[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
I think what CB is pointing out is that offering choices is good (do you want to brush your teeth first or put on your pajamas first?). The negotiations that cwill alludes to comes from a misunderstanding of the roll choices can play in child-raising.[/quote]
I believe it’s termed “colouring the options”, Read about it in 48 laws of power, iirc. Good book if you haven’t read it.
Yes, and sometimes parenting veers straight into “Hobson’s choice”.
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
Yes, and sometimes parenting veers straight into “Hobson’s choice”.[/quote]
lmao. Had to google that term and so true…
[quote]Sloth wrote:
And I have to wonder how many of these alarmed educators wouldn’t go running to the office with tales of how their conservative co-worker is stirring up debate about their progressive assumptions. [/quote]
And they’d be wrong.
Just like this is wrong.
Things are reasonable and unreasonable on their own terms. I understand that you feel a measure of schadenfreude here, but that is an emotional response and it involves entirely unconnected phenomena. Don Jones has nothing to do with this, and his particular case–on the details, which is all that ever really matters–bears no resemblance.
I seriously doubt that you’d bite on this if you were the president of a university, and I seriously doubt that you’d like to live among millions of people–including every single one with political power, and just about every single one with economic power–whose educations were withheld from them in the name of appeasing cowards.
[quote]JR249 wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
By the way, PR, we all know, was the reason behind the fine, so it cannot really “notwithstand.”[/quote]
This is more what I was getting at. I don’t think the co-worker aspect really was all that relevant. We all know the NFL is fretting over PR issues with anti-LGBT bias, as that’s not debatable. Given that the Tweet made came across to most any reasonable person as being pejorative, I suspect that he could have made the same exact Tweet about another public figure, say Anderson Cooper, and the consequences may well have been the same because of a) the nature of the comment and b) PR issues.[/quote]
Well, that is speculation.
The salient facts are that a business has an obvious interest in keeping its employees from attacking the personal choices of their coworkers. This is so across the board.
It is even more so when the business, the employees, and their coworkers are highly visible to the public.
It is even more so when the attack is wrapped up in a disgusting kind of bigotry by which most Americans are repulsed*. Please note that the guy didn’t say “I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.” He said that a dude kissing another dude was “horrible.” Like a car accident or a murder scene. Even around here–where some very far-right opinions are popular–you don’t often read vitriol like that.
And, most importantly, all of this has jack and shit to do with the “trigger warnings” nonsense.
*I am not interested in bigotry vs. bigotry toward bigots debate. The differences are obvious and the line of reasoning is sophism.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
And I have to wonder how many of these alarmed educators wouldn’t go running to the office with tales of how their conservative co-worker is stirring up debate about their progressive assumptions. [/quote]
And they’d be wrong.
Just like this is wrong.
Things are reasonable and unreasonable on their own terms. I understand that you feel a measure of schadenfreude here, but that is an emotional response and it involves entirely unconnected phenomena. Don Jones has nothing to do with this, and his particular case–on the details, which is all that ever really matters–bears no resemblance.
I seriously doubt that you’d bite on this if you were the president of a university, and I seriously doubt that you’d like to live among millions of people–including every single one with political power, and just about every single one with economic power–whose educations were withheld from them in the name of appeasing cowards.[/quote]
Then you’ve misjudged me as I’d sign on in a heartbeat. The universities mass produced the activists trying to chase my beliefs out through private AND public pressure. They played a huge part in building these offense seeking missiles. These bloodhounds on the scent of offensive thought. Let them choke on it.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
The universities mass produced the activists[/quote]
[Also the people who built the internets we’re talking on right now, and the engineers who built the airplanes you fly in, and the lawyers and judges without whom people and businesses, and thus the economy, would be mired in daily conflict, and…]
That’s what people get to do in a free society. No sympathy there. The question is this: Is it reasonable? Jones’ punishment was. This is not. Accordingly, the former will stand, while this will not.
I went to college and I am with you on these particular issues, in no small part because I was introduced to reason and the principles of good law in college. So, good for college?
I would love all of your opinions on this…
Should government pass laws to address chronic truancy in schools ? It’s an idea being tossed around over here.
AB 1866 would fund the modernization of the state’s absenteeism tracking system, allowing all local school districts to do what Compton did: accurately track attendance and build early warning systems to identify and assist at-risk children. And as a statewide system, it would also allow for efficient access to students’ attendance history as they move from district to district.
AB 1643 would require each county to create a school attendance review board. In Compton, we’ve been helped by the collaboration of administrators, educators, parents and other parties addressing truancy through the use of community as well as school resources. These review boards would institutionalize that effort and support wraparound services for parents struggling to keep their children in school.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[Also the people who built the internets we’re talking on right now, and the engineers who built the airplanes you fly in, and the lawyers and judges without whom people and businesses, and thus the economy, would be mired in daily conflict, and…][/quote]
Wouldn’t be great if this was their sole mission?
