• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

Missouri collegiate Football team starts strike over racism at school

Status
Not open for further replies.

freeofgreed

Member
Mar 7, 2013
6,830
2
0
Is the media thing not a big deal regardless of people's motives?

1) Did I say it wasn't a big deal?

2) Even though I personally don't agree with it, there is a valid reason on why the students didn't want the media there. It's not a clear cut thing of it being right/wrong.

The resignation was number two on their list of demands, and number one was a ridiculous public shaming of him, so it's a pretty big one.



Most of the others aren't things that can happen overnight (and aren't expected to)

Where does it say that the list is in order of importance? Also those are their solutions to the problem, not the problem itself.
 

Guileless

Temp Banned for Remedial Purposes
Jun 7, 2004
10,551
2,126
1,925
Memphis
Plus a lot of people (not on gaf specifically) are using the whole media thing to disregard the original intent of the protesters entirely.

People are discussing the media incident in the context of the illiberal tactics of the movement generally, not just the media incident specifically. Do you object to discussing the tactics of the movement because it is sacred and holy something you agree with? Do you think that people protesting racism gives them immunity to do whatever they want? I'm sure you don't.

See, e.g., Jonathan Chait:

The upsurge of political correctness is not just greasy-kid stuff, and it’s not just a bunch of weird, unfortunate events that somehow keep happening over and over. It’s the expression of a political culture with consistent norms, and philosophical premises that happen to be incompatible with liberalism. The reason every Marxist government in the history of the world turned massively repressive is not because they all had the misfortune of being hijacked by murderous thugs. It’s that the ideology itself prioritizes class justice over individual rights and makes no allowance for legitimate disagreement. (For those inclined to defend p.c. on the grounds that racism and sexism are important, bear in mind that the forms of repression Marxist government set out to eradicate were hardly imaginary.)...

The scene in Columbia and the recent scene in New Haven share a similar structure: jeering student mobs expressing incredulity at the idea of political democracy. As far as the students are concerned, they represent the cause of anti-racism, a fact that renders the need for debate irrelevant. Defenses of p.c. tactics simply sweep aside objections to the tactics as self-interested whining.
 

freeofgreed

Member
Mar 7, 2013
6,830
2
0
People are discussing the media incident in the context of the illiberal tactics of the movement generally, not just the media incident specifically. Do you object to discussing the tactics of the movement because it is sacred and holy something you agree with? Do you think that people protesting racism gives them immunity to do whatever they want? I'm sure you don't.

See, e.g., Jonathan Chait:

Again where did I say I have a problem with people discussing the media incident? I explicitly said (in the very quote you posted!) my problem was with the people who were using it to dispel the protests altogether and I even stated this wasn't specifically about Neogaf, on top of that I even said I don't agree with what the protesters did in that situation! But keep making shit posts.
 
Feb 9, 2012
3,131
0
0
Oh god, not Jonathan Chait AGAIN.

Here's a tip, quote that guy who got clowned wholesale by black female activists and Ta-Nehisi Coates isn't going to sell.

Definitely not when talking about black movements. Y'all really shoot yourselves in the foot bringing him.
 

Gotdatmoney

Member
May 5, 2014
9,911
2
0
People are discussing the media incident in the context of the illiberal tactics of the movement generally, not just the media incident specifically. Do you object to discussing the tactics of the movement because it is sacred and holy something you agree with? Do you think that people protesting racism gives them immunity to do whatever they want? I'm sure you don't

This is pretty much exactly the issue I am describing. Its not in question that they were wrong, its not even a talking point, the issue is, once again something meant to address race has spin off into political correctness and freedom of speech as though these things were ever in question. News flash, they weren't. So how have we managed four pages where we chastise the movement and not even acknowledge anything relating to the MAIN issue that even lead to the spin off?

I know why but like, its just so ridiculous its being spun like everyone here isn't aware of this flaw in the protest.

In the spirit of encouraging discussion on the main point I will bring up something. How do you guys feel about race or nationality specitic clubs being alloeed to use school resources to opperate? My own controversial opinion but if imo if we want to create campuses where we encourages the diversity, these clubs shouldnt get access to school funds. They should be allowed to operate their and pay for room rentals etc but I think they should be exempt from benefit.

So basically am saying the school should allow for a black students association or a chinese students association on campus but those groups are not allowed to apply for university funding. I think the existance of those groups is good, but given the nature (and I'm aware normally anybodycan join university funded clubs) they really are too divisive to use school funding to operate.

Discuss
 
Oct 13, 2012
10,431
1
0
People are discussing the media incident in the context of the illiberal tactics of the movement generally, not just the media incident specifically. Do you object to discussing the tactics of the movement because it is sacred and holy something you agree with? Do you think that people protesting racism gives them immunity to do whatever they want? I'm sure you don't.

