http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/This is probably the best article I have seen on anything in a very, very long time.
Even though The Atlantic is a fairly liberal periodical, ironically this article espouses something that sensible conservatives and libertarians have been saying for a very, very long time.
Apparently the problem has reached such epic proportions that even the mainstream left is taking note and starting to worry about the consequences.
I came here to link this very article.
Derid, do your part and offend someone. Here is my part.
I personally find regular and on-going raping of the scientific method by the hysterical cunts in the social studies department personally, and deeply offensive. Instead, they should make me a sandwich.
There is a huge cavernous difference between admonishing speech in the academic setting in the name of victimization to the point of restricting academic freedom, and Trump resting on the new conservative rejection of "political correctness" to avoid answering for his misogyny.
The academic freedom issue is fairly serious, legally speaking, but clearly falls on the side of societal good. It's hogwash to universally deny education relating to rape (for example) so individuals with related psychological trauma won't have to hear the word. On the other hand, it should be clear to everyone that it is medically possible for a person to be harmed by a member of authority pushing an agenda which the person finds traumatizing. It's possible for the person to experience this as discrimination. So a person might not want to be party to that education and I think it's fair to have accommodation for that at the personal level assuming affected parties agree. I just don't believe that is sufficient to prescribe that to the body politic to avoid harming the person.
With the hump day example from the article, this is no longer a question of academic freedom, this is extracurricular. I think it's legally fine if the university wants to bow to pressure to remove iconography which some consider to be offensive in this case, and I also think it would be fine if they stood with their plans.
However this is where the constitutional line is drawn, and not necessarily where the societal line should be drawn. Rejecting "political correctness" does not give you free reign to be an offensive asshole without consequence. As a member of the public, not a person in authority, you have the right, the legal right, to be an asshole; but we also have the right to treat you like an outcast for it. This is where Fox and Trump gets it wrong, so please don't make Trump's mistake in your personal lives. I do love the irony of Trump using that tactic straight out of Fox's field guide against Fox, though.
I am pretty far left of spectrum, which is why I strongly believe in the legal freedom of speech for all parties. It's a double-edged sword. This shouldn't be a big surprise.
I think the problem rests in placing any importance whatsoever on "how a person chooses to take it" with no objective standard.
So we are supposed to arrange society and our lives around how the most sensitive, self-important, faux-egalitarian choose to hear something? That is what is hogwash. The university in the hump case may be legally OK to stop the event, but encouraging that type of behavior is unhealthy.
And more importantly, it is an intellectual breeding ground for weak minded people who have no sense of reality.
Though I would certainly agree as well that Trump should expect and receive public backlash for his actions. Just as we should all have freedom to express, that includes freedom to express disdain and condemnation.
But official and institutional backlash for simply having a political or social opinion that does not conform to PC hivemind has been a growing problem on campuses for almost 2 decades. Continuing to abet this type of behavior will have disastrous consequences.
I see where you're coming from and I have personally seen how social conformity around these issues can lead to an unexamined parroting of them. I just disagree that it's always bad. I do think public universities have to uphold a more professional and sensitive standard than private universities or other entities because they ultimately answer to the populace. Same thing with Trump, I think it's especially inexcusable for him because he is running for public office.
The problem is that I've also seen, and demonstrated in the Trump example, how unexamined parroting of this rejection is bad as well. I have family members I would consider to be racist and sexist who buy into this rhetoric because it makes them feel good about not reconsidering their own actions. It's really easy to say you are justified in your harmful opinions and actions because sometimes being sensitive is bad. So the weak minded you speak of are everywhere, it's a problem of human psychology. I have no answer for it.
I think the problem rests in placing any importance whatsoever on "how a person chooses to take it" with no objective standard.
I think it is important to highlight this. Modern social standards do not apply "reasonable person" caveat, and over-emphasize on never questioning the victim. This works well for victim support mechanism, but completely falls apart as a justice mechanism. This is why "social justice" became derisive term.
There is no question that Trump is many kinds of -ist, but the acquisition of misogyny is so frequently abused that it became meaningless. If anything, it became purely social signaling and display of virtuous behavior in certain circles. This is why Trump could shrug it off and move on.
The above is a direct result of cult of anti-privilege (aka victimhood) perpetrated in the social studies circles. More they stretch the definitions, less meaningful any specific instance, no matter how egregious, becomes.
Sini, I think you nailed it 100%
I personally find regular and on-going raping of the scientific method by the hysterical cunts in the social studies department personally, and deeply offensive. Instead, they should make me a sandwich.
I haven't read everything else yet, but this deserves massive kudos. Props Sini!
I'm quite sure the definition of misogyny retains its meaning despite what some people might do in its name. That there exists actors who may be taking "social justice" too far does not reduce the need for social justice, it does not refute the conclusion that society can improve from sensitivity, and it does not give anyone a pass for ignoring it.
That is my entire gripe with the conservative slant here. This is fundamentally the line which Trump crossed.
The "social justice" that Rawls spoke of in his Theory of Justice, and sought to identify by viewing social construct through a "veil of ignorance" , and the "social justice" promulgated and institutionalized by PC academia are completely different things though.
Honestly I fail to see any difference between Trump and a PC Warrior. They both ignore reason, and they are both toxic. Any worldview that eschews any pretense of rationality yet seeks levers of power over others is dangerous in my view.
there exists actors who may be taking "social justice" too far does not reduce the need for social justice
I will go as far as stating that the world would be a better place without SJWs and the bulk of modern -ism movements.