Sloth:
[quote]the activists trying to chase my beliefs out through private
SMH
That’s what people get to do in a free society. No sympathy there.[/quote]
And no sympathy from me on your topic. Free society. Young people changing the world!
Was it reasonable to punish/retrain a heterosexual for the original sin of using social media to express his revulsion at two men kissing? Did someone get a black eye from it? Ok. Then, it’s as reasonable as making sure paying students (and taxpayers) aren’t subjected to what offends them through the old lesson plan. The hounds are turning on the master, too.
[quote]
Sloth:
AND public pressure
SMH:
I went to college and I am with you on these particular issues, in no small part because I was introduced to reason and the principles of good law in college. So, good for college?[/quote]
And I like that side of you! The part that agrees with me.
In any event, my culture has been replaced. Now I get to watch a gray, barren, progressive culture turn on itself, trying to outdo itself with an ever increasing amount of hyphens, -ists, -phobics, sensitivity training, trigger warnings, and so on. Makes me want to grab a popcorn and pull up a chair.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
And no sympathy from me on your topic. Free society. Young people changing the world![/quote]
Right: They get to try. That’s step one. Step two is where people like me get to say, “this is fucking stupid, for these reasons.” And if those reasons are good, step three is where people agree with me, and my side wins, and the folks who launched step one get to go home empty handed.
This thread is step two.
[quote]
Was it reasonable to punish/retrain a heterosexual for the original sin of using social media to express his revulsion at two men kissing?[/quote]
Yes, for the precise reasons that I have painstakingly outlined in two separate threads now (and that have gone entirely unrefuted).
This was good.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Was it reasonable to punish/retrain a heterosexual for the original sin of using social media to express his revulsion at two men kissing? Did someone get a black eye from it? Ok. Then, it’s as reasonable as making sure paying students (and taxpayers) aren’t subjected to what offends them through the old lesson plan. The hounds are turning on the master, too.
[/quote]
I’m with you in part - I argued that the actual punishment itself was unreasonable (i.e., sensitivity training and a fine were overkill for what was said), though there was a pecuniary interest in dealing with the PR nature of the Tweet itself. The trigger warnings, however, are complete and utter BS.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
In any event, my culture has been replaced. Now I get to watch a gray, barren, progressive culture turn on itself, trying to outdo itself with an ever increasing amount of hyphens, -ists, -phobics, sensitivity training, trigger warnings, and so on. Makes me want to grab a popcorn and pull up a chair.
[/quote]
This really jumped out at me from the article:
“Here at the University of California…there was a confrontation when a group of anti-abortion protesters held up graphic pictures of aborted fetuses and a pregnant professor of feminist studies tried to destroy the posters, saying they triggered a sense of fear in her. After she was arrested on vandalism, battery and robbery charges, more than 1,000 students signed a petition of support for her, saying the university should impose greater restrictions on potentially trigger-inducing content.”
What’s wrong with 1,000 students who feel that course of action supports a marketplace of ideas in a democratic society?
We have had to remove drawings of pigs in hospitals because it triggers something in muslims. Also, drawings of their prophet tends to trigger some murders.
I also like how this “trigger” thing kind of lets people off the hook for their response to what ever it is that offends them. Like they can pop off in any way that seems right at the time and it wasn’t them responding badly- it was a trigger!
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
From Salon.com
Every semester on the first day of my classes, I explain to students that at some point during the semester, the material that we cover will fundamentally challenge their thinking in some area that they hold dear, particularly their beliefs about race, gender and sexuality.
[/quote]
Gender studies is the most radical, unhinged discipline in universities today. For anyone who is unaware, I will explain the central premise of these crackpots:
So you think boys have a penis and girls have a vagina? Wrong! Not only wrong; bigoted! See a woman can actually have a penis and a man can have a vagina. Furthermore, the terms ‘man’ and ‘woman’ are actually meaningless and to use them is bigoted. There is actually a sliding scale with male at one end, female at the other and ‘gender queer’ in the middle. Additionally there are a whole plethora of other gender identities including third gender and two spirit. So if you see someone with a beard and a penis she may really be a lesbian. And of course lesbians should be allowed to use female toilets. Now do you understand how bigoted and wrong you’ve been all these years?
Tragic. Cry me a rainbow.
[quote]
Brittney Cooper is a contributing writer at Salon, and teaches Women’s and Gender Studies and Africana Studies at Rutgers. Follow her on Twitter at @professorcrunk. [/quote]
Crackpot.
