College campuses as safe spaces for students

[jdhu]

Oh, I totally agree. I've had my fair share of "run-ins" with professors that sucked because they were extensively biased. But the majority of professors I had were generally very open to debate and based their stances on research and not agendas.

I had ultra conservative Texas born and raised professors, I've had ultra hippie annoying professors.

The best were those who allowed you to think but showed you the evidence when you were wrong and why. Not just shutting you down.

The students who were ultra PC were in the minority when I was in school. The vast majority of students really only debated their studies and anything outside that realm was kinda under the mindset of "Live and let live, do whatever the fuck you want but don't impose it on me."

Yeah, I think times have changed though. I went to undergrad in the late 90s -early 2000s, and although I didn't participate in protests, discussion fora, etc., I never felt any sort of restrictions on thought/speech.

BUT, these days, there seems to be a trend, whether it's campus speakers, certain campus groups and their thoughts, Halloween costumes, etc. I think the Mizzou example is a good and easy one to use. The way they treated that journalist is unbelievable to me, and incredibly ironic. Also, I dislike that the president stepped down, over what seems like very minor incidents (I know the "outrage" is over how the incidents were treated, but jeez; unless I'm wrong, the two incidents were a student government person being yelled at with a racist remark, and a theater group receiving the same treatment).

 

[augustiron]

I think college campuses should be educational, maturation and exploration zones for students.
Safety should be as present and enforced as it is anywhere else in society where lots of youth are congregated together.
The definition of safety is the issue here. Some of these kids need to climb back in the womb apparently.

 

[jdhu]

I think college campuses should be educational, maturation and exploration zones for students.
Safety should be as present and enforced as it is anywhere else in society where lots of youth are congregated together.
The definition of safety is the issue here. Some of these kids need to climb back in the womb apparently.

Good point. Sure sure, "safety" as in safe to walk in, those blue emergency telephones, etc.

What a lot of kids seem to want is to be able to plug their ears and avoid any ideas that scare or offend them (usually, they seem not to bother to THINK about the issue).

 

[NorCalAthlete]

Exactly. HE IS CLAIMING THEY DO DAMAGE. Read what you're saying. "share" meaning they do damage. He's not claiming they do all damage, he's claiming they are damaging. Which is wrong.

Rant below:

I don't agree with the Yale bullshit or that conservative author, but that author is classic bullshit.

He's the typical ultra conservative who believes anything that deters from his mental gymnastics is negative and shouldn't be taught. AKA Liberal colleges are teaching our children about things I don't agree with so they are all bad and are ruining 'MERICUH. Which is this really narrow mindset.

And ultra liberals or whatever the label is for them that decry any and all things Republican/Tea Party/notliberal as all bad and ruining America aren't as bad? Why jump on one side for it? Our entire political mouthpiece for both sides is nothing but shit slinging and you're buying right into it.

It's funny how actual research by top universities that actually PROVE something is discounted as "liberal agenda" when it doesn't fit the conservative mindset. That shit gets old. When someone has factual evidence proving something wrong, it's not an agenda, it's fact. Peer reviewed, researched fact. Until another set of research actually discounts the previous research, it stands.

Sorta like "NRA agenda/propaganda" and everything is discounted?

The reason most colleges are "liberal" is because conservative mindset detracts from furthering education. It's very nature and definition is about NOT pushing things further. Education at a Yale level is not High School, it's not about teaching you the old. You know the old, you studied it. It's about expanding our knowledge through research.

The reason I don't agree with the neo-con movements (just as I don't agree with neo-liberal movements) is because of this train of thought. They both dress up and walk around as if they are supporting freedom for people but they are the exact opposite. They BOTH want to shut down free speech, freedom of expression, and impose their views on others.

There ya go! Except, not quite from what I've seen (but maybe I haven't seen the same stuff you have). The majority of the time what I've seen is the liberal side attempting to shut down and drown out anyone who disagrees with them. The far right is mostly just responding by defending themselves just as loudly. Sort of a "fuck me? No fuck YOU!" Minor semantics over who started what but every argument I see on facebook starts with something left blasting the right.

