EU books are mostly long since gone but all that shit means something to them and I want to help.

But what if the only way I could help was from them outside. Couldn't join the group, couldn't attend the meetings, couldn't be a part of it except as an outsider. I'd not feel like my contributions are being appreciated or even that I can give all that I can give.

Yeah thats probably a terrible example but a bit of how people excluded from groups might feel. If there was an Olympics for bad example I'd take home the gold for sure.

I, uh ..... what? Apples versus Oranges doesn't properly describe what this turned out as.

[Balrog]

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 does if you believe it's a good idea for educational institutions to be able to invite people with competing viewpoints to speak or give a lecture and allow them to voice their opinions without being silenced by the mob.
Trump is a disgusting human being but actually breaking into one of his rallies for the purpose of trying to censor him isn't going to fix the problem.

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.

Whether or not they give a shit doesn't make it any less important; arguable it's more important if they will only recognize it when it's too late.

Incidentally, if students bear the central responsibility for dealing with things that upset them, isn't protesting the quintessential way of dealing with it?

Protesting is a great way of letting your opposition to a person be heard. Preventing them from speaking is wrong no matter how noble the effort and really doesn't work. Outlawing Holocaust denial or Swastikas haven't exactly done much to dampen down anti-Semitism any more than Prohibition fixed the problem of alcohol consumption. When people talk about ways of combating the spread of radical extremism in the long run, it's always in terms of education and job opportunities, of providing a positive and more alluring alternative, not trying to muzzle them indefinitely (something which the dictatorships do use to keep things stable short-term until uh oh revolution!)

[Balrog]

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.

Therein lies the rub, the only thing shared among these disparate groups is opposition to another group in the vague sense of "these people oppressed us and/or continue to oppress us." Even the nature of the oppression varied at different times and to different degrees. It's like saying "we need to give more aid to the developing world!" Yeah sure, noble goal in the abstract, but the type of aid needed by a Niger is different from what a Chile needs, so talking and acting in terms of what's best for "them" is unwieldy at best.

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.

PoC and SJW serve different purposes though, so it would be hard to equate the two.

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".

That depends Flagg, are you talking about people who have actually been diagnosed with PTSD by trained medical professionals and are receiving treatment from said professionals, or the self-diagnosed people who were "traumatized" by a "bad experience"? The people who want a say in how cultural artifacts made by their ancestors are displayed or the people who think whitey wearing dreadlocks and eating sushi is appropriation? People who fear for their lives or people who decry inconvenience and rudeness as oppression?

Because for the former, the term SJW doesn't really apply, trigger warnings haven't been shown to make much of a difference, and safe spaces can be life-saving. But even then, they have no business forcing a public speaking event to be canceled or cut short because they don't like the person or their message.

[Flagg]

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.

Therein lies the rub, the only thing shared among these disparate groups is opposition to another group in the vague sense of "these people oppressed us and/or continue to oppress us." Even the nature of the oppression varied at different times and to different degrees. It's like saying "we need to give more aid to the developing world!" Yeah sure, noble goal in the abstract, but the type of aid needed by a Niger is different from what a Chile needs, so talking and acting in terms of what's best for "them" is unwieldy at best.

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.

PoC and SJW serve different purposes though, so it would be hard to equate the two.

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".

That depends Flagg, are you talking about people who have actually been diagnosed with PTSD by trained medical professionals and are receiving treatment from said professionals, or the self-diagnosed people who were "traumatized" by a "bad experience"? The people who want a say in how cultural artifacts made by their ancestors are displayed or the people who think whitey wearing dreadlocks and eating sushi is appropriation? People who fear for their lives or people who decry inconvenience and rudeness as oppression?

Because for the former, the term SJW doesn't really apply, trigger warnings haven't been shown to make much of a difference, and safe spaces can be life-saving. But even then, they have no business forcing a public speaking event to be canceled or cut short because they don't like the person or their message.

I don't care if professionals have diagnosed them or not. Most rapes go unreported. And if they paid tuition they damned well do have a right to object to a speaker they find repugnant.

