Being 'PC' and 'safe places' on campus. The Younger gens

[Invisible Man]

I don't know much about the inner politics of colleges, but in my opinion they'd be better off by basically saying "these are the courses, this is how we do things on this campus, and if you don't like it, you can go to another one." But, of course, that would involve these campuses not being for-profit organizations. When the goal is largely to make money, then quality is going to suffer to pander to the "customers."

Right on. This is one of the big issues, as far as I can see. That's the tension--to follow or to lead? Both models are out there already...depends on how pessimistic one is about the purpose of education.

[Invisible Man]

Yep. Luck is something that people don't like to acknowledge when it's working in their favor. But it's definitely bad luck when we fuck up and fail though...

"No victor believes in chance." -Nietzsche

My frustration dealt with the "if you're not with us, you're against us" stance that I've seen a lot of my friends take when it comes to our pretty much universally liberal outlooks. I questioned the legitimacy of essentially censoring or even punishing people whose beliefs don't fall in line with the liberal/change agenda (read: Republicans, "family values" folks, et al), and was met with a "you're on the wrong side of history" kind of response. It was extremely hurtful and offensive to get that kind of reaction over what I thought was more just being careful and trying to maintain humanity/rationality. The last thing I ever want to do is to become just as tyrannical as what I was initially against, just from the opposite direction... it's extremely easy to do.

Haha this is true, and funny. I've never been able to level my own politics (which are, like everyone's, idiosyncratic) with this idea. There's this utter commitment to subjectivity, except for tolerance of all the people who disagree with a subjective view.

"We're all free to think and believe whatever we want, so long as it doesn't look anything like pro life/organized religion/conservative politics/&c."

I do it, too, I'm not coming after anyone--but it is fucking weird, and I don't understand it. And it hurts when people do it to you, for sure. If you're not all in, then you 'don't belong,' and that's not a good approach. But, again, that's why this seems to have a peacocking element (as in, who can take this further than anyone else, and look good doing it). It distinguishes people with strong opinions as leaders of the pack of peacocks...this metaphor is getting away from me.

[gunslinger_burrito]

I do think there is legitimacy to having a safe space, say at a college, if a group of young women who are victims of sexual assault want to gather to discuss their experiences. I think they have every right to ask that, say, men not be present. I think it would be a dick move for any guy to insist on wanting to be a part of that setting, knowing that the women have requested it be solely for them (victims and other women).

A safe space for a black student gathering could get weird, if white students wanted a similar, white student gathering. The former would be deemed acceptable, or might be, whereas the latter is not. Thats a tricky one in terms of what to permit.

Of course there can be support groups. That's a good point. I think I was thinking more of when people try to make classrooms "safe spaces" because something makes them feel uncomfortable. Censoring material and such. As for people making groups for anything, I think they should be able to. Because isn't that how freedom of speech in America is supposed to work? Even if it's a "white men's rights" group, if we tell them they can't do that, then we're taking away someone's freedom. If we truly want freedom, then we need to let people say what they want, even if it's unfounded, ignorant, or whatever.... Because by letting them say what they want, we create dialogue and awareness, and without those sort of things there can't be progress. Hiding ugly truths only makes them worse.

THIS sort of shit is getting downright silly though. I'm not sure if I should get mad, confused, or what....
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 44426.html

[D.o.S.]

Of course there can be support groups. That's a good point. I think I was thinking more of when people try to make classrooms "safe spaces" because something makes them feel uncomfortable. Censoring material and such. As for people making groups for anything, I think they should be able to. Because isn't that how freedom of speech in America is supposed to work? Even if it's a "white men's rights" group, if we tell them they can't do that, then we're taking away someone's freedom. If we truly want freedom, then we need to let people say what they want, even if it's unfounded, ignorant, or whatever.... Because by letting them say what they want, we create dialogue and awareness, and without those sort of things there can't be progress. Hiding ugly truths only makes them worse.

THIS sort of shit is getting downright silly though. I'm not sure if I should get mad, confused, or what....
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 44426.html

Being able to make a group is not the same thing as appropriating emotional protections for that group from, you know, legitimate groups.

i.e. People (as well as institutes of higher learning) should absolutely be able to discriminate against things that champion the stupid and the small-minded, assuming those things result in imminent lawless action of the minds involved*.

*How's that for a mixed metaphor?