The concepts of justice and the social signaling activity SJW engage in have very little in common. There is nothing virtuous in brigading on the social media against random transgressing individual and disproportionally victimizing said individual from the cover of internet anonymity under the guise of righteous retribution.
SJW activity closely resembles lynch mobbing and it is absolutely ineffective in delivering justice OR enacting a social change. It is no more just than Salem Witch Trials despite nominally following the justice process.
I'm quite sure the definition of misogyny retains its meaning despite what some people might do in its name.
I disagree. Not when any men's issues advocacy, polite questioning of modern-day feminism postulates, advocating traditional family roles and labor division, promiscuous consensual sex, and so on grouped together with ass-grabbing, discrimination, harassment and so on.
Misogyny is meaningless because it became synonymous with "outgroup" (other guys). Ultimately, it is Red vs. Blue, and both sides equally capable of shitty behavior.
Don't believe me? Go to Jezebel forums (or any other similar site) and simply cite statistics that show that campus sexual assault rates are not different from the general population, and both have been falling for the last decade or so. You will be called misogynist and promptly banned.
I don't think my message is getting through, so if you'd like to hear an additional hour of discussion on this topic with no clear resolutions you should check out this segment of KQED's Forum.
http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201508171000
I think your message got through fine, you are saying that extremes on both sides like to straw man the most obnoxious of the opposing view as representative and thus poison the well against need for self-examination and disconfirmation of held bias.
While the extreme conservative slant has always been illogical, my point at least is that the mainstream PC view as far as it has reached institutional influence is now resembling the straw-men the conservative extremists used to stand up and this is not a good thing.
What used to be tolerance, has been re-packaged as intolerance for anything subjectively perceived as offensive. We would all be better off to inject a dose of reason into the issue and revert to practicing tolerance, discourse, and education.
I wrote a post using SJW lingo (check your privilege, dominant culture, system of oppression, etc.), but I think it turned out too believable and too annoying. So I deleted it to spare the innocent bystanders.
I wrote a post using SJW lingo (check your privilege, dominant culture, system of oppression, etc.), but I think it turned out too believable and too annoying. So I deleted it to spare the innocent bystanders.
=(
This forum all about collateral damage, I hope you saved it
Derid, I will provide you with plenty of pearl-clutching opportunities without stooping that low.
As an aside, in a fit of masochism I did listen to part of that recording. That Shu guy is.... just wow, thats all I can say... just wow.
One thing he said was how it is a micro aggression to compliment a black person for being articulate or intelligent for doing well in or adding to a class, because the implication is that they are the exception and other black people are not.
If there is a way to take something in a negative light, I am sure this guy can find it.
Its interesting because his drive for this thinking apparently came from people saying he had good English. He says the implication is that as an Asian he is not feeling welcome as a citizen, since after all he has been here his whole life. I guess the guy doesnt realize that despite all that, he has an extremely thick accent.
I suppose he has never paid attention and noticed that white people with extremely thick non-southern/Northeastern accents of European origin can get told the same thing. Maybe the Dutch in northern Michigan could relate to him.
Derid, I noticed your English has improved, and you don't sound nearly as retarded after you stopped shooting crack and beating your spouse in a drug-induced stupor.
I know, right? Forget micro aggressions, go for mega!
Derid, I noticed your English has improved, and you don't sound nearly as retarded after you stopped shooting crack and beating your spouse in a drug-induced stupor.
I know, right? Forget micro aggressions, go for mega!
I am extremely offended at your implication that I am married to anyone, stop forcing your conservative values down everyone's throat.
Another one. The Atlantic is on the roll.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/09/the-rise-of-victimhood-culture/404794/Derid, you will have to take back all bad things you have said about it.
How did these children get this way? Helicopter parents? Trophies for everyone? What the hell causes people to automatically assume that everything anyone says is in some way an affront to them?
I think Friedersdorf's point was spot-on: In a victimhood culture it is advantageous to manufacture grievances. To put it into PvP MMO terms - imagine every time you get PKed, you'd get rewarded with PvP rank and gear. You bet some people would go out of their way to get PKed.
I personally think it has roots in anti-bullying pushes. Kids believe that directly resolving conflict is impossible, it is always "escalate to authority".
This will come crashing on their heads in a work space, where older generations will quickly crush such tendencies. Directly.
I have hard time not to take glee in this, but it is still abuse:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arch...testers/478221/
I don't understand the "abuse" angle. These kids want to deny other people the right to free speech by claiming it hurts their feelings, but it is abuse when it is turned around on them? I think that using someone's own beliefs against them is a really good way to get them to spend serious time in reflection on those beliefs.
You have to realize that advocating to deny other people the right to free speech is free speech and should be protected no matter how objectionable you and I may find it.
I do, but I'm assuming that the bluffing reference in the article is accurate.
I applaud
University of Chicago when they speak against safe spaces and trigger warnings. This sparked a lot of outrage and criticism, some of that criticism
is insightful but most of it is predictably
idiotic .
Does New Republic ever publish anything that isn't idiotic? I mean Slate, Salon, and Atlantic still have their own large shares of idiocy but at least there is some decent work among the garbage.
New Republic is the Breitbart of the left.
I applaud
University of Chicago when they speak against safe spaces and trigger warnings. This sparked a lot of outrage and criticism, some of that criticism
is insightful but most of it is predictably
idiotic .
/agree