[Guardsman Bass]

What's interesting about the University of Chicago statement is how meaningless it actually is as anything other than grandstanding. The University of Chicago has given no indication that they're about to terminate any safe space programs at U of Chicago (including the one they have for LGBTQA people), nor are they about to change their policy on allowing professors to offer trigger warnings for their courses if they wish. The only part that might mean something is a commitment to not revoke speaking engagements if they generate controversies, which is also the only good part of the letter - having followed the 'Michael Moore at UVSC" controversy years ago, I think a commitment to not revoke a speaker because of controversy is good policy.

What I think this is really aimed at is the conservative parents of University of Chicago students who don't really understand any of this "trigger warning" stuff except the nonsense they've heard on Fox News, and conservative alumni who might withhold donations (and since it's the University of Chicago, I'm going to guess that they've got a lot of conservative alumni).

[Alyrium Denryle]

Some black club telling a white person they aren't allowed is nowhere near as bad as other crimes committed in the past by whites (and not doubt still perpetrated some) but its still a crime, its still prejudice. Yes its got a history behind it of white people doing it first but you can't fight prejudice with prejudice, two wrongs don't make a right. They are both undesirable, historical weight behind one or not.

Yeah thats probably my privilege talking but also the talk of someone who honestly believes in equality. And I don't believe equality can be achieved by more inequality.

Okay. Here we go again. Yes, it is your privilege talking.

I will use an example that, once again, I have personal experience with.

The Gay Establishments

LGBTQ people have to live our lives in a manner that is socially acceptable to cisgender straight people, and controlled by cisgender straight people. I cannot check a guy out without having to be circumspect about it for fear of being beaten. If I find someone attractive and want to ask them out for coffee, I have to play an elaborate game of charades by using the person's vocal inflection, posture, and eye movements, and if I am uncertain, have to drop hints in conversation (that have plausible deniability), all to determine if they are even into dudes. Otherwise, I might freak someone out or risk my physical safety.

Is it getting better? Sure. But you know what, nothing says "you are not necessarily safe" like:

1. Hearing a dude in PE class brag (for norse definitions of the term) about gaybashing while secularly praying your sister's asshole friend does not out you (made me regret being generally out, there were others who knew in that class but they were decent enough not to say anything to the gaybasher), because you have seen that gaybashing asshole naked and he might take offense to that fact (he did out me, BTW. That weeks game of smear the queer was mild by comparison to other incidents--see below--and thankfully the gaybasher was mostly lying).

2. Finding out a (gay) friend died by way of being strapped to a chair and asphyxiated with a plastic bag, and that the police ruled it a suicide. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't, but one is forced to wonder how the hell he got the second hand strapped down.

3.Chipped teeth from rocks thrown at you.

4. Being sexually assaulted in a god damned cafeteria during lunch (attempted but unsuccessful coke-bottle penetration. PM if you want details for some godawful reason) as part of a long series of hate crimes against your person--while school administration did nothing.

5. Finding out when you are 16 that the fights your friends got in when you were 13 and did not want to talk about were them intercepting gaybashers, which probably saved your life.

Because THAT was the shit I had to deal with in my teens. Those last three? I was not even out of the damned closet, but when your mom and aunt have had a "time to coming out" bet going on since you were a god damned toddler, it is going to be pretty easy for teenagers to figure out on their own. I was better at acting "straight" by the time I was sixteen (in time for #1, for all the good that did me).

Gay establishments (clubs, bars etc) give us a place where WE control the agenda (the gay agenda, if you will), can drop our defenses and breeder-friendly masks (if we have them), can meet people we might like, set our own subcultural norms, and generally be surrounded by people with whom we share a certain set of experiences.

You just called our wanting that a god damned crime. Straight people control everything. Media? Yep. Government? Yep. The overwhelming majority of businesses? Yep! The overwhelming majority of public spaces? Yep!

You are 95% of the population. Imagine an egalitarian paradise where no one is a bigoted asshole and everything is 100% open for everyone. Your utopia. We get nothing. Why do we get nothing? Because everything will cater to the dominant socio-cultural group (straight people), and nothing will cater to us, because you are 95% of the population.