True, but I can't stand articles that are so damn biased. His background and what he covers/how he covers it plus the location of the article is all I need to know that it's extensively slanted.

Here's another thing I don't get - biased != wrong. Everyone is biased - doesn't mean they're not knowledgeable.

Oh, I totally agree. I've had my fair share of "run-ins" with professors that sucked because they were extensively biased. But the majority of professors I had were generally very open to debate and based their stances on research and not agendas.

I had ultra conservative Texas born and raised professors, I've had ultra hippie annoying professors.

The best were those who allowed you to think but showed you the evidence when you were wrong and why. Not just shutting you down.

The students who were ultra PC were in the minority when I was in school. The vast majority of students really only debated their studies and anything outside that realm was kinda under the mindset of "Live and let live, do whatever the fuck you want but don't impose it on me."

These extensively biased professors is exactly what the article was getting at. You SEE 2 of them on video yelling at the reporters. He's saying they exacerbate the problems with kids who come to the college. It sure isn't helping them think critically for themselves is it? But at the same time he's saying they're not the primary issue or cause. I don't see how that's so hard to understand, or why you're this worked up over it. Maybe I just haven't paid attention but I think this is the most worked up I've seen you in any of your posts.

 

[MikeL]

And ultra liberals or whatever the label is for them that decry any and all things Republican/Tea Party/notliberal as all bad and ruining America aren't as bad? Why jump on one side for it? Our entire political mouthpiece for both sides is nothing but shit slinging and you're buying right into it.

I'm not buying into it in the least. I'm not shit slinging moderate conservatives, only ultra conservatives. That author is an ultra conservative.

I'm jumping on one side of it because I lean liberal but would prefer to be neutral. I believe the ultra-conservative christian leadership (A lot of the Republican party) in this nation is actually one of the root problems holding the U.S. back from being greater. They throw, not only their constituents under the bus, but nearly everyone else in an effort to promote big business and all sorts of other bullshit.

Almost everyone I know who identifies as "conservative" is only only conservative because of their business. Rarely is it actually for all the main reasons the party runs around with these days.

Sorta like "NRA agenda/propaganda" and everything is discounted?

I'm arguing proven research. Not an agenda or propaganda. Maybe I'm missing your point here. I'm a gun owner myself, and support gun ownership. I think the laws are WAY too relaxed though in terms of how easy it is to get weapons in this country.

There ya go! Except, not quite from what I've seen (but maybe I haven't seen the same stuff you have). The majority of the time what I've seen is the liberal side attempting to shut down and drown out anyone who disagrees with them. The far right is mostly just responding by defending themselves just as loudly. Sort of a "fuck me? No fuck YOU!" Minor semantics over who started what but every argument I see on facebook starts with something left blasting the right.

This is more to do with the area I think. You're seeing posts in a mostly liberal area correct? Most conservative users either A.) Don't give enough fucks to bother or B.) Know that given the area it's pointless? They are your friends and your family on Facebook correct?

I've seen social media pages from the south and other conservative friends/family. They bash just as hard. Both sides tend to spew highly inaccurate bullshit and it's often not even directed correctly.

Here's another thing I don't get - biased != wrong. Everyone is biased - doesn't mean they're not knowledgeable.

His article is opinion, just like most in relation to the issue. Wrong/Right is not so relevant as much as it's just pure opinion. I think his opinion is wrong.

These extensively biased professors is exactly what the article was getting at. You SEE 2 of them on video yelling at the reporters. He's saying they exacerbate the problems with kids who come to the college. It sure isn't helping them think critically for themselves is it? But at the same time he's saying they're not the primary issue or cause. I don't see how that's so hard to understand, or why you're this worked up over it. Maybe I just haven't paid attention but I think this is the most worked up I've seen you in any of your posts.

Yale is not Missouri, these are two different things. Where were 2 Yale professors yelling at reporters? I think you're mixing up the two major "PC" situations.

 

[NorCalAthlete]

I'm not buying into it in the least. I'm not shit slinging moderate conservatives, only ultra conservatives. That author is an ultra conservative.