See, e.g., Jonathan Chait:

Jonathan Chait is all over the place there. His argument is intellectually embarrassing. Bringing up Marxism in an attempt to co-opt a sense of authority by making (false) assertions about history. It also, like every other attempt to distract from the actual issue, focuses completely on fringe issues and ignores the core issue.

Mizzou is a race relations flash point and it's not because of Marxists or the P.C. police. Chait just makes it about those things because he is more comfortable railing against them. He doesn't want to talk about the huge, obvious race issues in this country. He wants to sit on the sidelines and snipe.

That article is like watching someone desperately trying not to drown on the ocean and criticizing their stroke. "The real problem here is your lack of Olympic form!" People are hurt and desperate; hurt and desperate people don't act perfectly.
 

Shai-Tan

Member
Mar 16, 2009
6,453
972
1,145
I think people like Chait are perpetuating a moral panic on the other side. Anecdotally based generalizations, catastrophizing descriptions; sounds like a lot of the articles decrying "safe space" to me in the framework used to criticize it. These issues are topics of legitimate discussion but there are intellectual standards that should be adhered to when making claims.
 
Feb 9, 2012
3,131
0
0
In the spirit of encouraging discussion on the main point I will bring up something. How do you guys feel about race or nationality specitic clubs being alloeed to use school resources to operate? My own controversial opinion but if imo if we want to create campuses where we encourages the diversity, these clubs shouldnt get access to school funds. They should be allowed to operate their and pay for room rentals etc but I think they should be exempt from benefit.

So basically am saying the school should allow for a black students association or a chinese students association on campus but those groups are not allowed to apply for university funding. I think the existance of those groups is good, but given the nature (and I'm aware normally anybodycan join university funded clubs) they really are too divisive to use school funding to operate.

Discuss

In my experience (private colleges), those clubs will die instantly if run like that. And as a consequence, the student body will suffer for it.
 

Jonm1010

Banned
Feb 13, 2005
15,791
0
0
Is there a way to talk about the topic of changing(or not changing) dialogue and tactics of millennials and liberals on college campuses and in life without anecdotal evidence?

I mean people are criticizing Chait for that but as far as I know there is going to be a reliance on anecdotal evidence because as of right now that is what we have.
 

excelsiorlef

Member
Sep 20, 2014
32,454
9
525
Burnaby, BC
This is pretty much exactly the issue I am describing. Its not in question that they were wrong, its not even a talking point, the issue is, once again something meant to address race has spin off into political correctness and freedom of speech as though these things were ever in question. News flash, they weren't. So how have we managed four pages where we chastise the movement and not even acknowledge anything relating to the MAIN issue that even lead to the spin off?

I know why but like, its just so ridiculous its being spun like everyone here isn't aware of this flaw in the protest.

In the spirit of encouraging discussion on the main point I will bring up something. How do you guys feel about race or nationality specitic clubs being alloeed to use school resources to opperate? My own controversial opinion but if imo if we want to create campuses where we encourages the diversity, these clubs shouldnt get access to school funds. They should be allowed to operate their and pay for room rentals etc but I think they should be exempt from benefit.

So basically am saying the school should allow for a black students association or a chinese students association on campus but those groups are not allowed to apply for university funding. I think the existance of those groups is good, but given the nature (and I'm aware normally anybodycan join university funded clubs) they really are too divisive to use school funding to operate.

Discuss

Terrible idea that will result in white dominated funded clubs that exclude racial minorities unofficially
 

freeofgreed

Member
Mar 7, 2013
6,830
2
0
This is pretty much exactly the issue I am describing. Its not in question that they were wrong, its not even a talking point, the issue is, once again something meant to address race has spin off into political correctness and freedom of speech as though these things were ever in question. News flash, they weren't. So how have we managed four pages where we chastise the movement and not even acknowledge anything relating to the MAIN issue that even lead to the spin off?

I know why but like, its just so ridiculous its being spun like everyone here isn't aware of this flaw in the protest.

In the spirit of encouraging discussion on the main point I will bring up something. How do you guys feel about race or nationality specitic clubs being alloeed to use school resources to opperate? My own controversial opinion but if imo if we want to create campuses where we encourages the diversity, these clubs shouldnt get access to school funds. They should be allowed to operate their and pay for room rentals etc but I think they should be exempt from benefit.

So basically am saying the school should allow for a black students association or a chinese students association on campus but those groups are not allowed to apply for university funding. I think the existance of those groups is good, but given the nature (and I'm aware normally anybodycan join university funded clubs) they really are too divisive to use school funding to operate.

Discuss

I'm pretty sure anyone of any ethnicity is allowed to join those clubs though.
 
Oct 13, 2012
10,431
1
0
Is there a way to talk about the topic of changing(or not changing) dialogue and tactics of millennials and liberals on college campuses and in life without anecdotal evidence?

