Jaw (02-22-2018)
LOL... Purdue university says to stop using words that include "man" and "male"... including things like Manhattan and wo"man"
This is the world yall are building, folks
lol that's sadOriginally Posted by sturg33
Katy Tur
Verified account @KatyTurNBC
2h2 hours ago
Unbelievable: Former RNC Chairman's tenure reduced to "because he's a black guy."
The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to make sure he doesn’t get a gun.
forced diversity is a problem... Glad you finally agree
http://www.jconline.com/story/opinio...nes/375820002/
Come on, it took about a minute to realize that seemed false and find the evidence that it was.
Haha, dude, if that's your takeaway from that sorry incident...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/youtube...sla=y&mod=e2tw
The lawsuit, filed by Arne Wilberg, a white male who worked at Google for nine years, including four years as a recruiter at YouTube, alleges the division of Alphabet Inc.’s Google set quotas for hiring minorities. Last spring, YouTube recruiters were allegedly instructed to cancel interviews with applicants who weren’t female, black or Hispanic, and to “purge entirely” the applications of people who didn’t fit those categories, the lawsuit claims
Jaw (03-02-2018)
Sad thing is not matter how unlawful that is, people still support would google is doing.
The war against white men rages on.
equal outcomes... that's the goal
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018...l-nominee.html
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer faced a stern rebuke from congressional colleagues for citing skin color in voting against a white federal judge nominee earlier this week.
Schumer, D-N.Y., said on the Senate floor Wednesday that the nomination of Marvin Quattlebaum, a white lawyer who is a partner at Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough in Greenville, S.C., “speaks to the overall lack of diversity in President Trump’s selections for the federal judiciary.”
He complained that many of Trump’s nominees have been white males. He also complained that Republicans previously held up two black judges nominated under the Obama administration for the position— which The Post and Courier notes has long been vacant.
....
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said Thursday it was actually Schumer’s vote against Quattlebaum that was “a massive step backward.”
...
Sen. Tim Scott, also a Republican serving South Carolina and the GOP’s sole black senator, tweeted, “Perhaps Senate Democrats should be more worried about the lack of diversity on their own staffs than attacking an extremely well-qualified judicial nominee from the great state of South Carolina.”
Go get him!
Founding member of the Whiny Little Bitches and Pricks Club
A Photo of Charles Murray Is Too Traumatizing for Some Middlebury College Students
https://reason.com/blog/2018/03/07/m...mpression=true
Ill go ahead and assume these are future leftists
You know, there's some interesting info making the rounds recently about attitudes towards free speech and campus speech, tracked over time. While it indicates that there is less tolerance across the board for racist speech, it also indicates that younger folks are more tolerant of differing views being aired-- both as compared to older folks, and younger folks from previous generations--and that tolerance for airing different viewpoints is correlated with higher education.
This would seem to fly in the face of the kind of cheap point-scoring and anecdotal evidence that goes on in this discussions. For my part, I find most of these "free speech" conversations are fairly dishonest and performed in bad faith. Since there's a request to have debates about guns and the economy be predicated on data rather than emotion, I wonder if we can apply the same principles here?
Do you have data to post?
And is what we are posting not correct?
I'm on mobile and can't easily post the primary data to which I was referring (derived from the GSS surveys), but this Twitter thread covers it pretty well.
Just read through it. Here's the unrolled thread for people to more easily view
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/9...890549760.html
Very interesting data but think it has some problems.
1. I don't often put much weight on self-reporting as people think more highly of themselves. I think very rarely will people admit to a pollster that they would support suppressing free speech.
2. As another person in the thread commented, there were 35 dis-invites in 2017, up from 6 in 2000
3. Like the same poster in the thread said, the significance of the protests have been substantial. And the reasoning is not valid. In no circumstances should Ben Shapiro be protested as he is not Sean Spencer
4. Meanwhile, I'm glad he posted data because that is something we can actually work with. But the data is high level. The issue is the definition of "racist" has changed from 'someone who hates black people' to 'someone who voted for Trump'
5. My concern isn't so much campus speeches as it is universities going out of their way to change how we think about speech. The trigger words are the best example... but things like safe spaces, coloring books, and therapy dogs for people who had to listen to a conservative speaker is my concern
6. I'm not old. I graduated college 6 years ago
7. Everything we have posted in this thread are real-world examples of political correctness... You've not once to my memory commented on the ridiculousness of any of them
8. That's all for now
I've commented here and there on the generalities of the debate, usually to the effect that I have some ambivalence toward or reservations about some of the issues surrounding speech on campus if they tend toward restrictiveness or retribution against dissent. I have decidedly mixed feelings about some of the examples of no-platforming and disruptive protests. I also have some historical perspective and the desire to understand more than one side of the issue, which is why my eyes start to glaze over when I'm asked to condemn the outrage of the week.
You make a valid point about the subjectivity of the questions about, for example, racism. But that's a double-edged sword. You might object to person x being put in a bucket with person y, but you have to concede that there are evolving societal standards for what is accepted as reasonable discourse within a given context, and perhaps something that you think is acceptable is reasonably considered to be objectionable by other parties. Over time, what's considered acceptable discourse changes, the Overton window shifts. That's not a new development.
5. I have some ambivalence about some of this stuff, too, though my opinions are admittedly underinformed. I have a perception that some universities tend to go to arguably unhelpful extremes in hermetically sealing the institutions from the depredations of the outside world, but honestly, hasn't this been a complaint about academia since forever? I also think you're extrapolating too much from the examples you give.
The reason I don't participate much in this conversation is that I believe it's massively overblown and not reflective of the downfall of western civilization, like some folks seem to think. So many of the media and cultural figures who push the narrative are hucksters or obvious bad-faith actors that I'm surprised when otherwise smart people don't recognize them for what they are.
More internet censorship. Seeing this all over Twitter
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote