Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

okwu.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

671–680 of 707 posts

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

#671

Post by MisterBastahrd »

aggieben wrote: post #573
MisterBastahrd wrote: post #517

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do they call it the Death Tax? Why do they call the lobbying for prevention of medical treatment for women, Pro-life? Why can't they call the opposition party by their actual name?

Why do they call it the Death Tax? ...because the estate tax has the effect of being a tax on dying. Why do they call the lobbying for prevention of medical treatment for women, Pro-life? Because we think elective abortions (almost all abortions are elective) are not medical treatment, but rather a barbaric practice in which one person is killed for the convenience of the other, and in most cases is harmful in the lo…

... because "estate tax" is a tax on wealth.

... because controlling women is what Republicans want to do. You have to go into very modern religious nonsense to come up with an idea that a fetus is a person, and you've decided that politicians should have more say over a woman's health than her doctor.

... because you hate the idea that a political party could seem "democratic."

Sorry, but peddle that hilarious dishonesty elsewhere. It might fly in Texas, but it makes no actual sense.

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

#672

Post by philh »

wpietri wrote: post #662
philh wrote: post #622

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're addressing a line of argument about which I said "that's not what I want to get at". And you're ignoring the actual thing that I've been talking about. The thing about which I said "it makes me pretty uncomfortable when..." and "I don't have a polite term for this". I disagree with some of what you're saying, and I agree with other bits of it. But I strongly disagree with the thing that you're doing and not ev…

Just so we're clear, your complaint is that I'm talking about the thing I want to talk about, rather than me talking about the thing you want me to talk about? I'm not immediately seeing my obligation here.

I have multiple complaints! For one, you're a bully. For two, you're changing the subject when I point out your bullying. And now we can add three, you're changing the subject when I point out your changing the subject.

Are you trying to paint me as some kind of tyrant here? Who said anything about obligation? Feel free to ignore me, feel free to talk about whatever you like. Meanwhile, I will feel free to point out when I don't like the things you say.

Like so: it is a shitty tactic to pretend you're talking to me, to reply as though you have a reply to what I said, and thus to obscure the fact that you're presenting no defense for your actions.

I don't know if this is malice or incompetence on your part, but it's bullshit.

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

#673

Post by rewqfdsa »

jonlucc wrote: post #171
coldpie wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People in the real world will treat you like crap, no matter what. Why should we accept this?

We shouldn't and don't. In fact, if someone is making you feel unsafe at work (especially if it's because of your gender, race, etc), HR has a responsibility to address it.

Please define "unsafe" --- because I feel plenty unsafe as work due to my race and gender, and I feel that going to HR would only exacerbate this risk. If I may be so bold, I don't think, however, you would consider the danger I feel, the eggshells I have to walk on, real problems. I feel like only members of certain groups get to use the "unsafe" card, and as a proponent of equal treatment and fair rules, this feeling bothers me.

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

#674

Post by nightspirit »

silentplummet wrote: post #345
wfo wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>Some positions are simply not worth discussing thoughtfully. Who decides which is which? I guess you?

Everyone is making such decisions on his own, obviously.

It's bullshit to expect that people will seriously consider all ideas out there, no matter how weird or outright stupid they sound.

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

#675

Post by nightspirit »

pbnjay wrote: post #155
frobozz wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. Either the complainant is a troll, or doesn't exist. No normal person would attend a sermon at the chapel of a given faith, and complain that the sermon victimises them for being a poor practitioner of that faith. This is doubly true when its about something universal like love, rather than how well you practice some specific ritual.

Except at religious schools, generally chapel is not voluntary, but required. People tend to pick churches where they are NOT uncomfortable, versus in a college chapel they will be more edgy for just this reason - to get their students to actually think about issues.

But the schools themselves are voluntary. I utterly fail to understand people who attend them and complain. (In fact, also those who don't complain, but that's another rant for another day...)

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

#676

Post by ikeboy »

JungleGymSam wrote: post #667
ikeboy wrote: post #656

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Saying something is Christian does not imply it is fine. The proper response to "I'm a jerk because I'm Christian" is "fine, be Christian, but you'll face the consequences of being a jerk, one of which is public shaming for being a jerk". There was a valid point made that the student chose to go to a Christian college. But note that the logic that that implies is precisely the logic behind trigger warnings: that peop…

> Deliberately not having trigger warnings is deliberately deceptive. facepalm

That's not an argument. Could you explain why you disagree?

It seems that in the absence of a warning, there is no informed consent; asking for a warning allows for freedom of association.

