Feminism and why it's bad.

Well of course I meant it in the old fashioned way ;)

I guess we all know what is part of the problem ...



syllabels. Bann them! That should solve it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
adp472M_460s.jpg
 
Books aren't being banned.
Click to expand...

Perhaps not so orwellian, no, but that and all the other things you posited aren't things I said were happening, but still:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJaM8IOev7E&t=01m05s

Research isn't being stymied.
Click to expand...

Accusations are a powerful weapon in science though.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/16/female-scientists-support-nobel-laureate-accused-of-sexism/
http://www.theguardian.com/science/...storm-reignited-scientist-quits-writers-group

Trigger warnings aren't preventing teachers from discussing anything.
Click to expand...

Well this is just a silly argument. Is any opposing person making this argument? No. There is plenty of good criticism leveled at trigger warnings though, here's just one:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/11106670/Trigger-warnings-more-harm-than-good.html

Students refusing to play Blurred Lines or boycotting American Sniper aren't actually banning the creation of these products, and they're not materially preventing anyone from listening to that song or going to see that movie if they want to.
Click to expand...

http://www.theguardian.com/education/2013/sep/20/robin-thicke-blurred-lines-ban
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/...lurred-Lines-over-fears-it-promotes-rape.html
http://www.theguardian.com/music/2013/nov/12/robin-thicke-blurred-lines-banned-another-university

And we're talking about colleges here, not whether social justice is actively supressing the creation of certain things. That is not a counter argument to anything I have said. I believe "moving the goal posts" applies to a lot of your points here.

Sander said:
That is a nice collection of paranoid reactions there, Akratus. A really good example of exactly the kind of paranoia I'm talking about. That is: people freaking out about some symbolic gestures. Books aren't being banned. Research isn't being stymied. Trigger warnings aren't preventing teachers from discussing anything. Students refusing to play Blurred Lines or boycotting American Sniper aren't actually banning the creation of these products, and they're not materially preventing anyone from listening to that song or going to see that movie if they want to. They're making symbolic gestures. To quote Freddie DeBoer
Click to expand...

X amounts of colleges have "free speech zones". These colleges are coincidentally the most leftist colleges. It seems that most people who know the law AGREE that this violates the first amendment. Whether or not some people are paranoid, a genuine problem exists that would be very wrong to leave unadressed.

I didn't even mention boycotting or refusing to play music. That's not what this is about at all.

In certain campuses, students are not allowed to make a non-leftist news outlet. They are not allowed to distribute their own completely harmless opinions lest pre-approved by the leftist administration.

There is nothing wrong with being on the left side of the political spectrum, but there is something wrong with using one's authority to take away one's first amendment exactly in the environment that needed it most.

If you actually watched or click on any of the things I posted you would know that it is more than paranoid reactions.

How is it freaking out about a symbolic gesture to sue the campus for sending security after you for distributing the constitution itself on constitution day?

They won that lawsuit by the way. The court agreed. You either face the fact that at least this one instance was a genuine concern, or you listen to this:

Chewbacca is a wookie.

Wookies come from the planet Kashykk.

But he lives on the planet Endor.

THIS DOES NOT MAKE SENSE.
 
Last edited:
No, you're totally a neckbeard shitlord. I was triggered by this.

I've been spasming violently for hours after reading this.

The only thing I've been mouthing during that time was "Fuck my ass."
 
Hassknecht said:
It's not about political correctness, it's about changing curricula because some students might be "triggered" or otherwise incapable of handling it. It's about "safe spaces" with videos of kittens, Play-Doh and calming music for grown up people who are incapable of handling critical thoughts.
Click to expand...
None of these things are happening, though. Curricula are not being changed to accommodate traumatized students -- hell, trigger warnings are pretty damn rare right now, let alone actual adjustments. And trigger warnings are not there to eliminate material from the curriculum (then we'd call them ban orders, not warnings), but to allow students who are dealing with trauma to continue to participate by preparing them for the material and allowing them to make informed decisions about their mental health. None of this means you change the curriculum, or change the demands placed on students for passing a course -- it just means showing a minimum of awareness for the presence of trauma.

Similarly, the presence of a safe space somewhere is not insulating people from the real world. Everyone has to live in the real world day in and day out. For some that's more traumatizing than others, and offering people a temporary option in a specific place to help them process trauma can help them. Note the "temporary option" and "specific place" -- not "permanent environment" and "everywhere."

Most notably, none of this says anything about their ability to "handle critical thoughts." How does giving people prior warning about content prevent them from engaging in discussions? How does giving people a safe space prevent them from engaging in critical thought? It doesn't, because no one is asked or given the opportunity to live their lives or even a significant portion of their time like that.


This is paranoia. A moral panic over some symbolic gestures, rather than a reaction to material changes.

@Akratus: You're conflating a bunch of things now. I was talking about paranoid reactions to political correctness. Some of what you're presenting falls under that -- like the complaints over "bans" on Blurred Lines, which amounts to little more than "we won't play this because it's shite." The notion that the university is just a source of uncritical, accommodating thought is completely divorced from the reality of campus life and university classrooms.

I would agree with you that campus free speech zones are a problem. However, these have nothing to do with political correctness. They're a Vietnam War era policies -- a way for universities to stifle protesters -- and not in any way a result of the political correctness or paranoia over it that I was talking about.

Akratus said:
In certain campuses, students are not allowed to make a non-leftist news outlet. They are not allowed to distribute their own completely harmless opinions lest pre-approved by the leftist administration.
Click to expand...
Please give me an example of this happening.
 