[casecandy]

Sam Harris wrote The End of faith. Was it in that book that he talks about the trampoline idea, or was it actually Dennett, in one of his books? I'm just curious.

It was actually Dennett, paraphrasing the work of another philosopher. I just got the book title wrong. It was Breaking The Spell. I'm at work right now but later I'll find the actual passage, if you want it

Harris is... I dunno, less nuanced than Dennett. I think an educated person can read his books and totally get what he's trying to say, in his work as a whole, essentially that science can and does inform our morality, and that religion is being supplanted by a new synthesis of science and secular spirituality. I think your average hillbilly would read his books and come away with "Muslims is evil. Better go crash that mosque-planning meeting at town hall later."

...if they could get past the fact that it was written by an atheist spawn of Satan, that is.

Whereas your average hillbilly couldn't get through the intro of one of Dennett's books. That's the thing, I read all of Dawkins' books, too, and after I finished The Greatest Show On Earth, I was like... this book was preaching to the choir. Everybody smart enough to read it already believes in evolution

[gunslinger_burrito]

Being able to make a group is not the same thing as appropriating emotional protections for that group from, you know, legitimate groups.

i.e. People (as well as institutes of higher learning) should absolutely be able to discriminate against things that champion the stupid and the small-minded, assuming those things result in imminent lawless action of the minds involved*.

*How's that for a mixed metaphor?

So are you saying they shouldn't be able to make groups if they're going to cause trouble
So can we "discriminate" against the US Government then?

Sam Harris wrote The End of faith. Was it in that book that he talks about the trampoline idea, or was it actually Dennett, in one of his books? I'm just curious.

It was actually Dennett, paraphrasing the work of another philosopher. I just got the book title wrong. It was Breaking The Spell. I'm at work right now but later I'll find the actual passage, if you want it

Harris is... I dunno, less nuanced than Dennett. I think an educated person can read his books and totally get what he's trying to say, in his work as a whole, essentially that science can and does inform our morality, and that religion is being supplanted by a new synthesis of science and secular spirituality. I think your average hillbilly would read his books and come away with "Muslims is evil. Better go crash that mosque-planning meeting at town hall later."

...if they could get past the fact that it was written by an atheist spawn of Satan, that is.

Whereas your average hillbilly couldn't get through the intro of one of Dennett's books. That's the thing, I read all of Dawkins' books, too, and after I finished The Greatest Show On Earth, I was like... this book was preaching to the choir. Everybody smart enough to read it already believes in evolution

Good point about Dawkins book. I have Breaking The Spell but haven't had the time to dive into it. I like Dennett though.

[D.o.S.]

Being able to make a group is not the same thing as appropriating emotional protections for that group from, you know, legitimate groups.

i.e. People (as well as institutes of higher learning) should absolutely be able to discriminate against things that champion the stupid and the small-minded, assuming those things result in imminent lawless action of the minds involved*.

*How's that for a mixed metaphor?

So are you saying they shouldn't be able to make groups if they're going to cause trouble
So can we "discriminate" against the US Government then?

group, as being defined in this conversation, is essentially a collection of people holding a minority viewpoint attempting to get special dispensation in the eyes of some larger body of folks that hasn't been defined, thus far. You're saying everyone should be afforded the same protections that everyone else should, regardless of the validity position being taken, when they say something/"form a group", to use your vernacular.

That's fucking stupid. Not all ideas are created equally, and not all ideas should be treated equally. If you've got a group of people advocating for a Geocentric model of the universe, you're a fucking dumbass, and no one should be forced to suffer your idiocy. Furthermore, your idiocy can, is, and could be damaging to the minds of people who might not be reduced to utter stumps of dead end intellect had they not been exposed to that kind of patent-level bullshit in the first place.

Imagine if this forum didn't have an ignore function and we were all forced to endure casecandy's posts in the Music forum alongside the good posts from smart ILFers. That's not helping anyone.

[t-rey]

Yep. Luck is something that people don't like to acknowledge when it's working in their favor. But it's definitely bad luck when we fuck up and fail though...

"No victor believes in chance." -Nietzsche

My frustration dealt with the "if you're not with us, you're against us" stance that I've seen a lot of my friends take when it comes to our pretty much universally liberal outlooks. I questioned the legitimacy of essentially censoring or even punishing people whose beliefs don't fall in line with the liberal/change agenda (read: Republicans, "family values" folks, et al), and was met with a "you're on the wrong side of history" kind of response. It was extremely hurtful and offensive to get that kind of reaction over what I thought was more just being careful and trying to maintain humanity/rationality. The last thing I ever want to do is to become just as tyrannical as what I was initially against, just from the opposite direction... it's extremely easy to do.