If the OP had said "being open to guilt etc is an integral part of our university; as such, anyone refusing to go to this talk will be expelled. However, we will tell people in advance, so they can choose not to go, and then leave." I would support him. To specifically say "I'm not telling people about what will happen" means you don't want people to know in advance. How is that not deceptive?

As I noted above, the argument that the student chose a Christian college and therefore should know about it falls flat, because the student did not know about it. And if knowing was a good thing, then so would a trigger warning on the talk; it's literally accomplishing the task of making sure people know.

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

#677

Post by johnny22 »

chillingeffect wrote: post #418
mgr86 wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree it is powerful but it is also just effective communication. I try to do it a lot with my girlfriend on things we don't necessarily agree. I'll paraphrase her position to ensure that my response is correct. ...Sadly, that is sometimes met with "No, are you even listening". But hey, at least at that point she rewords it to get her point across.

heya if you are talking about communicating with a woman - or rather feminine energy - sometimes it can be even easier than that! 95% - 99% of the time, feminine energy works out its problems through saying them out loud and being heard. (Masculine energy works out its problems by pondering in a man cave). So often, all you have to do is keep your lips closed and listen. It can be hard, but that's the way it works, b…

sarcasm?

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

#678

Post by nightspirit »

DarkTree wrote: post #410
laotzu wrote: post #209

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…

I had not read this before, but I really like it. 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.

It's something I call creationism. You give something a name ("insults"), ask some grammatically-correct questions about it ("where did it go?", "to whom did it stick?") and now you created this magic, metaphysical thing which you feel really exists and needs to answer your questions one way or another.

While in the mundane everyday world, the young warrior simply made a fool of himself.

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

#679

Post by pitay »

talmand wrote: post #190
CodeCube wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I gotta say, anecdotally, this is what I often find ... the people complaining about political correctness, are those that have in the past been openly racist, or at a minimum, fond of racially charged jokes (ie. "black people are great, everyone should own one"). They are chafing against a cultural change that no longer appreciates and/or tolerates behavior like that.

Well, anecdotally, I often find that being used as an easy excuse to dismiss someone's concerns without having to address the concerns.

I totally agree. I have had people blaming me for making them depressed when I was refuting someone saying 'you get out what was put into it', which I thought was complete bullshit the way he was saying it.

I was saying that a lot of success is due to chance, and that a lot of life events are due to chance. This got people some people saying that what I was saying was horribly depressing. The guy then proceeded to lecture me that my attitude was what was letting me down in something that I never did, and was irrelevant anyway. And that 'I may not have intended it, but that my actions are causing misery' (because I did apologize to people that saying that they were horribly depressed by me saying that life has chance in it, because I felt the need to be conciliatory).

That is what happened when I tried to be honest and disagree with someone spouting feel good bullshit or whatever else made him look good. A complete frigging cesspool.

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

#680

Post by joshuahedlund »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #249
kohanz wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't understand why when you google a complex topic such as "crime" and then apply a narrow, racial lens to it, mostly racist organizations show up? The term "X on Y crime" is suggesting that the relevant information about people who commit crimes and are victims of crime can be summarized by the color of their skin. That's as racist of a notion as it gets.

Correct. There is clearly something interesting happening in the data - it's very far from what you'd get by random chance. That seems to be worth studying, yet no one seems to be doing it. The point is not that it can be perfectly summarized by skin color, the point is that there is clearly something happening and it would be great to find out what. Of course, as it relates to my original post, the only relevant fac…

> There is clearly something interesting happening in the data - it's very far from what you'd get by random chance. That seems to be worth studying, yet no one seems to be doing it.

I think there are fairly straightforward explanations, simply deducing from books I've read about urban crime... Most crime is intra-racial because it occurs between people who know each other or live near each other and tends to be concentrated in areas of poverty which tend to be demographically homogeneous. Overall, blacks commit crimes at higher rates than whites, which partially correlates with higher poverty rates, but it's not distributed equally because it's also highly concentrated among small numbers of urban street gangs/groups who commit enormous amounts of crime (of which there's no poor white rural counterpart). These groups are mostly surrounded by blacks, so most of their victims will be black, but there are enough whites near them that the whites who are victims of these groups contribute to the black-on-white numbers being higher. Part of the irrationality and bigotry comes from interpreting these numbers as some kind of targeting going on specifically to whites because there's no reverse equivalent instead of understanding that it actually comes from an urban dynamic that overall causes black victims to suffer even more than whites.

Post reply on HN