Alcotholic
Banned
The title change and additional information changes the meaning of my first post...
Okay this is some ridiculous shit
Definitely.
demanding the husband of the woman behind said email, be fired...is just beyond ridiculous.
also was anyone else bothered how the students kept holding and comforting eachother like they were being verbally abused throughout the video?
I think college students are beginning to resemble a bit too much like people on tumblr with the way they react and approach issues.
What is going on is that we're seeing some people take reasonable grievances and turn them into overly dramatic confrontations. This girl is the equivalent of that 40 year old lady who gets into a shouting match at the McDonalds because they gave her a small fries instead of a mediumSeriously, wtf is going on with college aged people...
Also - the entire "not invited to a frat / sorority party because of race" thing is turning out (surprise surprise) to be bullshit.
I want to be careful with what I put out there, Githere said, when asked to clarify portions of her account of the night. Hopefully, I get to see my quotes because I cannot have the words misconstrued. If any of my opinions are twisted in the press, which often happens, I would hate for any conflict to happen.
Do you even use Tumblr?
Irony alert.
http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/194869/growing-up-at-yale
In 2003, the Black Student Alliance was all about "free speech" when it involved bringing an anti-semitic (black) speaker onto campus to talk about how the Israelis were in on 9/11.
It's amazing how those who scream for cultural sensitivity are so good at ignoring their own advice when it comes to them doing it to other groups. Do as I say, not as I do, I suppose.
Also - the entire "not invited to a frat / sorority party because of race" thing is turning out (surprise surprise) to be bullshit.
But to be clear, is the difference people perceive between a situation like this and the current Missouri situation just the nature of the grievance, or the nature of the reaction? Obviously the Halloween costume thing is not nearly as large of a problem as the systemic racism evident at University of Missouri, but are these students out of line to have a negative reaction whatsoever? Or is it specifically that they got overly emotional over such a "small" thing, while the striking over a large issue is more dignified?
Obviously I understand the differences of magnitude, but I am curious how people perceive them on an ideological level, i.e is one more fundamentally unacceptable than the other?
There's a fundamental difference between swastikas drawn with feces versus some old lady asking, "maybe just ignore the offensive costumes?" At some point, you can't really compare the two.
Okay this is some ridiculous shit
People can get offended at whatever the fuck they want. Their reaction here is the ridiculous part. I have no problem ideologically with being upset or even expressing that you're upset or that you'd like a firmer response, the problems here are, from where I sit, entirely on the execution level: how quickly and dramatically they tried to escalate thingsYeah, we're seeing a slippery slope at this point with what will offend people honestly.
Do you even use Tumblr?
What is going on is that we're seeing some people take reasonable grievances and turn them into overly dramatic confrontations. This girl is the equivalent of that 40 year old lady who gets into a shouting match at the McDonalds because they gave her a small fries instead of a medium
But to be clear, is the difference people perceive between a situation like this and the current Missouri situation just the nature of the grievance, or the nature of the reaction? Obviously the Halloween costume thing is not nearly as large of a problem as the systemic racism evident at University of Missouri, but are these students out of line to have a negative reaction whatsoever? Or is it specifically that they got overly emotional over such a "small" thing, while the striking over a large issue is more dignified?
Obviously I understand the differences of magnitude, but I am curious how people perceive them on an ideological level, i.e is one more fundamentally unacceptable than the other?
Was there any blackface costume? If that happens, sure, be upset about it, file a complaint and show the person doing that his behavior is unacceptable. But the university should not have a checklist in place for acceptable costumes, just in case someone might find something offensive. It is then better to have students debate that between themselves, then have an authority figure try to regulate every little part.Okay but is there a fundamental difference between a swastika drawn in feces and, say, students wearing blackface costumes? And if not, is there a clear line where we can universally say "yeah okay get upset about blackface costumes but don't get upset about this other costume?"
Okay but is there a fundamental difference between a swastika drawn in feces and, say, students wearing blackface costumes? And if not, is there a clear line where we can universally say "yeah okay get upset about blackface costumes but don't get upset about this other costume?"
I don't think there's a fundamental difference between the two examples you've given, just as I don't think there's a difference between those examples and someone being offended by a restaurant serving meat. Everyone has a right to be upset by whatever it is that upsets them.Okay but is there a fundamental difference between a swastika drawn in feces and, say, students wearing blackface costumes? And if not, is there a clear line where we can universally say "yeah okay get upset about blackface costumes but don't get upset about this other costume?"
One is vandalism meant to intimidate, the other is just poor taste.