"Hey, this seems like a nice bar. When is your drag review night? Oh, you dont have one because straight people tend not to find those enjoyable."
"Hi! I have managed to drink just enough to work up the courage to chat you up but not enough to impair my ability to consent...oh, you are straight just like 95% of the other people here. Well, I guess it is time to find the next cute guy and roll those percentile dice again. But hey, at least I live in an egalitarian utopia and so the worst I can expect is to go home disappointed"
"Hmm. You know what I need? A nice family comedy that looks something like my family. That way the comedy works better because it is like laughing at myse... oh wait. No one makes those because this is an egalitarian utopia and 95% of the population means 100% of the market share. LOGO stopped existing when the revolution happened. I dont even get the stereotype driven comedies like American Family that laugh at me instead of with me anymore."

To beat the dead horse some more, I was in an all-gay fraternity as an undergrad. We did gay things. Our pledge process for example included a 10 dollar budget and a trip to Goodwill. Objective: To put together the most god-awful drag we could create. We then dressed in horrible drag, went grocery shopping, and performed improv while in drag. I ended up playing a deranged grandmother.

In a straight fraternity (or one where most of the members were straight), that would have been hazing. But because gay cultural norms are different than straight cultural norms, it was just fun.

We could not have funded that little expedition by way of a sexy carwash in front of a gay bar if we had a bunch of straight dudes, for obvious reasons.

If we had a bunch of straight guys, we could not have had the "Go around the Trust Circle and actually talk about some of the horrible things that have happened to you because getting it off your chest surrounded by people who have been there can be really helpful" activity, because a bunch of straight guys have not been there. They dont get it. Remember #4 above? That was the first time since I was 14 I talked about that. I did not tell my mom about that until I was in my mid 20s.

....

I imagine it is something similar for other minority groups. For example, take language. African American English is a separate dialect of english. We will leave out its linguistic origins and evolution, but a lot of black people speak two different versions of english, and Standard American is their second dialect. Even for someone who learned both in the cradle (as opposed to one at home, another in school) keeping them separate takes effort. Now imagine going away for university and being in mixed linguistic company ALL the time. Can you imagine how nice it would be to be able to go some place once or twice a week and just... not have to fucking care about that anymore? I can.

By saying "Black people should not be able to have black-only clubs", you take that from them. While white people who are not allowed in lose out on...exactly nothing.

[Dragon Angel]

Therein lies the rub, the only thing shared among these disparate groups is opposition to another group in the vague sense of "these people oppressed us and/or continue to oppress us." Even the nature of the oppression varied at different times and to different degrees. It's like saying "we need to give more aid to the developing world!" Yeah sure, noble goal in the abstract, but the type of aid needed by a Niger is different from what a Chile needs, so talking and acting in terms of what's best for "them" is unwieldy at best.

Tell me something: Are you black? Are you part of any marginalized racial group? Do you have at least some significant family background in a marginalized racial group? Have you even lived in a household for a significant amount of time (i.e. your life) with a marginalized racial family?

I'm finding it interesting that there are several white people with possibly no context whatsoever within these areas in this thread making sweeping judgements about what people of color should use for themselves. I mean, it's not like every marginalized racial person I've known has agreed with the term either, but they've all been for different reasons than this faux-concern for confusing the white man with a gigantic block of issues. Also, at least one person giving some useless semantic argument about "nonwhite" being perfectly okay despite it literally covering the same exact set.

I mean, come on people.

[maraxus2]

It does if you believe it's a good idea for educational institutions to be able to invite people with competing viewpoints to speak or give a lecture and allow them to voice their opinions without being silenced by the mob.
Trump is a disgusting human being but actually breaking into one of his rallies for the purpose of trying to censor him isn't going to fix the problem.

Please don't be disingenuous with me. Banning someone from speaking on campus and exercising the heckler's veto over a speaker are two totally different things.

It's not an abridgment of free speech rights to pressure an institution to uninvite a speaker because of their disgusting views, or the perception thereof. Public figures still have the right to be heard and disseminate their views in public, but they do not have the right to hold speaking engagements wherever they please with no consequences from their previous speech. For example, I see absolutely no problem with George Will getting uninvited from speaking at Scripps College for saying that sexual assault victims are lying because " mak[ing] victimhood a coveted status that confers privileges, victims [will] proliferate. It seems perfectly appropriate to uninvite someone giving a paid speech for expressing that kind of disgusting viewpoint, particularly at a women's college like Scripps.

Whether or not they give a shit doesn't make it any less important; arguable it's more important if they will only recognize it when it's too late.