I mean people are criticizing Chait for that but as far as I know there is going to be a reliance on anecdotal evidence because as of right now that is what we have.

If all you have is unreliable evidence, why are you writing an article in the first place? Why are you trying to make assertions about events that you don't understand?

I mean, I know the answer in Chait's case: To get pageviews and reinforce your (and your readers) preexisting worldviews. He doesn't get a pass for slinging shit just because he doesn't know what's going on.
 

Jonm1010

Banned
Feb 13, 2005
15,791
0
0
If all you have is unreliable evidence, why are you writing an article in the first place? Why are you trying to make assertions about events that you don't understand?

I mean, I know the answer in Chait's case: To get pageviews and reinforce your (and your readers) preexisting worldviews. He doesn't get a pass for slinging shit just because he doesn't know what's going on.

I am not familiar with Chait but I wouldn't call the arguments put forth by, say, The Atlantic on the topic of liberal activism and safe spaces to be rooted in unreliable evidence. Are people only supposed to write about topics that have double blind studies produced on the topic at hand? Do we apply this same logic to the op-eds on the other page that people were championing like that Wash Post editorial?
 

Shai-Tan

Member
Mar 16, 2009
6,453
972
1,145
That article is like watching someone desperately trying not to drown on the ocean and criticizing their stroke. "The real problem here is your lack of Olympic form!" People are hurt and desperate; hurt and desperate people don't act perfectly.

That said I do think there is a point to some criticisms coming from that direction. I see a lot of examples of what is called magnification where one seeks out and interprets events in ways that fit a point of view without considering evidence, alternative explanations, or relative frequency. Solidarity and sharing experiences is good but it can feed what is called negative rumination which makes one less resilient and prone to errors in interpreting ambiguous situations (e.g. He's looking at me because of x) to negative general inferences from isolated situations (someone said something hostile to me, therefore it's what people around me think even if they aren't saying it). So it isn't only about a misunderstanding in issues or a conflict between opposing values - there is some genuine disagreement about what is part of a framework for addressing intolerance and racism. For the people defending free speech, cultivating a good environment emerges from everyone working on their development, sharing ideas and disagreements. That is what should ultimately happen though dialogue about these issues, although it's obviously more difficult in the south where it's much larger than the university.
 
Oct 13, 2012
10,431
1
0
I am not familiar with Chait but I wouldn't call the arguments put forth by, say, The Atlantic on the topic of liberal activism and safe spaces to be rooted in unreliable evidence. Are people only supposed to write about topics that have double blind studies produced on the topic at hand? Do we apply this same logic to the op-eds on the other page that people were championing like that Wash Post editorial?

I am very specifically talking about Chait's article. which is a bunch of hokum.

The problem with social studies, in general, is that they, by necessity, take one element in isolation. An act that is taken as a solution to a problem, will look illogical when taken out of the context of the problem.

That said I do think there is a point to some criticisms coming from that direction. I see a lot of examples of what is called magnification where one seeks out and interprets events in ways that fit a point of view without considering evidence, alternative explanations, or relative frequency. Solidarity and sharing experiences is good but it can feed what is called negative rumination which makes one less resilient and prone to errors in interpreting ambiguous situations (e.g. He's looking at me because of x) to negative general inferences from isolated situations (someone said something hostile to me, therefore it's what people around me think even if they aren't saying it). So it isn't only about a misunderstanding in issues or a conflict between opposing values - there is some genuine disagreement about what is part of a framework for addressing intolerance and racism. For the people defending free speech, cultivating a good environment emerges from everyone working on their development, sharing ideas and disagreements. That is what should ultimately happen though dialogue about these issues, although it's obviously more difficult in the south where it's much larger than the university.

The reason people disagree with what actions are currently viable stems from a disagreement about what the current state of affairs is.

The context matters. Free speech should be defended in some contexts and not as much in others. The seminal example being that in the context of a crowded theater, you do not have the right to scream fire when there is no fire.

If we acknowledge that the situation is a mess, a tangled and dangerous web of centuries of prejudice, then actions have a different context. Looking in from the outside with the presupposition that we can understand exactly the proper way for everyone to act isn't realistic. There is a point to those criticisms, but they miss the point.
 

Shai-Tan

Member
Mar 16, 2009
6,453
972
1,145
The context matters. Free speech should be defended in some contexts and not as much in others. The seminal example being that in the context of a crowded theater, you do not have the right to scream fire when there is no fire.

If we acknowledge that the situation is a mess, a tangled and dangerous web of centuries of prejudice, then actions have a different context. Looking in from the outside with the presupposition that we can understand exactly the proper way for everyone to act isn't realistic. There is a point to those criticisms, but they miss the point.