You are a fascinating person SexMachine.
[quote]JR249 wrote:
What’s wrong with 1,000 students who feel that course of action supports a marketplace of ideas in a democratic society?
[/quote]
The are wrong, and stupid.
Similar things happened around my graduate school, and most people understood the simple fundamentals well enough to fall on the side of the anti-abortion protesters.
Consistency is key. I’m sure the professor in your example has often gone on about the importance of unencumbered speech and the need for a diversity of thought. Kind of like the libertarian Dominionism you see on the other side (and around here, from time to time).
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
The are wrong, and stupid.
Similar things happened around my graduate school, and most people understood the simple fundamentals well enough to fall on the side of the anti-abortion protesters.
Consistency is key. I’m sure the professor in your example has often gone on about the importance of unencumbered speech and the need for a diversity of thought. Kind of like the libertarian Dominionism you see on the other side (and around here, from time to time).[/quote]
I guess I just realized, as if often the case when interacting online, that my statement could have been interpreted two ways. I think those students, at the very least, are lacking some basic understanding of the rights to free speech and assembly; I didn’t mean to imply that I wondered why some would find their course of action in signing the petition to support a criminal to be problematic. Hopefully by clarifying that I may have saved someone the trouble of blowing an e-gasket later today after misinterpreting what I had written.
The professor teachers sociology, and I know she embodies those principles, but I was sort of taken aback that this actually happened at a fairly notable public university in a 300 level course. I know that universities do fancy recruitment and retention for financial purposes, but I had hoped they would avoid becoming as much of a diploma mill as some secondary schools seem to be gravitating towards. Perhaps it’s another example of the “please the customer” attitude that is spurring more widespread support at the administrative level for these so-called trigger warnings.
[quote]JR249 wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
The are wrong, and stupid.
Similar things happened around my graduate school, and most people understood the simple fundamentals well enough to fall on the side of the anti-abortion protesters.
Consistency is key. I’m sure the professor in your example has often gone on about the importance of unencumbered speech and the need for a diversity of thought. Kind of like the libertarian Dominionism you see on the other side (and around here, from time to time).[/quote]
I guess I just realized, as if often the case when interacting online, that my statement could have been interpreted two ways. I think those students, at the very least, are lacking some basic understanding of the rights to free speech and assembly; I didn’t mean to imply that I wondered why some would find their course of action in signing the petition to support a criminal to be problematic. Hopefully by clarifying that I may have saved someone the trouble of blowing an e-gasket later today after misinterpreting what I had written.
The professor teachers sociology, and I know she embodies those principles, but I was sort of taken aback that this actually happened at a fairly notable public university in a 300 level course. I know that universities do fancy recruitment and retention for financial purposes, but I had hoped they would avoid becoming as much of a diploma mill as some secondary schools seem to be gravitating towards. Perhaps it’s another example of the “please the customer” attitude that is spurring more widespread support at the administrative level for these so-called trigger warnings.[/quote]
For the record, I took your correct meaning, and was agreeing with you.
Anyway, this is well said:
“Perhaps it’s another example of the “please the customer” attitude that is spurring more widespread support at the administrative level for these so-called trigger warnings.”
The funny thing about university is that it’s one of the few “industries” wherein the customer doesn’t really have to be pleased–at least, not until the very end. Where else does a customer pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for the privilege of being “mandated” to do tons of work, give up Constitutional rights, and have one’s weekly schedule dictated? Where else do people pay good money for a service and then absolutely hate every actual minute of the service?
I am exaggerating a bit, but this is largely how it goes. So, I say the “trigger warning” thing can be dealt with similarly. “You don’t like our policy? You don’t really like doing 300 pages of reading, either, but we “make” you do that. So, tough shit.”
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
I would love all of your opinions on this…
Should government pass laws to address chronic truancy in schools ? It’s an idea being tossed around over here.
AB 1866 would fund the modernization of the state’s absenteeism tracking system, allowing all local school districts to do what Compton did: accurately track attendance and build early warning systems to identify and assist at-risk children. And as a statewide system, it would also allow for efficient access to students’ attendance history as they move from district to district.
AB 1643 would require each county to create a school attendance review board. In Compton, we’ve been helped by the collaboration of administrators, educators, parents and other parties addressing truancy through the use of community as well as school resources. These review boards would institutionalize that effort and support wraparound services for parents struggling to keep their children in school.
Only if you believe the government owns your child.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Crackpot.[/quote]
Perhaps, but the title of her article - which I left off - is "No trigger warnings in my class: Why you won’t find them on my syllabi ".
So it seems that you have more in common with a large, black, female Gender and African Studies Professor than you thought.