I beg to differ. Whether students give a shit is the definition of whether it's important. There is, so far as I'm aware, zero evidence of any of the speech abridgments having a chilling effect on campus speech. University students themselves seem to be pretty confident about their first amendment rights.

If speech abridgments don't impact dissemination of ideas (they don't), or impact the quality of education (ditto), and the student's themselves don't care about it, then why should anyone else give a shit?

Protesting is a great way of letting your opposition to a person be heard. Preventing them from speaking is wrong no matter how noble the effort and really doesn't work.

Really? George Will's reputation took a beating in the press after his disgusting sexual assault remarks, and a long-standing women's college didn't end up paying him a couple of grand to speak boring conservative platitudes while getting protested by angry college students.

I fail to see how anyone lost in that scenario.

Outlawing Holocaust denial or Swastikas haven't exactly done much to dampen down anti-Semitism any more than Prohibition fixed the problem of alcohol consumption.

Yeah, just look at all the rampant anti-Semitism in this country. Our long-term experiment with making anti-Semitism socially, politically and legally unacceptable hasn't put a dent in our ugly history with the Jews.

Universities outlaw neo-nazis and holocaust denial on campus all the time. It has rightly been pushed into the domain of discredited and highly mockable dipshits.

When people talk about ways of combating the spread of radical extremism in the long run, it's always in terms of education and job opportunities, of providing a positive and more alluring alternative, not trying to muzzle them indefinitely (something which the dictatorships do use to keep things stable short-term until uh oh revolution!)

? You think there's some kind of low-boil support for the likes of Condi Rice, George Will, Milo, and Steve Crowder? Support that's going to radicalize people into a revolution? I'll grant you that muzzling ALL public dissent is bad for governance in the long-run. I see no particular reason why that applies to this situation.

This whole discussion about free speech on campus is a non-issue, and is only an issue with wider salience because reactionary forces are making it an issue.

[maraxus2]

I know the historical wrongs made by white people. Minorities, even some other white people, got a raw deal. Now I ain't going to say its all in the past and therefore all better because even I'm not that naive. But I will say we should be striving for equality, to move beyond the horrors of the past into a future free of terrible racism.

Stay woke, Joun.

To do so one must understand the past so we might learn from it, so we might never ever fucking ever repeat it. Burying our heads in the sand and saying "la la la" allows the past to be repeated. But not only whites should be learning from the past. Others should learn the ills of prejudice too so as to not do the same damn thing.

Sorry, who's burying their heads in the sand? If anything, public universities are far more inclined to make students aware of the US' ugly oppression, past and present.

"Others" indeed. As though the BSU on any given campus is unaware of the "ills of prejudice."

Some black club telling a white person they aren't allowed is nowhere near as bad as other crimes committed in the past by whites (and not doubt still perpetrated some) but its still a crime, its still prejudice. Yes its got a history behind it of white people doing it first but you can't fight prejudice with prejudice, two wrongs don't make a right. They are both undesirable, historical weight behind one or not.

Yeah thats probably my privilege talking but also the talk of someone who honestly believes in equality. And I don't believe equality can be achieved by more inequality.

I will give a shit about exclusively black student organizations just as soon as one constructs an all-pervasive black supremacist system that extracts wealth from white people. Because that's essentially what we have here in the states.

Looking at a BSU's exclusivity as some kind of attack on white people/whiteness, or even promoting inequality is missing the vast primeval forest for the trees. There's so much systemic oppression against People of Color, and Black people in particular, that it's hard for me to get terribly worked up over a small student group.

[Simon_Jester]

Listening to Alyrium talk made me think of something, while on the subject of 'safe spaces.' It's not the same, but I begin to think that it is at least vaguely similar.

See, I'm a high school math teacher.

Like most American high schools, my school has a teacher's lounge. Students are not allowed in.

The teacher's lounge is singularly unimpressive, consisting of a copier, a set of mail cubbies, some chairs and tables, and three vending machines sporting comically overpriced fare. And yet...

If you meet someone in there, you can make certain assumptions.

They are* capable of solving their own problems, rationally balancing priorities, helping you usefully with real problems if you genuinely need their help. They're not going to ask you for a favor you can't grant and resent you because they just don't get how "doing your job" works.* They're not going to suddenly explode into a blaze of self-righteous entitled stupidity.* They don't go around with a foolish "you're not the boss of me" chip on their shoulder that makes any attempt to interact with them an exercise in futility. They won't shout random curse words for the novelty of it.