I agree, and said so in the Yale thread days ago. Christakis definitely went into that email with an agenda regarding free speech that was probably in part primed by some articles she read about safe spaces (in follow up discussion she posted Jonathan Haidt's article); but I also don't think it's entirely beside the point. There really is a philosophical difference regarding how to approach the issue

(aside: Hitchens opens with a funny point about the shouting fire in a crowded theater example in one of the videos I posted in that comment I was referring to http://m.neogaf.com/showpost.php?p=184948163 )
 

devilhawk

Member
Jun 2, 2007
6,560
0
0
I am very specifically talking about Chait's article. which is a bunch of hokum.

The problem with social studies, in general, is that they, by necessity, take one element in isolation. An act that is taken as a solution to a problem, will look illogical when taken out of the context of the problem.



The reason people disagree with what actions are currently viable stems from a disagreement about what the current state of affairs is.

The context matters. Free speech should be defended in some contexts and not as much in others. The seminal example being that in the context of a crowded theater, you do not have the right to scream fire when there is no fire.

If we acknowledge that the situation is a mess, a tangled and dangerous web of centuries of prejudice, then actions have a different context. Looking in from the outside with the presupposition that we can understand exactly the proper way for everyone to act isn't realistic. There is a point to those criticisms, but they miss the point.
The more germane example would be the student body president screaming KKK to a scared campus.
 

mre

Golden Domers are chickenshit!!
May 19, 2006
30,263
0
1,590
Filed under "ironic timing": Mizzou Wearing All-White Uniforms Saturday vs. BYU. This game had previously been promoted by Missouri as a "white out":

 

Jonm1010

Banned
Feb 13, 2005
15,791
0
0
I agree, and said so in the Yale thread days ago. Christakis definitely went into that email with an agenda regarding free speech that was probably in part primed by some articles she read about safe spaces (in follow up discussion she posted Jonathan Haidt's article); but I also don't think it's entirely beside the point. There really is a philosophical difference regarding how to approach the issue

(aside: Hitchens opens with a funny point about the shouting fire in a crowded theater example in one of the videos I posted in that comment I was referring to http://m.neogaf.com/showpost.php?p=184948163 )

That Hitchens piece is pretty damn great. Thanks. When he is speaking on topics like this he really is at his best.
 
Jul 17, 2013
4,913
0
0
The interim president of the mu system is now Michael Middleton. http://www.columbiamissourian.com/n...cle_b7babde8-895d-11e5-a21f-ebc14a67fcc4.html

I never took one of his classes, he was mostly in administration when I was there, but he was a very well respected person from what I recall and I did hear him speak occassionally and remember being impressed. He should be an excellent steward until a permanent hire can be made. He is 65ish which I would expect is slightly too old to want in the position, particularly given how tumultuous it has been.
 

Gotdatmoney

Member
May 5, 2014
9,911
2
0
In my experience (private colleges), those clubs will die instantly if run like that. And as a consequence, the student body will suffer for it.

Yeah its always been my main point of why I go back and forth on the issue. I dunno how you encourage shit like that to exist without destroying a large part of how they function. I thought of ideas but never reached a solid conclusion.

Terrible idea that will result in white dominated funded clubs that exclude racial minorities unofficially

That is pretty much how it is now. This wouldn't actually make more white dominated clubs as lomg as that funding was dumped into other culturally aware events opposed to just more mobey for other clubs. I understand your underlying point though. I dunno how you would approach something like this.

I'm pretty sure anyone of any ethnicity is allowed to join those clubs though.

Yes. But like as a black guy I am not going to the korean students association to sit in on meetings where they exclusively speak a language I don't understand. Its a superficial rule.


************************
I mainly go back and forth on this issue because in my experience, once you join one of these clubs its almost exclusively who you socialize with. The flip is that I dunno if defunding actually fixes that. Or if that overall is even a bad thing. Personally I stay away from that style of socialization bit I get the inherent value. So its a tough one for me. Is ot the school funding a better overall experience or is it on them to simply let the student group themselves on their own budget.
 

excelsiorlef

Member
Sep 20, 2014
32,454
9
525
Burnaby, BC
That is pretty much how it is now. This wouldn't actually make more white dominated clubs as lomg as that funding was dumped into other culturally aware events opposed to just more mobey for other clubs. I understand your underlying point though. I dunno how you would approach something like this.

But they wouldn't be. That's the point. And if they were they'd get white dominated anyway just on sheer numbers.

Equality is not a natural state.
 

freeofgreed

Member
Mar 7, 2013
6,830
2
0
Yes. But like as a black guy I am not going to the korean students association to sit in on meetings where they exclusively speak a language I don't understand. Its a superficial rule.

Do they do this? I'm pretty sure most of these "ethnic" student associations all speak English. Unless your referring to language clubs, which also do tend to have a lot of regular students who join because they want to practice another language.
 

Gotdatmoney

Member
May 5, 2014
9,911
2
0
Do they do this? I'm pretty sure most of these "ethnic" student associations all speak English. Unless your referring to language clubs, which also do tend to have a lot of regular students who join because they want to practice another language.