Haha this is true, and funny. I've never been able to level my own politics (which are, like everyone's, idiosyncratic) with this idea. There's this utter commitment to subjectivity, except for tolerance of all the people who disagree with a subjective view.

"We're all free to think and believe whatever we want, so long as it doesn't look anything like pro life/organized religion/conservative politics/&c."

I do it, too, I'm not coming after anyone--but it is fucking weird, and I don't understand it. And it hurts when people do it to you, for sure. If you're not all in, then you 'don't belong,' and that's not a good approach. But, again, that's why this seems to have a peacocking element (as in, who can take this further than anyone else, and look good doing it). It distinguishes people with strong opinions as leaders of the pack of peacocks...this metaphor is getting away from me.

I love that Nietzsche quote so much

As far as the peacocking metaphor, that makes me think of Trump more than anything else right now...

[Invisible Man]

As it should!

[gunslinger_burrito]

group, as being defined in this conversation, is essentially a collection of people holding a minority viewpoint attempting to get special dispensation in the eyes of some larger body of folks that hasn't been defined, thus far. You're saying everyone should be afforded the same protections that everyone else should, regardless of the validity position being taken, when they say something/"form a group", to use your vernacular.

That's fucking stupid. Not all ideas are created equally, and not all ideas should be treated equally. If you've got a group of people advocating for a Geocentric model of the universe, you're a fucking dumbass, and no one should be forced to suffer your idiocy. Furthermore, your idiocy can, is, and could be damaging to the minds of people who might not be reduced to utter stumps of dead end intellect had they not been exposed to that kind of patent-level bullshit in the first place.

Imagine if this forum didn't have an ignore function and we were all forced to endure casecandy's posts in the Music forum alongside the good posts from smart ILFers. That's not helping anyone.

Ok, I gotcha. For some reason the way you wrote your previous post on this confused me

I think there's a blurry line when it comes to the extreme points of view. On one hand, I think that if we're really going to have freedom of speech, then everyone should get their fair say, so to speak. But on the other hand, I do agree with you that there are certain viewpoints out there that are downright stupid, totally uneducated, and dangerous, especially considering the idiocy in a country like ours (all the Trump followers..... ) I can also instantly see how groups of people holding minority view points are going to ask "isn't this what America was supposed to be founded on?" So I'm not sure what to think.

It does seem to me that the social justice warrior idiots are censoring things they don't like or don't agree with. Most often from a naive, juvenile, and ignorant point of view. To me, that's still restricting someone's ideas. Same as I was talking about, only from another angle. I don't like a LOT of the ideas pervading our culture. I'd even go so far as to say that bad, ignorant, and misinformed ideas make up the bulk of American culture. But if the government (or some "official body") starts telling anyone they can't get together to talk about their ideas, no matter how stupid they might be.....isn't that a step (even a small one) towards totalitarianism? Especially considering since there are so many ignorant morons already in the government? Seems like they'd love to have that sort of power. They're already trying to defund Planned Parenthood all over, when there are much bigger issues that need to be dealt with. To them, PP is a symptom of a "minority viewpoint."

I'm about to ramble too far away from the topic at hand, or start writing myself into circles...so I'll leave it at that.
-two cents-

[popvulture]

I don't know much about the inner politics of colleges, but in my opinion they'd be better off by basically saying "these are the courses, this is how we do things on this campus, and if you don't like it, you can go to another one." But, of course, that would involve these campuses not being for-profit organizations. When the goal is largely to make money, then quality is going to suffer to pander to the "customers."

Right on. This is one of the big issues, as far as I can see. That's the tension--to follow or to lead? Both models are out there already...depends on how pessimistic one is about the purpose of education.

The problems that come with students being "customers" has been and continues to be a major problem in higher education, and I most certainly think that it ties into these overarching PC issues. I feel like there's unquestioning accommodation, when there should be a little more of the "hey, life is hard and you're going to have to deal with some things from time to time." That's not to say that there aren't plenty of very important changes being made out there, but there's also, in my opinion, a developing culture of pampering.

