This Is Not a Day Care. It’s a University

Post by tlrobinson » Tue, Dec 01, 2015, 4:33 PM UTC

adventured wrote: post #122

coldpie wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The idea that people's feelings should come first, especially before truth/understanding of reality No one is arguing for this.

In fact it's being very openly argued all over the place in US culture today. The recent famous video of the Yale professor that was trying to talk rationally to the irrational students around him - it was all about the students claiming they had a right to not be offended, and the notion that their feelings trumped freedom of speech.

Post by forgottenpass » Tue, Dec 01, 2015, 4:33 PM UTC

ebola1717 wrote: post #260

stupidcar wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But this explanation does not seem to match the facts. For example, many law professors are having to stop teaching rape law, because so many students say it makes them uncomfortable[1]. Surely college students are capable of distinguishing between the threat of rape, and the discussion of relevant law in a classroom environment? So what is the safety issue here? Indeed, the end result will likely be a net lowering o…

First of all, no one in that article is uncomfortable because they can't distinguish between "the threat of rape and and the discussion of relevant law." We're talking about survivors of sexual assault, for whom the often very explicit discussions of rape law can be emotionally taxing. You're right that we do need to teach rape law, now more than ever, and we need to be able to have these nuanced and explicit discuss…

Post by Kalium » Tue, Dec 01, 2015, 4:34 PM UTC

javajosh wrote: post #391

coderdude wrote: post #353

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.)

Post by pc86 » Tue, Dec 01, 2015, 4:35 PM UTC

Robin_Message wrote: post #403

pc86 wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please post a source for the pro Hitler comment, at least.

It sounded like hyperbole to me too, but then I remembered: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mail#Rise_of_fascism The owner in 1933 at least was a strong supporter of fascism in general, and Hitler in particular.

Post by 6stringmerc » Tue, Dec 01, 2015, 4:35 PM UTC

ctdonath wrote: post #424

6stringmerc wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a really important observation. Also, in the US, it's quite relevant to the current state of political rhetoric - I know the 'outrage half-life' is pretty short these days, but pointing to the Starbucks Red Cup "manufactured controversy" can, I think, reasonably be referenced to illustrate the hypocritical victimization tendency alive and well in modern (fundamentalist-oriented) Christianity. I think it's no…

The "red cup controversy" wasn't "alive and well in modern Christianity" as there was no actual outrage about the cup, only self-congratulatory outrage by others against the presumed & imputed anti-red-cup outrage which didn't actually exist. What's telling is how many people were quick to sneer at a group for doing something they didn't do.