Was just an example. The general point of an ethnic student association is pretty much to socialize you with other peoples of that ethnicity. If it wasn't they wouldn't really need to exist. I do get that others do join but generally its not a significant portion.

As a side I'm bringing this up as discussion points. My mind isnt made up, just wanna see what other people think.
 

excelsiorlef

Member
Sep 20, 2014
32,454
9
525
Burnaby, BC
I dont actually understand your point? You'll sorta have to elaborate.

Minorities are by default less in number. If you say no funding for minority based clubs. The majority will rule because numbers talk. Therefore even if you have culturally aware stuff it'll just likely dominated by the majority because they'll have the numbers to assume the leadership positions by in large.

If you don't allow minorities to carve out their own space, all spaces become overrun by the majority. It's a simple numbers game.

Also I don't buy that the money would even go to culturally aware things.
 

Trident

Loaded With Aspartame
Apr 21, 2005
2,094
0
0
Yeah its always been my main point of why I go back and forth on the issue. I dunno how you encourage shit like that to exist without destroying a large part of how they function. I thought of ideas but never reached a solid conclusion.



That is pretty much how it is now. This wouldn't actually make more white dominated clubs as lomg as that funding was dumped into other culturally aware events opposed to just more mobey for other clubs. I understand your underlying point though. I dunno how you would approach something like this.



Yes. But like as a black guy I am not going to the korean students association to sit in on meetings where they exclusively speak a language I don't understand. Its a superficial rule.


************************
I mainly go back and forth on this issue because in my experience, once you join one of these clubs its almost exclusively who you socialize with. The flip is that I dunno if defunding actually fixes that. Or if that overall is even a bad thing. Personally I stay away from that style of socialization bit I get the inherent value. So its a tough one for me. Is ot the school funding a better overall experience or is it on them to simply let the student group themselves on their own budget.

Shouldn't this get its own thread? How is this directly related to the topic of this thread?
 

freeofgreed

Member
Mar 7, 2013
6,830
2
0
Was just an example. The general point of an ethnic student association is pretty much to socialize you with other peoples of that ethnicity. If it wasn't they wouldn't really need to exist. I do get that others do join but generally its not a significant portion.

As a side I'm bringing this up as discussion points. My mind isnt made up, just wanna see what other people think.

I am confused as to why you think they should be allowed to operate but aren't allowed to use school funds. I could see your arguement if you thought they shouldn't exist at all but what difference does it make if they are publicly vs privately funded, if your main concern is that they are divisive?
 

Gotdatmoney

Member
May 5, 2014
9,911
2
0
Shouldn't this get its own thread? How is this directly related to the topic of this thread?

Well I totally could make a new thread. I brought it up mainly because in a campus dealing with racism I figured campus life and how it affected minorities and how you could go about making changes would fit.

Also if I turn it into another thread it will turn into a cesspool of shit posting. At least you get thoughtout response here. I see your point though
 

excelsiorlef

Member
Sep 20, 2014
32,454
9
525
Burnaby, BC
Shouldn't this get its own thread? How is this directly related to the topic of this thread?

To be fair this thread has turned into yet another minorities be protesting wrong with a tinge of PC culture and safe space gone mad.

So at least this is a more interesting conversation than that and actually touches on majority vs minority racial issues.
 

Gotdatmoney

Member
May 5, 2014
9,911
2
0
I am confused as to why you think they should be allowed to operate but aren't allowed to use school funds. I could see your arguement if you thought they shouldn't exist at all but what difference does it make if they are publicly vs privately funded, if your main concern is that they are divisive?

Well any club can pretty much exist on a campus and use facilities. They just dont all get official funding (at least it was like that at my school) so they have to pay to book stuff. That's basically where I am applying that. I dunno of its different at other schools but I am just going by my experience of how I have seen it work.
 

freeofgreed

Member
Mar 7, 2013
6,830
2
0
Well any club can pretty much exist on a campus and use facilities. They just dont all get official funding (at least it was like that at my school) so they have to pay to book stuff. That's basically where I am applying that. I dunno of its different at other schools but I am just going by my experience of how I have seen it work.

I'm fine with them getting publicly funded. Pretty much any club can get university funded. Clubs are by definition meant to be a place where you hang around like minded people. If we started to dictate who gets funded based on how accessible it is we won't have any clubs. For example an anime club would only attract students who like anime, so do you think the students who don't like anime should get to decide that an anime club won't get funded? Yes an afro american society will probably only attract black students in the same way an anime club would only attract anime lovers, but that's fine because like I said earlier anyone is allowed to join either.
 

