401–410 of 707 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Learning only happens when there are consequences for being wrong. Aside from being ridiculed by people they disagree with and thus don't care about being ridiculed by, they have faced no consequences.
> Learning only happens when there are consequences for being wrong If I'm writing a toy project to teach myself WebGL, what are the consequences for doing something incorrectly and later having to debug it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> before you're allowed to respond to someone being wrong, you have to first be able to express their position in a way that they agree represents their view While we're at it, let's stipulate that everyone is only allowed to be honest and logical and to base their reasoning on valid premises! :) It's a nice thought, at least at first glance, but it's just not going to happen. Besides, the real problem with debates i…
It's not obvious to me that the militant feminists/race baiters/safe space people are sociopaths bent on willful dishonesty. I think it's reductive to assume they all have bad intentions. I disagree with many of their points of view, but it doesn't mean that they are being dishonest. For all you know, I could be the willfully dishonest one here. But you bring up an interesting point I've been wondering about lately -…
You're an interesting case though. Your HN comments are clean - no sophistry or trolling - so I guess you have your fun elsewhere.
I've been wondering if there's such a thing as a "benign sociopath", but it's not like I could trust you even if you claimed to be one. I hope so, but so far I'm leaning towards "No".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not really helping your case by using the pro Hitler, pro killing gay babies, Daily Mail though.
Please post a source for the pro Hitler comment, at least.
The owner in 1933 at least was a strong supporter of fascism in general, and Hitler in particular.
I have a friend who attended OKWU a few years ago. She shared this piece on Facebook in approval. From what I know from her education there, this place is essentially a "safe-space" for Christians. If you say anything negative about the religion or its teachings, you are kicked out. If you don't follow its rules, you are kicked out. If you drink, smoke, have premarital sex, are lgbtq, don't follow their strict ethics…
I think the world would be better if, before you're allowed to respond to someone being wrong, you have to first be able to express their position in a way that they agree represents their view. Because 'political correctness' isn't the cancer at the heart of social politics, it is straw-manning. On both sides of every issue. I'd be surprised, perhaps even amazed, if Dr Piper had represented the complaint in any way…
I suspect this was completely honest. You will not believe what comes out of the mouths of some of these students. Straw-manning is necessary; do you think either participant or the audience has the patience to sit and thoughtfully and carefully consider all sides of any issue in any debate? If that debate were publicized nobody would watch it. And it's a prisoner's dilemma. If you try to be respectful and thoughtful…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree with the jist of what is said by the president, but while reading this I felt the religious intonations were a bit strong and the article not object enough. Reading your comment does provide correlation to the strong religious sentiments. Also their mission statement: As an evangelical Christian university of The Wesleyan Church, Oklahoma Wesleyan University models a way of thought, a way of life, and a way o…
Thanks for posting the Mission Statement. Got me thinking a little bit more about their "values" so I was able to quickly dredge up a course catalog. Why? I wondered what their take on Biology would be - you know, that whole Evolution thing. To wit: Biology Major — Students will demonstrate the following outcomes, upon completion of the Biology degree offered by the School of Arts and Sciences: 1. A sound basic under…
I have a friend who attended OKWU a few years ago. She shared this piece on Facebook in approval. From what I know from her education there, this place is essentially a "safe-space" for Christians. If you say anything negative about the religion or its teachings, you are kicked out. If you don't follow its rules, you are kicked out. If you drink, smoke, have premarital sex, are lgbtq, don't follow their strict ethics…
But isn't that expected? OKWU's institution is as an evangelical Christian university - http://www.okwu.edu/about/
If you did not want Christian indoc then why would you go to a christian evangelical school?
I think the world would be better if, before you're allowed to respond to someone being wrong, you have to first be able to express their position in a way that they agree represents their view. Because 'political correctness' isn't the cancer at the heart of social politics, it is straw-manning. On both sides of every issue. I'd be surprised, perhaps even amazed, if Dr Piper had represented the complaint in any way…
A little research will produce a vast number of examples of political correctness with real consequences and not just "straw-manning". Here is a recent example: A Canadian university cancels a yoga class because yoga comes "from a culture that “experienced oppression, cultural genocide and diasporas due to colonialism and western supremacy,” In a world that can do that, I don't find it surprising that a student could…
I would throw it out there that Evangelical Christian university with rigorous behavioural standards are on average considerably less likely than average to attract rent-a-cause campaigning/complaining types and considerably more likely than average to deliver a "sermon on love" full of dire warnings and animosity towards people that don't love in the correct university-prescribed manner...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
By weeding out I simply mean to ignore. Though weeding out also suggests identifying them as well.
I think there's something to the idea of "consensual communication". It's odd that we don't allow people to shove food into your mouth without asking but we surely allow people to shovel words into your brain without asking. "Safe spacers" just want a generalization of an ad blocker, and I for one support their right to it (even the ones that go way too far, because determining that is not up to me.)
If a group wants to acquire private property and start a club or meeting where they gather to share like-minded ideas and be away from dissent, that is acceptable. The place for "safe spaces" away from intellectual challenge is NOT the square of a university campus.
The Gift of Insults, an old zen tale: There once lived a great warrior. Though quite old, he still was able to defeat any challenger. His reputation extended far and wide throughout the land and many students gathered to study under him.One day an infamous young warrior arrived at the village. He was determined to be the first man to defeat the great master. Along with his strength, he had an uncanny ability to spot…
Correct me if I'm wrong, but my takeaway is that since the old master did not accept the young warrior's insults, the insults remained with the young warrior, almost as if he was insulting himself.
In relation to the article, those who blame others for their victimization are in fact pointing out their own flaws.