They will not be giving you teenager-crap, as nearly every teenager sometimes does, even the brightest and best of them.

They are, in short, a grownup. Everyone you meet in that room is a grownup.

When you work in a building where adolescents outnumber grownups by twenty to one, this can be an intensely reassuring environment to enter, even for a few minutes. And I suddenly get the notion that this is somehow at least vaguely comparable to the sense of psychological security that minority groups can get from entering a place where only members of their minority go.

Here is the place where you can act the way you actually want to act, and not have to worry about constantly making impressions on people who Do Not Think Like You At All. HERE is the place where other people are 'normal' in the sense that you can comprehend what is going on in their heads. Here is the place where other people think you are normal, conversely. HERE is the place where hopefully, no one will give you crap! You can spend half an hour of your life without anyone giving you crap! This is wonderful!

I could never, ever want to take that beautiful feeling away from anyone. Even my worst enemy deserves at least a little time to feel normal, instead of feeling like they're surrounded by vaguely annoying lunatics who just happen to make up 95% of the population.
________________

*Several of my statements must be footnoted with a 'mostly,' but you get the idea...

[mr friendly guy]

The only people on the left I am aware of who use "SJW" in the pejorative sense - which is really the only sense it truly has anymore - are anarchists and Marxists and othersuch people who reject privilege theory as being insufficiently class conscious. A typical argument from that crowd might be that privilege theory does nothing to address the forces of capitalism at work beneath the scenes that subvert otherwise revolutionary forces built around social identities like race, queerness or gender into being just new consumable capitalist fads. Black liberation movements merely turned black identity into something "cool" to project in consumable media, like disco, soul and hip-hop music without actually advancing the interests of average black working class and poor people, they might say. A typical counterargument might be that such a person is being a "class reductionist", and so it goes. The truth probably includes elements of both perspectives.

If someone other than that is claiming to be ringing the bell about the dreaded SJWs on the left, you can be pretty well guaranteed that they're either naive and have gleaned together what little they know about the subject from the meme factories at 4chan and 8chan by way of Facebook and Youtube, or they're just plain dishonest concern trolls.

The other term used pretty much as a synonym for SJW is Regressive left. You might be more familiar with that one. If not, there are plenty of self identify liberals on YT who use regressive left as a perjorative. For example David Pakman (the David Pakman show), Dave Rubin (The Rubin report) and these are just people who have their own shows rather than just some random guy or girl running their own youtube channel. And I believe these guys also have used the term SJW, although they prefer to use the term regressive left. Sounds more descriptive than SJW.

So even if you personally haven't seen its there on other platforms than ones you might usually be exposed to.

[Balrog]

I don't care if professionals have diagnosed them or not. Most rapes go unreported.

Yes, god forbid people get diagnosed and receive treatment that actually helps them, you'd have to be just fucking crazy to believe in such an oppressive idea. That's why people should also stop going to doctors to determine if they have a physical illness and instead read WebMD before using Traditional Chinese medicine.

And last I checked, filing a police report is not a prerequisite to seeking mental health care. Obviously the trend of unreported rapes needs to be reversed, and if someone's not going to the police they likewise might not seek medical help, but that's different than the subject at hand and not everyone demanding trigger warnings is doing so solely for reasons of rape.

And if they paid tuition they damned well do have a right to object to a speaker they find repugnant.

Sure, stage a protest. Unless you think universities should be turned into direct democracies and the student body makes every decision or policy. Somehow I don't think that would work out too well.

Tell me something: Are you black? Are you part of any marginalized racial group? Do you have at least some significant family background in a marginalized racial group? Have you even lived in a household for a significant amount of time (i.e. your life) with a marginalized racial family?

Oh goody, identity politics. I suppose I could share some family history (it only takes one drop, right?) or disclose membership within another community that is oppressed by mainstream society, but I have no wish to do that, partly because I have no desire to use my private life to win a public debate, partly because I oppose that type of essentialist thinking as being reductive and, in the end, self-destructive. Take that answer how you will.

I mean, it's not like every marginalized racial person I've known has agreed with the term either, but they've all been for different reasons than this faux-concern for confusing the white man with a gigantic block of issues.