Gotdatmoney

Member
May 5, 2014
9,911
2
0
I'm fine with them getting publicly funded. Pretty much any club can get university funded. Clubs are by definition meant to be a place where you hang around like minded people. If we started to dictate who gets funded based on how accessible it is we won't have any clubs. For example an anime club would only attract students who like anime, so do you think the students who don't like anime should get to decide that an anime club won't get funded? Yes an afro american society will probably only attract black students in the same way an anime club would only attract anime lovers, but that's fine because like I said earlier anyone is allowed to join either.

Yeah like I was saying, I go back on forth on it from a philosphical level. I get the necessity in a sense and yet I don't really like how they socialize the populace. But then as you said before its not like you will see the diversity spill into other areas, the opposite occurs. So then it becomes just necessary to keep everyone involved in the community in some way which is part of student experience. So its one of those I likke yet I don't sorta things.

Anyway was interested in other opinions. We can all go back to arguing about how the protesters suck now :p
 

Guileless

Temp Banned for Remedial Purposes
Jun 7, 2004
10,551
2,126
1,925
Memphis
Jonathan Chait is all over the place there. His argument is intellectually embarrassing. Bringing up Marxism in an attempt to co-opt a sense of authority by making (false) assertions about history.

Which Marxist governments that prioritized class justice over individual rights did not end up repressive?

People are hurt and desperate; hurt and desperate people don't act perfectly.

Do you think American college students in 2015 are so "hurt and desperate" that we should not expect them to respect basic democratic norms? I'd like to see that argument.

Oh god, not Jonathan Chait AGAIN.

Ta-Nehisi Coates said: "Among opinion writers, Jonathan Chait is outranked in my esteem only by Hendrik Hertzberg. This lovely takedown of Robert Johnson is a classic of the genre, one I studied incessantly when I was sharpening my own sword."

If you disagree with him, fine, let's hear why. Implying that his agreement with any idea discredits it is strange, as his actual policy views and contemptuous opinions of Republicans are each completely mainstream here.

If all you have is unreliable evidence, why are you writing an article in the first place? Why are you trying to make assertions about events that you don't understand?

I mean, I know the answer in Chait's case: To get pageviews and reinforce your (and your readers) preexisting worldviews. He doesn't get a pass for slinging shit just because he doesn't know what's going on.

Consider Fredrik de Boer, a staunchly leftist professor at Purdue:

As I’ve said before, there’s a confusing and frustrating divide on these issues for me. One part of my life, the part that engages with the broader political conversation, is filled with well-meaning liberal and left people who say “oh, there’s no illiberal attitudes among college students — that’s all a conspiracy by the conservative media.” These people, generally, are not on campus. Meanwhile, my extensive connections in the academy, and my continuing friendships with many people who are involved in the world of campus organizing, report that this tendency is true — and often justify it, arguing that this illiberalism is in fact a necessary aspect of achieving social justice. It’s disorienting and frustrating to get arguments of denial in one part of my life and arguments of justification in another...

It’s time to stop pretending that these are isolated, random incidents. We can debate what’s healthy and what’s not, what’s liberal and what’s not, what “safety” should mean on campus and what it shouldn’t. But before we do anything else, we have to be willing to say that something is happening, and that it’s not some figment of the conservative imagination.

And if you are glad something is happening because the current order is irredeemably corrupt, and you think democratic norms and respecting dissent is for suckers, I'd really like to hear how people who are primarily concerned with safe spaces and microaggressions are going to win the civil war against the gun-toting people who'd line up behind a Trump presidency for life.
 

Stumpokapow

listen to the mad man
May 21, 2006
17,232
4
0
Consider Fredrik de Boer, a staunchly leftist professor at Purdue:

As someone just jumping into the thread and generally uninterested in engaging with most of what's going on here, this particular sentence struck me as weird:

1) Freddie isn't a professor, he's a lecturer. There is a distinction in rank, and in number of years experienced. It is the norm in US social sciences and humanities departments that when a promising student dissertates but is not able to find any luck on the job or postdoc market, you offer them a year or two of lecturer work to help ease the transition for them. It's win-win because they keep looking for an academic job which benefits your placement record, and you continue to get their services on the cheap and keep them around. Maybe you knew this, maybe you didn't, but it's unclear why you identified him as a "professor" at all if it wasn't an appeal to authority, so might as well at least state the authority correctly.

2) The description of him as "staunchly leftist" here is unusual. Freddie is absolutely a very talented and articulate progressive writer and thinker. I wouldn't call him staunch, though. He has a reputation for heterodoxy. He guest edited Andrew Sullivan's blog. He's gotten into vivacious debates with other prominent progressive voices. Here's one link to an ongoing argument involving Freddie's defence of Chait's writings on campus politics and how that argument spilled over to the rest of the progressive blogosphere. and, uh, here's another example of him being in an argument with other progressives. Most of his commentary is push-back against other progressive writers and thinkers. Sometimes from the left (because he is a an actual progressive and not just a meek corporatist left-liberal) and sometimes from an unusual or iconoclastic direction. He's an unusual guy.

