First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
Kooky SJW college students harass Jewish professor
37852 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 5/30/17 , edited 5/31/17
Whenever I see stuff like this I think I should take a trip and hang out at some of these places to see what the fuck is actually happening. None of this nonsense exists in my life. I think it's a case of a few people yelling really loudly. And it's probably safe to ignore them until they have a test to study for or something.
38564 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
48 / M / Covington, KY
Offline
Posted 5/30/17 , edited 5/31/17
I clicked on the link, but closed the video when I saw Fox News.
11316 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M
Offline
Posted 5/30/17 , edited 5/31/17

theunlocked wrote:

The usage of "SJW" somewhat degrades any point you were trying to make.
Also citation of breitbart, which is infamous for disseminating disinformation.

From the far-right sources provided, it seems like the students were in the wrong. Obviously, violence (or emotionally damaging behavior) is not tolerated. That said, student-driven grassroots change is perfect acceptable (these are adults, although even if they weren't it would still be important for their voices to be heard), and it appears that most students did not engage in any kind of violent (or emotionally damaging) behavior. The idea that students shouldn't be activists is completely contrary to the foundation of the US. Philosophers that came up with things like free speech and checks and balances did so as student/teacher activists.

However, I can't draw any strong conclusions about this particular event without center or left aligned sources to compare this to.

Also, one can be sued for defamation, so it would probably be wise to heed the requests of students. If you want to make the same argument about student -> teacher defamation, that case could only be made if the students themselves posted the videos, which does not appear to be the case.


I agree with you that SJW is not a term that helps one's case these days.

I also agree far right sources are not great for making your point (the WaPo and WaTimes articles, however, i would be willing to trust as sources. Especially the WaPo one).

As for activism.

Activism has a time and a place, and unfortunately, what is at the heart of this issue is that the protests are using methods worse than the "evils" they are fighting against.

Peaceful protest and nonviolence has always been encouraged, whereas exclusionist behavior, threats, and using social pressure to force one's way have never been considered acceptable.

Even more unfortunate, I do not see the current climate of our country, students and adults alike, to care much about being just or fair inasmuch as they are exercising whatever power they might be able to possess, and typically power from being a victim.

It's tiresome, and eventually, people will get sick of these oppressed turned oppressors, and, the results may be far, far worse for those whom are enjoying the role reversal now...
317 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Somewhere in the...
Offline
Posted 5/30/17 , edited 5/31/17
Sorry, missed the WaPo link. That's center-left (using citations from a center-right source in this particular article) so it should be good to compare to.

Sorry if any of these were answered in the articles linked and I just missed it, but here are questions I still have:
1. What were the allegedly racist policies?
2. What kind of hiring rules were added that Weinstein didn't like? Were they akin to affirmative action (which helps promote diversity) or was it something like "no criminal record" (which has been commonly used to keep blacks, being typically from lower-income families, from being accepted)?
3. How exactly were students attempting to coerce other white students to take part in the Day of Absence?
4. What kind of history surrounds the area and the school regarding racism?
Posted 5/30/17 , edited 6/1/17

theunlocked wrote:

Sorry, missed the WaPo link. That's center-left (using citations from a center-right source in this particular article) so it should be good to compare to.

Sorry if any of these were answered in the articles linked and I just missed it, but here are questions I still have:
1. What were the allegedly racist policies?
2. What kind of hiring rules were added that Weinstein didn't like? Were they akin to affirmative action (which helps promote diversity) or was it something like "no criminal record" (which has been commonly used to keep blacks, being typically from lower-income families, from being accepted)?
3. How exactly were students attempting to coerce other white students to take part in the Day of Absence?
4. What kind of history surrounds the area and the school regarding racism?


1Not enough free shit
2.There were talks of hiring people based solely on the color of their skin, and he opposed it. But that is not why this mob was started, that was months ago before all this. It just got dragged out by those morons to use as 'ammunition' in their harassment campaign.
3. Watch the youtube videos linked in the thread.
4. Its all been stated ITT.
11316 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M
Offline
Posted 5/30/17 , edited 5/31/17
fair questions.

The last I can at least say that the school is noted for being VERY leftist ("the hippie school") and although there's a strong conservative base in the area, there's equally as much a strong liberal base.

IIRC, from what my sister kinda told me, Olympia seems pretty equidistant from Portland and Seattle, though when I visited, (east coaster here) I was primarily in Portland.

Conservative doesn't necessarily equate with racist no more than liberal equates "SJW". I consider myself rather liberal TBH, though I'm not left of center enough for current liberalism.

As for affirmative action, there's plenty of rational debates as to the merit of such programs and, from what I read of his letter, my guess is he might have held disagreement with those (which are more common practices these days) than "no criminal record" (which is of dubious legality to discriminate against according to many variations on the EOE laws). One of the problems with affirmative action is "quota filling" and "positive racism", which can be a detriment to all. Instead of erasing racism based on your skin color, if your a minority they just shove you into a role (typically one of little value) to fill quotas.

