Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
Did people really expect him to recant all of his ideas because of hurt feelings? Do they ever actually engage with other human beings or have the most basic understanding of human psychology?
Did people really expect him to recant all of his ideas because of hurt feelings? Do they ever actually engage with other human beings or have the most basic understanding of human psychology?
Why hurt feelings as opposed to, say, finding a viewpoint the University holds to be sufficiently problematic to raise a stink about it?
Seriously, if you're on the right side of this debate, you should not need to reduce the protesters' issues to "their feelings were hurt."
While I can see merit behind the protest, that girl in the video did it no favors by screaming and getting emotional, arguing that a university is "not an intellectual space" but "a home."Why hurt feelings as opposed to, say, finding a viewpoint the University holds to be sufficiently problematic to raise a stink about it?
Seriously, if you're on the right side of this debate, you should not need to reduce the protesters' issues to "their feelings were hurt."
What is a safe space though--somewhere where you will never be offended by anything?I can't remember if it was in the thread that was closed, but someone said something to effect of "free speech" being the argument for those that already have a disproportionate voice that don't want to make more room for marginalized voices.
Now I don't believe that safe spaces exist or that they ever will, but I'm not against efforts to try and make them.
What specific viewpoint is that?
and saying shit like "BE QUIET! WHO THE FUCK HIRED YOU?!" to the man attempting a dialogue.While I can see merit behind the protest, that girl in the video did it no favors by screaming and getting emotional, arguing that a university is "not an intellectual space" but "a home."
Isn't this reducing the letter's argument down to "free speech," when that was only one component of it? How is this different from reducing the protesters' argument down to hurt feelings?Basically, "I believe in free speech" in the context of the Halloween costumes. That comment either means that it's open season for horribly offensive costumes, or that there is a point that that person would stop believing in free speech to punish someone for wearing a horribly offensive costume.
Whoever argued that is obviously ignorant to the origins and history of protected speech.I can't remember if it was in the thread that was closed, but someone said something to effect of "free speech" being the argument for those that already have a disproportionate voice that don't want to make more room for marginalized voices.
Now I don't believe that safe spaces exist or that they ever will, but I'm not against efforts to try and make them.
Basically, "I believe in free speech" in the context of the Halloween costumes. That comment either means that it's open season for horribly offensive costumes, or that there is a point that that person would stop believing in free speech to punish someone for wearing a horribly offensive costume.
"I don’t, actually, trust myself to foist my Halloweenish standards and motives on others. I can’t defend them anymore than you could defend yours,” wrote Christakis, a lecturer at the Yale Child Study Center and the wife of Nicholas Christakis, a sociologist and physician and the master of Silliman College. “Nicholas says, if you don’t like a costume someone is wearing, look away, or tell them you are offended. Talk to each other. Free speech and the ability to tolerate offence are the hallmarks of a free and open society.
they were demanding someone be fired for their fairly reasonable response to the issue. I don't really see how that's understandable on any level.
Yes, they can. From poliical satire at Dutch and German carnival to freedom of expression at gay parades.Costumes aren't challenging people intellectually.
Yes, they can. From poliical satire at Dutch and German carnival to freedom of expression at gay parades.
I meant that in her mind, it should be open season. Not that it made it so. Thus, I am wondering if she considers all costumes to be protected by free speech, no matter what they may depict.
Intellectual
Challenging
Free speech
etc.
I don't take issue with her concerns over offensive, racist costumes, I take issue with her and others demanding someone be fired based on a letter sent out.
Aren't Universities supposed to be provocative, transgressive, offensive, obnoxious, etc.? Trying to get someone fired for their views sounds like it could be any one of those things. Or is that mindset limited to the right to dress in blackface?
We're obviously speaking in the context of Halloween. People are not typically doing this as a matter of positive expression, and any costume affected by this ruling, I highly doubt would be a costume that could be interpreted as a positive expression. No, carnival costumes and gay pride parade costumes aren't what is at stake here.
Also, yes, I'm aware that you're against laws that punish people for hanging nooses on trees, Snowman.
Nooses are very obviously THREATENING speech, not merely expressive. Dumbass costumes are the latter.
Wait. How do you define the difference? Is this a Potter Stewart-style situation?
Well, she was afforded to opportunity to make a fool of herself, so it's obviously not limited to blackface.Aren't Universities supposed to be provocative, transgressive, offensive, obnoxious, etc.? Trying to get someone fired for their views sounds like it could be any one of those things. Or is that mindset limited to the right to dress in blackface?
Wait. How do you define the difference? Is this a Potter Stewart-style situation?
A lack of diversity in the faculty
We're obviously speaking in the context of Halloween. People are not typically doing this as a matter of positive expression, and any costume affected by this ruling, I highly doubt would be a costume that could be interpreted as a positive expression. No, carnival costumes and gay pride parade costumes aren't what is at stake here.
Also, yes, I'm aware that you're against laws that punish people for hanging nooses on trees, Snowman.
Aren't Universities supposed to be provocative, transgressive, offensive, obnoxious, etc.? Trying to get someone fired for their views sounds like it could be any one of those things. Or is that mindset limited to the right to dress in blackface?
Well, she was afforded to opportunity to make a fool of herself, so it's obviously not limited to blackface.
I think you can define that difference a hell of a lot more easily than what is offensive. a noose around a tree implies and threatens violence, murder and terror. A person in a black-face costume does not.
As for not standing with the students, then what do you think the punishment for students who wear offensive costumes should be? And what should we deem as offensive?
I understand this is a very emotional subject, but how the hell is this girl going to function when she enters the real world? When she gets offended by someone at work, is she going to throw a hissy fit? Hopefully she does some growing up before graduation.