I'm curious then, what is an appropriate reason to oppose that term?

[Balrog]

Please don't be disingenuous with me. Banning someone from speaking on campus and exercising the heckler's veto over a speaker are two totally different things.

Yeah, one takes place before the speech starts, the other takes place during the middle of the speech. Same effect.

It's not an abridgment of free speech rights to pressure an institution to uninvite a speaker because of their disgusting views, or the perception thereof. Public figures still have the right to be heard and disseminate their views in public, but they do not have the right to hold speaking engagements wherever they please with no consequences from their previous speech.

Yes, they have a right to protest such a decision and should exercise that right. But it can have a chilling effect when overused.

For example, I see absolutely no problem with George Will getting uninvited from speaking at Scripps College for saying that sexual assault victims are lying because " mak[ing] victimhood a coveted status that confers privileges, victims [will] proliferate.

Would you say the same thing about when Alice Walker was disinvited from speaking at the University of Michigan because of her views on Israel? Or is that fair game as well?

I beg to differ. Whether students give a shit is the definition of whether it's important.

So a natural right is only worth protecting as long as people think it is? That's a very dangerous mentality to have.

Yeah, just look at all the rampant anti-Semitism in this country. Our long-term experiment with making anti-Semitism socially, politically and legally unacceptable hasn't put a dent in our ugly history with the Jews.

Perhaps you ought to clue in President Obama on how anti-Semitism is no longer a problem then. Meanwhile in Europe, where governments actually do legally restrict hate speech, that has not stopped a rise in far-right or outright Nazi political parties.

I'll grant you that muzzling ALL public dissent is bad for governance in the long-run. I see no particular reason why that applies to this situation.

Because today's annoyance can become tomorrow's serious problem, and when Pew shows
40% of Millennials favor the government banning offensive speech against minorities that is already a dangerously high number: it's one thing to make it socially unacceptable to make bigoted speeches, it's another for a government to literally police ideas with some vague standard of what is or isn't offensive. If they grow older and their views become more mainstream with greater acceptance, it will have a damaging effect on freedom of speech.

[Dragon Angel]

Oh goody, identity politics. I suppose I could share some family history (it only takes one drop, right?) or disclose membership within another community that is oppressed by mainstream society, but I have no wish to do that, partly because I have no desire to use my private life to win a public debate, partly because I oppose that type of essentialist thinking as being reductive and, in the end, self-destructive. Take that answer how you will.

Next up: A panel of cis dudes meet to determine if calling transgender people "trannies" should be the norm.

I'm not asking you for me to "win" this debate. I really don't care at all about "winning" since both you and I know we're probably not changing our positions. I'm asking you so I know whether to take your opinion with a modicum of seriousness or not. I have no interest in listening to people bloviate on something they have absolutely no idea what the context feels like, in which Joun very much gives me that impression.

I'm curious then, what is an appropriate reason to oppose that term?

It's not a matter of having an "appropriate reason". It's a matter of having that reason formulated by close and intimate experiences with the communities you are talking about.

[Flagg]

I don't care if professionals have diagnosed them or not. Most rapes go unreported.

Yes, god forbid people get diagnosed and receive treatment that actually helps them, you'd have to be just fucking crazy to believe in such an oppressive idea. That's why people should also stop going to doctors to determine if they have a physical illness and instead read WebMD before using Traditional Chinese medicine.

And last I checked, filing a police report is not a prerequisite to seeking mental health care. Obviously the trend of unreported rapes needs to be reversed, and if someone's not going to the police they likewise might not seek medical help, but that's different than the subject at hand and not everyone demanding trigger warnings is doing so solely for reasons of rape.

And if they paid tuition they damned well do have a right to object to a speaker they find repugnant.

Sure, stage a protest. Unless you think universities should be turned into direct democracies and the student body makes every decision or policy. Somehow I don't think that would work out too well.

Tell me something: Are you black? Are you part of any marginalized racial group? Do you have at least some significant family background in a marginalized racial group? Have you even lived in a household for a significant amount of time (i.e. your life) with a marginalized racial family?