Regardless, these students live in imaginary safe space land.
Pretty rich coming from the person who may have misconstrued the whole thing in the first place.
People can get offended at whatever the fuck they want. Their reaction here is the ridiculous part. I have no problem ideologically with being upset or even expressing that you're upset or that you'd like a firmer response, the problems here are, from where I sit, entirely on the execution level: how quickly and dramatically they tried to escalate things
The difference is that there isn't a single costume a black person can wear that can denigrate the entire white race.
I remember reading an article that people shouldnt be coddled in college or the result will be bad..well is this the beginning?
The college is failing these students. It is making them less prepared for real world than when they entered.
The difference is that there isn't a single costume a black person can wear that can denigrate the entire white race.
I love that black kids can even have their mentality, where I couldn't even formulate the thought of those questions, because of how deeply ingrained the culture was in myself.
I don't think it's the result of coddling. In fact, I think it's the result of exactly the opposite of coddling. (I see what people mean by "coddling," but I think it's only a partly useful word in this case.) College students today are very aware that there's an intolerant and violent past associated with certain ideas and types of behavior, and so they're intolerant and violently aggressive toward those ideas and behaviors.
It's a misplaced sense of justice first and foremost, and only then does it manifest in a misplaced sense of entitlement.
The missing piece is that the response to intolerance and violence cannot be intolerance and aggression. That's not the purpose of a "safe space"; the purpose of a safe space is to be able to express your ideas and grievances and explore questions of identity, ethics, and social policy without fear of a witch hunt. If you don't understand the distinction between "trying to repair unhealthy social structures and dynamics" and "disparaging those who make you feel uncomfortable," of course you're going to react this way. That's not a result of being coddled per se, but a result of failing to properly assimilate the appropriate response to injustice.
A sophomore standing near the center of the circle of more than 300 students asked the dean, Jonathan Holloway, if he would call on his personal experiences in addressing student demands for additional black faculty, racial sensitivity training for freshmen and the dismissal of administrators viewed as racially inattentive.
yeah but safe space is not doing too well http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...ivists-are-weaponizing-the-safe-space/415080/
Follow up story at 'noted regressive propaganda organ' The Atlantic: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...tolerance-of-student-activism-at-yale/414810/
The entire article is well worth reading, but here, have a handful of examples:
How will these people function in post-college life where no one gives a shit about your opinion or feelings 95% of the time? There will not be massive institution that will coddle you and acquiesce to your demands at the drop of a hat.
I don't think it's the result of coddling. In fact, I think it's the result of exactly the opposite of coddling. (I see what people mean by "coddling," but I think it's only a partly useful word in this case.) College students today are very aware that there's an intolerant and violent past associated with certain ideas and types of behavior, and so they're intolerant and violently aggressive toward those ideas and behaviors.
It's a misplaced sense of justice first and foremost, and only then does it manifest in a misplaced sense of entitlement.
The missing piece is that the response to intolerance and violence cannot be intolerance and aggression. That's not the purpose of a "safe space"; the purpose of a safe space is to be able to express your ideas and grievances and explore questions of identity, ethics, and social policy without fear of a witch hunt.
yeah but safe space is not doing too well http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...ivists-are-weaponizing-the-safe-space/415080/
They have money and lawyers. If anything, employers are the ones who should be wary because these people are walking lawsuits waiting to happen
This is the result of Colleges taking "the customer is always right" mentality with their student bodies. That needs to stop, quite frankly.
This is the result of Colleges taking "the customer is always right" mentality with their student bodies. That needs to stop, quite frankly.
The nature of the grievance is a big part of them. Both of them are doing kinda dumb things, but there's a huge difference between massive systemic racism at UofM and what we're seeing described at Yale. Bigger issue, bigger tolerance.But to be clear, is the difference people perceive between a situation like this and the current Missouri situation just the nature of the grievance, or the nature of the reaction? Obviously the Halloween costume thing is not nearly as large of a problem as the systemic racism evident at University of Missouri, but are these students out of line to have a negative reaction whatsoever? Or is it specifically that they got overly emotional over such a "small" thing, while the striking over a large issue is more dignified?
Obviously I understand the differences of magnitude, but I am curious how people perceive them on an ideological level, i.e is one more fundamentally unacceptable than the other?
The problem is that students are increasingly customers.
I remember when Progressive groups rightfully bawked at "our way or the highway" approach from Pres Bush but its become too much part of college students of our approach to resolving this is right and any other way is bad.
The problem is that students are increasingly customers.