His views are for free speech and however that extends, it's obviously not in favour of racist costumes.
and yes, asking for someone to be fired in their response to a response, is idiotic and kinda insane.
ITT supporting free speech = calling someone a "fag".
Well I'm glad I visited off topic today, time to check out.
I was obviously replying to someone who had a double standard on free speech. Read.
What is a hate crime? What is hate speech? What is a threat? How do we determine these things? How do we punish people for these things? How harsh a punishment should a person receive because they put up nooses to have a slave era party? Is that a threat, or is that just stupid kids being obnoxious?
I remember one time, a co-worker got mad at me and started calling me a fag repeatedly. I got offended and got that person fired. What kind of asshole gets someone fired just because they spoke their mind?
These views protect racist costumes.
Also, that's a juvenile view of this situation. A person shouldn't be able to be fired over a "response to a response"? What does that even mean? The students are upset because the response contained something that they deemed sufficiently offensive to justify it. I think we can all agree that someone who uses the word "fag" on the job should be fired, yeah? That's a good springing point, yes? So we can establish that, indeed, being offensive can get you fired justifiably. At what point is the offense low enough to not make the firing justifiable? Who determines that, and how?
The issue with this thread is that ultimately, a lot of the people who criticize the protesters cannot elaborate upon that. It's often vague stuff, like simplifying it to "mad because of hurt feelings" or "wanting someone fired because of a response to a response(?)", when the details are more complicated than that. These people cannot explain when being offensive becomes improper (if ever), nor has anyone been able to explain why a noose is a threat, but a person wearing a noose and blackface is not.
Are you seriously trying to connect someone defending their stance behind an email to using a directed slur?
I seem to be missing the double standard. Taking issue with someone's actions doesn't mean you want to limit their ability to take action.I was obviously replying to someone who had a double standard on free speech. Read.
I seem to be missing the double standard. Taking issue with someone's actions doesn't mean you want to limit their ability to take action.
Why does this thread rely so heavily on reducing the issue to stuff like "a stance behind an email"? It almost seems like you're constantly trying to say that there's nothing to be offended by in the email but you'd rather not have to.
Again - people are upset because they found the stance offensive. Of course they're going to be bothered by a person doubling down on their stance.
as I've made clear, my issue isn't with the students having a problem with the email, it's their behaviour and actions (at least in this video) that I find repulsive.
You do understand that "supporting free speech" in the appropriate context could refer to "supporting someone calling another person a fag", right? Shit, someone in this thread said as much by saying that they oppose hate speech laws.
People aren't upset that a person was "for free speech." Don't be obtuse. The reason they were upset is because the speech that was being supported was in and of itself potentially offensive. Hardly a Halloween passes without a big story about a super offensive Halloween costume.
What is a hate crime? What is hate speech? What is a threat? How do we determine these things? How do we punish people for these things? How harsh a punishment should a person receive because they put up nooses to have a slave era party? Is that a threat, or is that just stupid kids being obnoxious?
These views protect racist costumes.
Also, that's a juvenile view of this situation. A person shouldn't be able to be fired over a "response to a response"? What does that even mean? The students are upset because the response contained something that they deemed sufficiently offensive to justify it. I think we can all agree that someone who uses the word "fag" on the job should be fired, yeah? That's a good springing point, yes? So we can establish that, indeed, being offensive can get you fired justifiably. At what point is the offense low enough to not make the firing justifiable? Who determines that, and how?
The issue with this thread is that ultimately, a lot of the people who criticize the protesters cannot elaborate upon that. It's often vague stuff, like simplifying it to "mad because of hurt feelings" or "wanting someone fired because of a response to a response(?)", when the details are more complicated than that. These people cannot explain when being offensive becomes improper (if ever), nor has anyone been able to explain why a noose is a threat, but a person wearing a noose and blackface is not.
If you are a proponent of free speech, you cannot be in favour of a person's right to express what was written in the email but also against a person's right to introduce consequences for that speech.
I understand this is a very emotional subject, but how the hell is this girl going to function when she enters the real world? When she gets offended by someone at work, is she going to throw a hissy fit? Hopefully she does some growing up before graduation.
Literally zero human beings in this thread have advocated for one single thing to happen to her specifically because she advocated in favour of free speech. Literally every person who has implied that is actively ignoring the actual issue and is discussing something that does not exist in any way, shape or form. She is being protested because of the CONTEXT of her defense of free speech.
All right. From this point on, I reserve the right to just disregard anyone who misrepresents the story in this way. Because you actually need to make an effort to ignore the actual narrative.
100%, no one is advocating for her to be affected by her free speech. I specifically have responded to these claims by laying out that it's about what specific speech she is defending, multiple times. I am utterly gobsmacked to be in a thread where people are claiming to have the stronger position and yet cannot stand without removing details from the story and creating gross simplifications of the protest's goals and what was said that made protesters upset.
So, can we please, please, stop pretending that people are upset because "she defended free speech." It's an intellectually vacant argument and insults everyone involved in the discussion.
And let me bold this REclarification.
If the context of her defending free speech was her defending a person's right to refer to people as fags, then would you dismiss the protesters as protesting people just because they were defending free speech? That is exactly why it is an asinine argument. A person is not "just" defending free speech. Even people who are defending good speech, it should not simply be characterized as a situation where someone came under attack for defending free speech. Context is key. Some defense of free speech can be good, some defense of free speech can be bad. The only way to understand which is which is to apply context to them, so I ask that you stop making it about the fact that she defended speech and make it about what speech she was defending.
Please, do me a favour. Choose:
1. Show me a post where I implied that she should be punished solely for supporting free speech.
2. Apologize for making things up about what I said.
3. Leave NeoGAF.
These are your options, because if you're making claims of what I've said and can't do either the first or second, what did you even come to this discussion for?