Oh goody, identity politics. I suppose I could share some family history (it only takes one drop, right?) or disclose membership within another community that is oppressed by mainstream society, but I have no wish to do that, partly because I have no desire to use my private life to win a public debate, partly because I oppose that type of essentialist thinking as being reductive and, in the end, self-destructive. Take that answer how you will.

I mean, it's not like every marginalized racial person I've known has agreed with the term either, but they've all been for different reasons than this faux-concern for confusing the white man with a gigantic block of issues.

I'm curious then, what is an appropriate reason to oppose that term?

I'm not going to explain privilege to a dipshit that doesn't want to be "put out" in the least of ways for people who have suffered trauma to have a safe place to go and obviously knows nothing about mental illness. You are a walking miscarriage.

[Flagg]

BTW Balrog, I don't care if someone has been diagnosed or not to maybe need a safe place. That in no way says they shouldn't see a mental health professional.

As for the issue of rape, you are a sack of shit. Most rapes go unreported due to shame. So know what you're talking about before commenting you dicksnot.

[NecronLord]

Flagg. Rein it in now.

Insults are fine, posts solely intended to insult without any real discussion are not. It's not quite there yet, make sure it doesn't get to that point.

This has been a very fine thread (I find Simon's Staff Room metaphor particularly illuminating and will use it myself in future, and everything Dragon Angel posts is particularly good reading) let's not have it descend into another HoSed shit-banquet.

[Knife]

Oh goody, identity politics. I suppose I could share some family history (it only takes one drop, right?) or disclose membership within another community that is oppressed by mainstream society, but I have no wish to do that, partly because I have no desire to use my private life to win a public debate, partly because I oppose that type of essentialist thinking as being reductive and, in the end, self-destructive. Take that answer how you will.

Next up: A panel of cis dudes meet to determine if calling transgender people "trannies" should be the norm.

Indeed, why would you want 90% on the population to pitch in to fix a sociological problem.

You two are talking past each other on this point. Yes, victims or those actually being affected by an issue should very much be involved in both understanding the issue and it's effect, and involved in the answer. But, so should the rest of society. If you're fixing society, it's best to get everyone on board and if you don't you risk failure when the majority gets preached to by the minority and you get backlash.

Nobody knows what it is like to be oppressed and discriminated because you are black like a black person. But most people know what it is like to be discriminated against in some regards so basic human empathy will usually put them on the black person's side. Telling whitey to shut up and not be part of the conversation only makes your potential allies not want to be your allies.

I will agree, though, that there is a balance. The aggrieved party must be heavily involved and listened to or it's a farce, but not anymore than it is if you lock out the majority. Reeks of vengeance instead of solution.

[Vendetta]

Indeed, why would you want 90% on the population to pitch in to fix a sociological problem.

Trouble is, a statistically significant portion of that 90% are the problem. And the first thing they do when you invite them to discuss the problem is deny that there is a problem or that they're the cause of it.

And this isn't just the people who are actively being assholes, but the people who would rather not have to acknowledge the problem because they'd prefer a nice quiet life where they don't have to think about that kind of thing. The people who will say "I agree that you're being oppressed, but do you have to be so vocal about it?" They might have empathy for the people suffering, but they don't want anything to actually change if it means they personally have to put in effort and experience disruption to make it happen.

So no, massive inclusiveness of people who aren't affected isn't positive, it's a fine way to make sure nothing gets done about the problem.

[Flagg]

Indeed, why would you want 90% on the population to pitch in to fix a sociological problem.

This reminds me of when I lived in FL and how counties almost never could get referendums passed to raise the sales tax for school improvements and building new ones. The sales tax was $0.05 on the dollar from when I moved to Brevard county as a little-ish kid and the day I left to move to WA 20 years later. Why? Because a small but powerful voting block consisted of retirees and "snowbirds" (people that spend summer in the northern states and then the winter in FL where they also usually voted) majority would vote them down with the attitude that (seriously), paraphrasing, (They already paid their taxes to get their kids through school in Buttfuck, Pennsylvania and shouldn't have to pay higher sales tax for us (meaning my fellow students) to get a good education" (Seriously).

[Aether]

The internetized new definition of racism that confuses institutional racism with personal racism and get worse from there has shown up in mainstream, even had some movie about it including the line "black people can't be racist". Because according to the internet racism has a power element and therefore black people can't be racist because they have no power. I'm surprised they haven't said men cannot be raped because they have the power or something equally dumb, not that the actual reality of societies view of male rape survivors is much better.