I get the feeling you're describing him as "staunchly" leftist in part to use him as a useful idiot. I think that's a very bad tendency in American politics arguments, to find someone who would otherwise me your opponent on issues, and then cite them approvingly for their heterodox opinion as a way of begging the question. "Surely since even this guy on your side agrees with me, you must concede this point". Like what FOX did with Alan Colmes.

It's even moreso bizarre because you seem to identify that someone dismissing Chait out-of-hand without dealing with his arguments is something you don't think arguers should do, but in doing so you dig up Ta-Nehisi I guess so you can tell a leftie and even lefties like Chait? That's weird. Maybe Coates is unorthodox in his opinion on Chait; maybe the poster you're replying to is unorthodox in his opinion on Chait. Either way, those are explanations of why this poster might not like Chait even if, uh, I guess some other progressive does?

Again, I don't really have much to say about the content of the message. I'm not an American, but I moved here last year. I am observing this stuff with interest and still trying to learn to grapple with racial and campus politics in American schools. So I'm trying to withhold too much judgment and just observe how this stuff unfolds. But your framing just seemed really really strange to me. I just really think it makes more sense to only cite people sincerely and it felt to me like you weren't citing either of these people sincerely. it felt like you were using them as useful idiots. Just not a tendency I like in US politics generally. If the point was just that campus politics seems to be a political dimension that doesn't cleanly run along left-right lines, then I agree, but I don't think that settles arguments about campus politics?
 
Feb 9, 2012
3,131
0
0
Funny how he brought up that article. Despite his praise for Chait's work, Coates then proceeded to tear his arguments to shreds.

Chait has done plenty of good work, but his blindspot is dealing with race. Especially when it comes to black people. Specifically black women.


And that's why I always get annoyed when he's brought up in this context. Because he's been refuted before, plenty of times.
 

Trident

Loaded With Aspartame
Apr 21, 2005
2,094
0
0
Funny how he brought up that article. Despite his praise for Chait's work, Coates then proceeded to tear his arguments to shreds.

Chait has done plenty of good work, but his blindspot is dealing with race. Especially when it comes to black people. Specifically black women.


And that's why I always get annoyed when he's brought up in this context. Because he's been refuted before, plenty of times.

Wait, how do two opinion writers disagreeing with each other establish that one has been "refuted"? If Chait responds to Coates with disagreement, has Chait now "refuted" Coates?
 
Feb 9, 2012
3,131
0
0
Wait, how do two opinion writers disagreeing with each other establish that one has been "refuted"? If Chait responds to Coates with disagreement, has Chait now "refuted" Coates?

No, but when your opinions are outright contradicted by the facts and evidences, as Coates whipped up in that article, that's refuting.
 

Trident

Loaded With Aspartame
Apr 21, 2005
2,094
0
0
No, but when your opinions are outright contradicted by the facts and evidences, as Coates whipped up in that article, that's refuting.

So do you have any examples of the facts and evidences that directly contradict the passage that was quoted in this thread?

I'm not sure how we're supposed to engage in your posts if you just flatly state he's been refuted, but don't provide any specific arguments or evidence that establishes the relevant refutation.

Are you not looking for engagement? Just to vent? Or, like, what?
 
Oct 13, 2012
10,431
1
0
Which Marxist governments that prioritized class justice over individual rights did not end up repressive?

The inaccuracy is comparing Marxist governments to what is happening in Missouri. It's an intentional reach. So now we argue about Marxist governments because, Oh God, Oh God we will do anything possible to not talk about Race in America.



Do you think American college students in 2015 are so "hurt and desperate" that we should not expect them to respect basic democratic norms? I'd like to see that argument.

Are you implying that college students can't be hurt and desperate? This is like Fox News talking about how people with Refrigerators and televisions can't be poor. You might have noticed that some people in America are having a harder time than others. We are kind of in a flashpoint right now and it's maddening that people will fight so hard not to talk about Race. They just won't do it.

Ta-Nehisi Coates said: "Among opinion writers, Jonathan Chait is outranked in my esteem only by Hendrik Hertzberg. This lovely takedown of Robert Johnson is a classic of the genre, one I studied incessantly when I was sharpening my own sword."

If you disagree with him, fine, let's hear why. Implying that his agreement with any idea discredits it is strange, as his actual policy views and contemptuous opinions of Republicans are each completely mainstream here.



Consider Fredrik de Boer, a staunchly leftist professor at Purdue:

See all of this feels like you are digging up quotes from "lefties" to win rhetorical points. Guess what? I don't have to agree with Coates and de Boer on this or any other matter. And it isn't germane to my point there at all, which is that if you only have unreliable evidence you have no place drawing hard conclusions. It's a subject that has really bugged me recently. People who barge into a subject and pop off without understanding what's going on.