I'm jumping on one side of it because I lean liberal but would prefer to be neutral. I believe the ultra-conservative christian leadership (A lot of the Republican party) in this nation is actually one of the root problems holding the U.S. back from being greater. They throw, not only their constituents under the bus, but nearly everyone else in an effort to promote big business and all sorts of other bullshit.

Again...both sides do this for their own particular causes - both equally detrimental to actual progress. FWIW, I'm something like 68% republican and 70% democrat according to those political "where do you lean" sites.


I'm arguing proven research. Not an agenda or propaganda. Maybe I'm missing your point here. I'm a gun owner myself, and support gun ownership. I think the laws are WAY too relaxed though in terms of how easy it is to get weapons in this country.

My point was that proven research is labeled agenda or propaganda by its opponents regardless of the data.



This is more to do with the area I think. You're seeing posts in a mostly liberal area correct? Most conservative users either A.) Don't give enough fucks to bother or B.) Know that given the area it's pointless? They are your friends and your family on Facebook correct?

Little of column A, little of column B. Regardless of their reasons, it's 99% defensive after an offensive blanket statement from someone on the left. And I spent 10 years in the military - I have plenty of friends down south. They don't do nearly as much hard, pointed ranting and shit slinging. They just post the occasional meme or something to laugh about, whereas the left get actually worked up about things to the point of hate and calls for violence against the right.

I've seen social media pages from the south and other conservative friends/family. They bash just as hard. Both sides tend to spew highly inaccurate bullshit and it's often not even directed correctly.

On that much we agree case in point, your posts about the author and his views on higher education.


His article is opinion, just like most in relation to the issue. Wrong/Right is not so relevant as much as it's just pure opinion. I think his opinion is wrong.

I don't think you quite understand his opinion.

Yale is not Missouri, these are two different things. Where were 2 Yale professors yelling at reporters? I think you're mixing up the two major "PC" situations.

No. Unless you think Yale is higher education and Mizzou is not. You're mixing up the authors comments on damage with "higher education = bad mmmkay?" If you accept that both are institutions of higher learning, then surely you can realize how having professors like that can be detrimental?

Responses above. Although maybe I should reformat that so you can quote and reply better. Sorry. In class at the moment.

 

[Eldritch]

People don't have the right to not be offended. These crybabies need to suck it up and learn to be part of the human race.

If you don't offend everyone around you on a daily basis, you're doing life wrong.

 

[DReg350]

If you don't offend everyone around you on a daily basis, you're doing life wrong.

You're absolutely wrong about that. If you're offended, does that mean I'm doing it right?

 

[Corb]

If you don't offend everyone around you on a daily basis, you're doing life wrong.

I think theres an important difference between being offensive for the sake of it and simply not letting "I'm offended" get in the way of real talk on real issues.
I for one am not interested in offending people. Also not interested if people get offended because I criticize their bad ideas or if I exercise freedom of speech or expression.

The draw Mohamed cartoon thing is a perfect example.
Doing it in front of a mosque is being offensive for the sake of it. Doing it in an art gallery or private business open to the public to promote free speech and dialogue is not.

 

[jdhu]

I think theres an important difference between being offensive for the sake of it and simply not letting "I'm offended" get in the way of real talk on real issues.
I for one am not interested in offending people. Also not interested if people get offended because I criticize their bad ideas or if I exercise freedom of speech or expression.

The draw Mohamed cartoon thing is a perfect example.
Doing it in front of a mosque is being offensive for the sake of it. Doing it in an art gallery or private business open to the public to promote free speech and dialogue is not.

So, in other words, big difference between legitimate expression and trolling?

Agree, but think both must be defended/allowed.

 

[MikeL]

Responses above. Although maybe I should reformat that so you can quote and reply better. Sorry. In class at the moment.

My point was that proven research is labeled agenda or propaganda by its opponents regardless of the data.

There is a difference between proven research, paid for research, and combined.

NRA and other organizations (liberal ones too) often have an agenda when they ask for research to be done for them with them providing the funding. Any time an organization that isn't a reputable research institution/academic group posts "research" I question it. It happens far to often that paid research is manipulated.

Research done at reputable private/public institutions often goes with the findings and SHOULD NOT try to skew their data. Sometimes people are paid and bought off.

violence against the right.