I don't believe it's the Internet - the "power" element to racism (and sexism) dates back to the 1970's first coined by Pat Bidol and later popularized by Judith Katz. I haven't actually read their material throughly, so I cannot say if their intentions are twisted by young activists looking for something sexy to latch onto.
But the way the Internet does describe racism is prejudice + power. I have a hard time understanding this because I immediately to to the example of how it's impossible for even minorities to be racist against each other. If a Hispanic calls a black person a ni**ger, then that cannot be racist as Hispanics are also minorities in the US.

[Alyrium Denryle]

The internetized new definition of racism that confuses institutional racism with personal racism and get worse from there has shown up in mainstream, even had some movie about it including the line "black people can't be racist". Because according to the internet racism has a power element and therefore black people can't be racist because they have no power. I'm surprised they haven't said men cannot be raped because they have the power or something equally dumb, not that the actual reality of societies view of male rape survivors is much better.

I don't believe it's the Internet - the "power" element to racism (and sexism) dates back to the 1970's first coined by Pat Bidol and later popularized by Judith Katz. I haven't actually read their material throughly, so I cannot say if their intentions are twisted by young activists looking for something sexy to latch onto.
But the way the Internet does describe racism is prejudice + power. I have a hard time understanding this because I immediately to to the example of how it's impossible for even minorities to be racist against each other. If a Hispanic calls a black person a ni**ger, then that cannot be racist as Hispanics are also minorities in the US.

It works like this. Racism as a societal problem is prejudice + power. Prejudice in the mind of someone without power is just annoying, and while it is possible for a black person to be a terrible person, they dont have the power to back it up so it does not matter much.

You can also think of it in terms of the difference between Racism so defined, and A Racist. Racism is a system, a racist is a person.

On the internet, sometimes people fail to make the distinction between the two and conclude that a bigoted minority person cannot be A Racist

What also often happens is that Racism the system is conflated with individual prejudice. So a police officer working in a racist system is assumed to be personally prejudiced, which in a racist system need not be the case--or at least need not be the case in a way that the police officer can even be aware of. Unconscious as opposed to conscious biases.

[Aether]

The internetized new definition of racism that confuses institutional racism with personal racism and get worse from there has shown up in mainstream, even had some movie about it including the line "black people can't be racist". Because according to the internet racism has a power element and therefore black people can't be racist because they have no power. I'm surprised they haven't said men cannot be raped because they have the power or something equally dumb, not that the actual reality of societies view of male rape survivors is much better.

I don't believe it's the Internet - the "power" element to racism (and sexism) dates back to the 1970's first coined by Pat Bidol and later popularized by Judith Katz. I haven't actually read their material throughly, so I cannot say if their intentions are twisted by young activists looking for something sexy to latch onto.
But the way the Internet does describe racism is prejudice + power. I have a hard time understanding this because I immediately to to the example of how it's impossible for even minorities to be racist against each other. If a Hispanic calls a black person a ni**ger, then that cannot be racist as Hispanics are also minorities in the US.

It works like this. Racism as a societal problem is prejudice + power. Prejudice in the mind of someone without power is just annoying, and while it is possible for a black person to be a terrible person, they dont have the power to back it up so it does not matter much.

You can also think of it in terms of the difference between Racism so defined, and A Racist. Racism is a system, a racist is a person.

On the internet, sometimes people fail to make the distinction between the two and conclude that a bigoted minority person cannot be A Racist

What also often happens is that Racism the system is conflated with individual prejudice. So a police officer working in a racist system is assumed to be personally prejudiced, which in a racist system need not be the case--or at least need not be the case in a way that the police officer can even be aware of. Unconscious as opposed to conscious biases.

I would tend to agree with institutional and personal aspects of racism, but talking amongst friends, reading activist blogs, etc. this is not what is communicated. Or if it is, it is communicated very poorly. There very much is a "only white people can be racist" among the young, liberal crowd (regressive left if you wish). A lot of it has to do, I think, with bumper sticker/cotton-candy/look-at-me-see-what-I-care-about activism. Sure, it tastes good and it's empty calories,but there is no interest to really go deeper. By doing so, the discussion is immediately shutdown.