I went to the Maryland Institute, College of Art for a couple years, where I had one particular professor whose assignments and expectations were nothing short of relentlessly brutal. She'd tell you your work was bullshit, tear it off the wall, stuff like that. Sometimes it seemed a bit unnecessary, but was it ultimately effective? Yes. That said, during one semester a total POS student who never worked or turned in decent work complained to his mom over a bad critique, who subsequently called the school and had the teacher fired. Granted this had happened to her numerous times and she was subsequently re-hired, but it was clear that the precedent had been set—no matter the lack work ethic, the customer is always right.

I subsequently transferred to Cooper Union, which at the time was (and may still remain, depending on recent developments) tuition-free. The amount of difference was unbelievable—if you didn't like the way business was conducted in terms of level of difficulty or expectations in class, the teachers could give absolutely zero fucks, because you didn't pay their salaries and weren't the boss.

Now, this is not to say that there aren't plenty of social issues that need to be tackled in a university setting—god knows I'm not trying to be one of those "when I was your age" people who thinks everyone needs to shut up and stop being a bunch of pussies. With that in mind, however, I think the culture of absolutely spineless, unflinching accommodation due to what has become an employee–customer relationship is very unfortunate and ultimately unhelpful to students being prepared for life.

[Faldoe]

I do think there is legitimacy to having a safe space, say at a college, if a group of young women who are victims of sexual assault want to gather to discuss their experiences. I think they have every right to ask that, say, men not be present. I think it would be a dick move for any guy to insist on wanting to be a part of that setting, knowing that the women have requested it be solely for them (victims and other women).

A safe space for a black student gathering could get weird, if white students wanted a similar, white student gathering. The former would be deemed acceptable, or might be, whereas the latter is not. Thats a tricky one in terms of what to permit.

Of course there can be support groups. That's a good point. I think I was thinking more of when people try to make classrooms "safe spaces" because something makes them feel uncomfortable. Censoring material and such. As for people making groups for anything, I think they should be able to. Because isn't that how freedom of speech in America is supposed to work? Even if it's a "white men's rights" group, if we tell them they can't do that, then we're taking away someone's freedom. If we truly want freedom, then we need to let people say what they want, even if it's unfounded, ignorant, or whatever.... Because by letting them say what they want, we create dialogue and awareness, and without those sort of things there can't be progress. Hiding ugly truths only makes them worse.

THIS sort of shit is getting downright silly though. I'm not sure if I should get mad, confused, or what....
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 44426.html

Yes, I know what you mean and I completely agree. I was bringing up my point in case there were people that would frown on the notions of safe spaces in their entirety, being motivated by the situations in the class room, which you described, and possibly overlooking situations like the one I brought up, which are merited.

This has free speech implications all over it and it's a dangerous situation.

[daseb]

you can always weigh the idea of freedom of speech vs what actually gets said out in the wider world. Like it or not many of the people need their own places because they're the ones that get pushed aside and silenced everywhere else. This argument can get reductive to the point where you start asking why there isn't a white history month pretty quick when you ignore the fact that for some people most of their daily life is a big ol' safe space, and for others it's really not.

edit: I mean I know that's pretty elementary just, as I've said with this before, this kind of POLITICAL CORRECTNESS GONE MAD thing is a great way to throw out a lot of important ideas with the bathwater when it all gets typecast as SJW tumblr shit.

[casecandy]

Good article in WSJ recently

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-first-a ... 1449187707

A connected point, it seems to me, is that Americans are growing weary of being told what they can and cannot publicly say, proclaim and think. We all know what’s going on at the colleges, with the mad little Marats and Robespierres who are telling students and administrators what they are and are not allowed to say or do. This is not just kids acting up at this point, it’s a real censorship movement backed by an ideology that is hostile to the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It is led by students who, though they managed to get into the greatest universities in the country, seem never to have been taught to love the little amendment that guarantees free speech and free religious observance, the two pillars without which America collapses. And too bad, because when you don’t love something you lose it.

[popvulture]

Oh I 100% agree with you there, daseb—I feel like the "why isn't there a white history month?" is exactly the same types who responded to "Black Lives Matter" with the egregiously ignorant "All Lives Matter."

I don't think saying POLITICAL CORRECTNESS GONE MAD is very productive—it's too much countering an action with an equal and opposite (and anti-progress) reaction, when I think the more sensible solution would be to just say "hey, I get it, but be a little careful how you do it." It's the same old shit though—everybody freaks, everybody yells, nobody talks anything out.