Sander said:
Please give me an example of this happening.
Click to expand...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/educatio...-speech-magazine-because-it-is-offensive.html
Oxford University Student Union bans free speech magazine because it is 'offensive'

The prestigious university's Student's Union was not impressed by the magazine, which is called 'No Offence'
Click to expand...

https://www.cir-usa.org/cases/hinkle-v-baker/
California school scrambles to settle with CIR

In another victory for CIR, California Polytechnic State University agreed that it was improper to punish a student soley on the grounds that other students found his speech to be contraversial. The school agreed to clear Steve’s student record, let him post fliers in the future, and pay $40,000 in legal fees.

Steven Hinkle goes to court to challenge one-sided use of student conduct code

Steven Hinkle’s problems began on November 12, 2002, while he was posting fliers around the campus of California Polytechnic State University in San Luis Obispo, where he is a student.
Click to expand...

Thankfully the court sided with him. But it's sad he had to go to court at all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHyvRHrYYBA&t=40m23s

Also I had already given you an example in my previous listing of videos and links. Please don't respond to things you pay no attention to.
 
The first link says that the magazine will not be distributed at a specific fair, which is a far cry from being "banned" -- and note that the student union, not a "leftist administration" is doing that. The video talks about one incident eleven years ago of people stealing the Yale Free Press which, again, hardly constitutes banning it -- and the Yale Free Press continues to exist and be distributed. CIR vs. Hinkle talks about an incident from thirteen years ago that they won.

These are three individual incidents, one of which constitutes punishment for speech, none of which constitute banning speech, and two of which happened more than ten years ago. That's the basis of your moral panic over leftists oppressing free speech on campus? That is some weaksauce stuff.

This is the specific claim you made:

"In certain campuses, students are not allowed to make a non-leftist news outlet. They are not allowed to distribute their own completely harmless opinions lest pre-approved by the leftist administration."

It is baloney. There is no campus where students are not allowed to make "a non-leftist news outlet" nor a campus where a "leftist administration" has to pre-approve opinions before they're distributed.

Once again: paranoia about things that simply aren't happening.
 
I don't care about the examples I posited. There's plenty. Look up FIRE.

Should I really be the one to educate you about your oposition?

You didn't even fully reply to my previous posts.

Okay, here's what I'm gonna do:
 
There is a whole class in this new globalist economy that is full of parasites. They are the class that constantly looks for an oppurtunity to be offended, or feel justified about things that don't effect anyone. These people are particularly the reason that real issues are not solved and our real freedoms are encroached upon. They sling a storm of shit infront of the eyes of the public, and no one dares face the storm of muck that these pigs infect people with. The whole world would change the instant that these people disappeared, and it is quite a shame that so many weak-souled mutants roam free with no real problems to solidify any sort of personal character.

They are an army of clones that advocate the personal rights of being justified for nothing. They are the useful idiots of facist that rape the economy and take away the real political and personal rights of individuals. To say that one is for freedom, to say that one is for socialism or community, to say one is for peace and love, you are automatically grouped by the right into this rabble of drooling retards, who's most traumatic experience was a sarcastic social media comment.


When I see the culture spread itself and grow, I unfortunately pray for the day the entire system we have built falls apart, and people learn what the real world is like.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I have looked for examples before. Every time I do, I run into the same thing: symbolic actions (like 'banning' Blurred Lines) and student protests. What I don't find is banning of speech, and what I certainly don't find is examples of campuses banning a "non-leftist news outlet" or a "leftist administration" banning people from distributing "harmless opinions."

You know what I can find? Liberty University, the most conservative college in the USA, forcing students to attend convocations three times per week to listen to mostly conservative speakers, enacting ridiculous personal conduct policies, and banning student participation in any demonstration, petition or picketing even off-campus. Conservative (and Mormon) Brigham Young University using "honor code" regulations to legislate private lives of individuals in a racist manner. UK universities banning sit-in protests (building occupations) -- traditionally a tool of left-wing students used by both the civil rights movement, and those aiming for more student say in university affairs.


What I can't find examples of is left-wing administrations banning speech, or requiring pre-approval of speech, or really anything you've specifically claimed is a threat to higher education other than free speech zones, which again, have zip-all to do with leftism or political correctness.
 
Sander said:
ILiberty University, the most conservative college in the USA, forcing students to attend convocations three times per week to listen to mostly conservative speakers, enacting ridiculous personal conduct policies, and banning student participation in any demonstration, petition or picketing even off-campus. Conservative (and Mormon) Brigham Young University using "honor code" regulations to legislate private lives of individuals in a racist manner. UK universities banning sit-in protests (building occupations) -- traditionally a tool of left-wing students used by both the civil rights movement, and those aiming for more student say in university affairs.
Click to expand...
Those are non-state, private, fringe, religious schools. You know what you're getting with those schools. Be kind of like joining the Nation of Islam and then asking where all the Jewish girls and pork rinds are at.
 
Privileged people trying to sound like victims by saying awful things about cancer. That's just amazing.
 
"Privilege" has become the go to word of people who are paid to write on blogs and drink wine to paint themselves as victims and part of the proletariat while some people can't even eat anything the whole day and have to scrub toilets to make ends meet.
 
Dismissing the word "privilege" has predictably become the go-to means for people to close their eyes to the real effects of the various axes of privilege. And yes, class privilege is one of those axes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top