317 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Somewhere in the...
Offline
Posted 5/30/17 , edited 5/31/17

Amyas_Leigh wrote:

1Not enough free shit
2.There were talks of hiring people based solely on the color of their skin, and he opposed it. But that is not why this mob was started, that was months ago before all this. It just got dragged out by those morons to use as 'ammunition' in their harassment campaign.


1. That's a generic response and shows no knowledge or explanation of the actual issue
2. My question was more asking why.


serifsansserif wrote:
I consider myself rather liberal TBH, though I'm not left of center enough for current liberalism.

I like to believe that 2016 primary results show a quieter majority of establishment democrats.



One of the problems with affirmative action is "quota filling" and "positive racism", which can be a detriment to all. Instead of erasing racism based on your skin color, if your a minority they just shove you into a role (typically one of little value) to fill quotas.


If done right, this shouldn't be a very big issue, but as is the case with most things, it's not always done right.
Regardless, the whole uncut comment answers questions 2 and 4.

Question 3 will probably be pretty hard to get a "good" answer for, as that kind of thing probably won't be consistent.

Still kinda wondering about question 1 though.
11316 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M
Offline
Posted 5/30/17 , edited 5/31/17

theunlocked wrote:



One of the problems with affirmative action is "quota filling" and "positive racism", which can be a detriment to all. Instead of erasing racism based on your skin color, if your a minority they just shove you into a role (typically one of little value) to fill quotas.


If done right, this shouldn't be a very big issue, but as is the case with most things, it's not always done right.


As I get older, I start to see why affirmative action and such aren't so great.

Even when "done right" it's the principle of giving someone a hand up at the hiring stage and doing so based on minority status. I prefer plans that raise everyone up out of poverty, and better wording of current laws to be blind to the facticities of an individual.

I also think that if colorblindness is the goal, then we should simply judge on merit. I think any other method of plurality will only enhance ethnic differences, and lead to greater issues and "us vs. them" mentalities.

I could go on here, but it's late..
25561 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Beyond The Wall
Offline
Posted 5/30/17 , edited 5/31/17
Its safe to say that some Klansmen in the back of the woods somewhere are just laughing at the thought that SJW's are accomplishing their goals in a "politically correct" and efficient way.

20125 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
37 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 5/30/17 , edited 5/31/17

uncoveror wrote:

I clicked on the link, but closed the video when I saw Fox News.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3R6dzZdceT4 video from the people them selves.


317 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Somewhere in the...
Offline
Posted 5/30/17 , edited 5/31/17

serifsansserif wrote:


theunlocked wrote:



One of the problems with affirmative action is "quota filling" and "positive racism", which can be a detriment to all. Instead of erasing racism based on your skin color, if your a minority they just shove you into a role (typically one of little value) to fill quotas.


If done right, this shouldn't be a very big issue, but as is the case with most things, it's not always done right.


As I get older, I start to see why affirmative action and such aren't so great.

Even when "done right" it's the principle of giving someone a hand up at the hiring stage and doing so based on minority status. I prefer plans that raise everyone up out of poverty, and better wording of current laws to be blind to the facticities of an individual.

I also think that if colorblindness is the goal, then we should simply judge on merit. I think any other method of plurality will only enhance ethnic differences, and lead to greater issues and "us vs. them" mentalities.

I could go on here, but it's late..


I think the point of affirmative action is to close the opportunity gap. Let's look at STEM, for example. Girls have had very low turnout for STEM jobs because society tells them that girls shouldn't go into STEM even if STEM interests them. Affirmative action, as well as other positive-discriminatory scholarships, awards, and benefits, can help destroy that stigma so that the gap doesn't widen (and hopefully even closes so we can stop discriminating).
25561 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Beyond The Wall
Offline
Posted 5/30/17 , edited 5/31/17
Im surprised no one posted this video yet. Just a video of "activism" thats happening on campus.

Also in this video we see the Unicorn of Oppression and victim hood hierarchy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-SPKdLZBs0
Posted 5/30/17 , edited 6/1/17

theunlocked wrote:
Affirmative action, as well as other positive-discriminatory scholarships, awards, and benefits, can help destroy that stigma so that the gap doesn't widen (and hopefully even closes so we can stop discriminating).


Yeah that's great and all until your unqualified doctor kills you or a loved one. But hey, as long as social justice was had, right?
15163 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
100
Offline
Posted 5/30/17 , edited 5/31/17

theunlocked wrote:

I think the point of affirmative action is to close the opportunity gap. Let's look at STEM, for example. Girls have had very low turnout for STEM jobs because society tells them that girls shouldn't go into STEM even if STEM interests them. Affirmative action, as well as other positive-discriminatory scholarships, awards, and benefits, can help destroy that stigma so that the gap doesn't widen (and hopefully even closes so we can stop discriminating).