And if you are glad something is happening because the current order is irredeemably corrupt, and you think democratic norms and respecting dissent is for suckers, I'd really like to hear how people who are primarily concerned with safe spaces and microaggressions are going to win the civil war against the gun-toting people who'd line up behind a Trump presidency for life.

Civil war? Yikes.

There are two issues being conflated here:

1. Centuries of fucked up Race relations in America

2. The all too common "Older generation stopping down to shit on students." thing. We can find examples of this phenomenon dating back to Ancient Greece.

For the second issue it's always been funny to see it happen. The basic American Dream is for your children to do better than you did. But for that to be a Nation's dream and not just a few individual's dreams, you need to improve things for everyone. Generational improvement. To improve things have to change. Improvement is change. Generational change is going to start in Schools and Universities by necessity. So for the American Dream to be a real thing Schools and Universities need to be in a constant state of flux.

So when people stroke their beards and cluck their tongues at schools these days and fight for schools to stay the same as they were when they went, they are actively fighting against the American Dream. I am not saying that the changes are always good, that will hash itself out, but things have to change. And the Safe Space change is, at its heart, about seeing the world with a little more empathy. Which seems like a pretty good road towards a solution for the first issue.

The frustrating thing about pundits like Chait is the assumption at the heart of their writing, that there is one obvious and true solution. It's an attractive thought, comforting and seductive, but it's impossible to build on. It's a dead end.
 
Oct 13, 2012
10,431
1
0
There's no consensus on who is hurt and desperate here though: http://j.school/post/133025099640/crying-wolfe-exposes-real-problem

There is never going to be a consensus here. That's part of the problem really. So when there isn't a clear consensus the best we can do is be a little compassionate.

The whole point is that this is a giant confusing mess and everyone is using it as their own personal rorschach test. You are old enough to have seen this ish play out dozens of times. It's never about race, but it's always about race. We all just talk around it and find little details on the periphery to fill the time until it all goes away.

The article you linked is not wrong, but I don't think it's right either. Having money and coming from a place of more privileged than others doesn't make you immune from pain and desperation. I don't like the character attacks, if he thinks a person's point of view can be dismissed because they are a "Fresh Prince" then he should lay it out. He walks right up to it. And backs off, saying he doesn't want to blame Millennials, he only wants to dismiss them it seems. All of his suggestions are sensible, but if all it took was one person talking sense to fix things, they would have been fixed long ago.

In situations like this, I think empathy and skepticism need to go hand in hand, either alone will lead in circles.
 

excelsiorlef

Member
Sep 20, 2014
32,454
9
525
Burnaby, BC
There is never going to be a consensus here. That's part of the problem really. So when there isn't a clear consensus the best we can do is be a little compassionate.

The whole point is that this is a giant confusing mess and everyone is using it as their own personal rorschach test. You are old enough to have seen this ish play out dozens of times. It's never about race, but it's always about race. We all just talk around it and find little details on the periphery to fill the time until it all goes away.

The article you linked is not wrong, but I don't think it's right either. Having money and coming from a place of more privileged than others doesn't make you immune from pain and desperation. I don't like the character attacks, if he thinks a person's point of view can be dismissed because they are a "Fresh Prince" then he should lay it out. He walks right up to it. And backs off, saying he doesn't want to blame Millennials, he only wants to dismiss them it seems. All of his suggestions are sensible, but if all it took was one person talking sense to fix things, they would have been fixed long ago.

In situations like this, I think empathy and skepticism need to go hand in hand, either alone will lead in circles.

Not to mention the main focus of that article in end was really to say yeah well what about black on black crime. Invoking Chicago is a dog whistle for that shit

Also to somehow accuse all those black students of being puppets for the white liberal elite as if they weren't capable of wanting this themselves.
 

kirblar

Member
Oct 9, 2010
63,315
1
860
Not to mention the main focus of that article in end was really to say yeah well what about black on black crime. Invoking Chicago is a dog whistle for that shit

Also to somehow accuse all those black students of being puppets for the white liberal elite as if they weren't capable of wanting this themselves.
Its the stock conservative narrator of "liberals trick/bribe minorities to vote for them instead of voting for us, the people who really care."

Yeah, it's nuts.
 

TS-08

Member
Mar 27, 2012
3,359
1
0
The guy who runs the Yahoo Rivals site for Mizzou says Coach Pinkel has resigned effective immediately. Says the reasons are health related. I'm not sure what to think. He's the only coach I've really known as a Mizzou fan. Just a wild week.
 

TS-08

Member
Mar 27, 2012
3,359
1
0
He has lymphoma.

Yes, very unfortunate. Obviously the decision to retire is unrelated to these events (although the decision to announce it today may be). It's mostly off-topic although I thought it was still relevant for the thread since he and the players were a big part of this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.