And that is just wrong.

On that much we agree case in point, your posts about the author and his views on higher education.

How so? He says he believes higher education is damaging. It's not directed incorrectly when it's in the article we are discussing.

I don't think you quite understand his opinion.

His opinion is literally the problem. He removes blame from the "idiot children" at Yale and then places it on the upper middle class parents who raised them. So basically he is saying - these "idiot children" are raised wrong and don't understand the real world "BLAH BLAH BLAH GENOCIDE AND RAPE!!" but we shouldn't hold them accountable, their parents are.

Does he even proof read his own shit?

He should be saying "It doesn't matter how you are raised, you should know how to have civil discourse if you're at Yale."

Instead his commentary is broken down into:

• Real life has genocide and rape
• Colleges are part of the problem
• Upper middle class parents are the problem

The truth of the matter is - all because other parts of the world see genocide, rape, torture, horrible conditions, etc it doesn't automatically make someones claims for lesser problems less relevant.

No. Unless you think Yale is higher education and Mizzou is not. You're mixing up the authors comments on damage with "higher education = bad mmmkay?" If you accept that both are institutions of higher learning, then surely you can realize how having professors like that can be detrimental?

I'm not mixing up the authors comments at all. He claims, in text, that "Yale and other elite colleges" damage "our children." They are both higher learning institutions, yes. But the author is not writing about the Mizzou instance, he's writing about the Yale incident.

The professors at Mizzou are in the minority from my experience. I don't even see them as damaging, but some people might be fooled. I see them as people who get poor reviews on Rate My Professor and people talk shit about them outside of class.

 

[Corb]

So, in other words, big difference between legitimate expression and trolling?

Agree, but think both must be defended/allowed.

100%
If people would chose to stand in front of a mosque with a picture of Mohamed I think they are 100% in their right in a free society. Just the same as some can picket veteran funerals with obnoxious christian propaganda.

 

[MikeL]

[youtube]A8UTj8lQJhY[/youtube]

Oops, the broken English Asian woman .. just ALMOST fit their narrative.. until she mentioned black people can be racist too.

 

[ScorpioVI]

This is just getting better.

White students asked to leave "black only" healing space.

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2015/11...black-only-healing-space-272998#ixzz3rK2HNq00

 

[Dug]

[youtube]A8UTj8lQJhY[/youtube]

Oops, the broken English Asian woman .. just ALMOST fit their narrative.. until she mentioned black people can be racist too.

If you don't support and parrot the "Narrative" 100% you are the enemy.

 

[Ogier le Danois]

I keep having to remind myself these videos and articles are not from the onion.

 

[Dug]

In fairness, I'll post up this video because it seems a few people on the left are finally waking up to the sheer mind numbing, fucking stupidity of "Your rights end where my feelings start." bullshit by the SJW movement which is heavily influenced by a hyper-extreme version of Marxist Conflict theory garbage.

[youtube]wQex8BXDAt8[/youtube]

 

[jdhu]

I keep having to remind myself these videos and articles are not from the onion.

Hahahaha +1

 

[Eldritch]

You're absolutely wrong about that. If you're offended, does that mean I'm doing it right?

No, Buttercup, but I like where this is going. You need to throw in some kind f gender/race/culture stereotype in there and we're getting into the ballpark.

I think theres an important difference between being offensive for the sake of it and simply not letting "I'm offended" get in the way of real talk on real issues.
I for one am not interested in offending people. Also not interested if people get offended because I criticize their bad ideas or if I exercise freedom of speech or expression.

The draw Mohamed cartoon thing is a perfect example.
Doing it in front of a mosque is being offensive for the sake of it. Doing it in an art gallery or private business open to the public to promote free speech and dialogue is not.

Well, sure, you don't go out of your WAY to offend people, we just have a responsibility as a society to kick somebody square in their feels if they are sucker enough to let people know that they have them.

 

[jdhu]

The more I think about it, the more infuriating it is. A dean at Claremont McKenna just resigned over an innocuous email. That Asian girl in these vids being discouraged from speaking because she had the nerve to point out that every race has bad, even racist people.

Fucking stupid.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-claremont-marches-20151112-story.html