Maybe I'm biased because no amount of society telling me I didn't belong in STEM could have convinced me not to enter it, but I just can't find the slightest shred of sympathy for your argument. It's a rather unfortunate example of the sort of hypocrisy one all too often finds among advocates of such policies. Society tells women they shouldn't go into STEM...except there are segments of society that are explicitly devoted to telling women they should go into STEM. I approve of this, STEM is great and women should definitely pursue real science careers rather than becoming ivory tower talking heads who attempt to justify discrimination when it's in their favor. There are also segments of society devoted to telling women they deserve to be preferentially hired over men in STEM careers, which is blatantly sexist against men, and also probably sexist against women according to some libertarian feminist theory because it promotes the idea that women require support from others to succeed while men don't. But the segments of society that are pro-women in STEM don't count as segments of society to the advocates of affirmative action. They don't have the ability to create social pressure in the minds of the advocates of affirmative action. Maybe progressives will look a little less hypocritical when they start advocating for cis white male Christian affirmative action on college campuses and in other subcultures that are dominated by the political left.

Not that their policy will be any more morally acceptable - the real problem with affirmative action isn't that it is inconsistently applied in a manner that suits the aesthetic preferences of left-wing activists.

It's that affirmative action is patently racist (or for the example you used here, patently sexist). For those of you who took an introductory course in sociology, no I don't mean systematic racism, I mean individual-scale racism. Asserting that, all other factors equal, a white or asian (are asian people still not allowed to benefit from affirmative action?) should be passed over in hiring for a person who is not is blatantly and explicitly subjecting the white and asian people who have applied for the position to racial discrimination. Affirmative action cannot be done right because it is an example of the exact type of policy that prompted its' own creation. But the ends justify the means, and individuals (or maybe just white and asian individuals) don't actually matter, so apparently it's okay with the anti-racists.

If the fact that affirmative action subjects people to racial or sexual discrimination in the name of eradicating racism or sexism is not "a very big issue" to you, then perhaps you should consider whether or not you're the one who gets to make that determination for everyone. And whether not you're racist.


Amyas_Leigh wrote:


theunlocked wrote:
Affirmative action, as well as other positive-discriminatory scholarships, awards, and benefits, can help destroy that stigma so that the gap doesn't widen (and hopefully even closes so we can stop discriminating).


Yeah that's great and all until your unqualified doctor kills you or a loved one. But hey, as long as social justice was had, right?


To my knowledge most if not all affirmative action programs require people to actually be qualified for the job to get hired. The victims are the people who were passed over for no reason other than their race, in the name of combating racism. If two candidates are actually equally qualified a coin flip is less racist. It's actually not racist at all, although I'm sure some people on the left would argue it is.
317 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Somewhere in the...
Offline
Posted 5/30/17 , edited 5/31/17

Amyas_Leigh wrote:


theunlocked wrote:
Affirmative action, as well as other positive-discriminatory scholarships, awards, and benefits, can help destroy that stigma so that the gap doesn't widen (and hopefully even closes so we can stop discriminating).


Yeah that's great and all until your unqualified doctor kills you or a loved one. But hey, as long as social justice was had, right?


You still have to be qualified. Affirmative action doesn't give you a job, it gives you the opportunity to get the education needed to get a job.


gghadur77 wrote:
Maybe I'm biased because no amount of society telling me I didn't belong in STEM could have convinced me not to enter it, but I just can't find the slightest shred of sympathy for your argument. It's a rather unfortunate example of the sort of hypocrisy one all too often finds among advocates of such policies. Society tells women they shouldn't go into STEM...except there are segments of society that are explicitly devoted to telling women they should go into STEM. I approve of this, STEM is great and women should definitely pursue real science careers rather than becoming ivory tower talking heads who attempt to justify discrimination when it's in their favor. There are also segments of society devoted to telling women they deserve to be preferentially hired over men in STEM careers, which is blatantly sexist against men, and also probably sexist against women according to some libertarian feminist theory because it promotes the idea that women require support from others to succeed while men don't. But the segments of society that are pro-women in STEM don't count as segments of society to the advocates of affirmative action. They don't have the ability to create social pressure in the minds of the advocates of affirmative action. Maybe progressives will look a little less hypocritical when they start advocating for cis white male Christian affirmative action on college campuses and in other subcultures that are dominated by the political left.


For the first part, yes, we hate "white feminists" (the term for women who use feminism as an excuse to get what they want rather than to fight for equality) too for the same reason. They spoil the name of feminism for us "intersectional feminists."

Here's the thing: Big groups that advocate for women in STEM work, and they work well. Affirmative action also works. It's just another tool.
There are legitimate reasons that forcefully advocating for women in STEM is a good thing. Women have different experiences than men, and tend to think in different ways. This offers different solutions that may work better.
As an example, women tend to prefer different types of video games than men, and so in order to cater to a larger audience, it's actually beneficial for companies to try to keep an even split whenever possible. Without enough women being introduced to STEM though, that's not always possible.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.