The Atlantic (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/) and Dershowitz (http://www.newsweek.com/dershowitz-its-time-stand-these-tyrannical-students-397353) seem to paint in pretty broad strokes. Arguing about syntax rather than substance is a big signal for people who are being uncritical in their thinking. Is that what's happening?
Countering "My friends and I have witnessed racism many times on campus" with "I don't think there is that much racism on campus" based on what (your experience on campus? your friends experience on campus? Drudge Report? absolutely nothing?) is trivializing an argument by dismissing the argument for no factual reason. As of this moment, there's absolutely no reason why you'd dismiss their statement without dismissing the person: you haven't presented any facts on your end that comes close to first-person witness.
How about all these professors and other students who disagree? Why are you trivializing their points of view? Asking for evidence is not trivializing Again, these social justice protesters are a minority
I was the one who brought up the viewpoint of a professor who disagreed lol. not sure if you asked for evidence, but I've given you some on both sides.
Yea, but you sometimes have to look in to why they are screaming "racism". http://columbiaspectator.com/news/2015/11/18/oma-forum-race This person is traumatized to read about white people. Really? Yea, I'm sorry, but I don't accept such argument. Or next exhibit: http://bwog.com/2015/11/15/columbia-class-of-2018-facebook-page-debates-poc-core-professors/ Yea, um, I'm sorry, you are asking to be taught only by a poc professor? A white professor will be racist towards you? And only a white person can switch with you? What if everybody had your point of view? Are we going back to segregation? (btw, the whole conversation is not posted). Also, it's hilarious that the sjw blocked the "bigots", refusing to what they were saying. So, so ironic. I think it's very necessary to call people out on their bull****. For example, how there were people that hosted a very large, unorganized, and violent protest in the middle of campus, and then complained that Columbia called the nypd in response, because it targeted poc and was triggering. I can go on. Generally, college campuses are the farthest thing from racist hotbeds. People do so, so much and go so far out of their way to avoid any sort of racism. What one defines as racism is not what another does though. One example: http://columbiaspectator.com/opinion/2014/10/23/making-safer-spaces-columbia It's ridiculous that people use the smear tactic however if you try to publicly disagree with any of their claims.
So your counter-argument to my point that people were trivializing student arguments based on a broad brush of students as "deranged, mentally weak, pathological liars" is to trivialize student arguments by painting them as "deranged, mentally weak, and pathological liars"? Columbia doesn't equal Harvard, last I checked. What bulls**t are you trying to call out, an appeal for facts after a racially motivated attack at Harvard Law School?
No, it's not. It's an expression I use, one could say, freely. Would you prefer "diminished", does that assuage your feelings? i'm remarking on the irony of people who are hyperbolizing about "freedom of expression" dismissing expression without fact or reason. Your statement fits in that category, doesn't it
You are trying to categorize his disagreement as something else. It's ad hominem basically Logical fallacy
Well, I'm not saying any of that stuff. I guess I would just stick to the overt and witnessed acts of racism and go after them. I honestly think the tape thing is someone trolling, but I do not know. I can only speak for my own campus (in California). I don't think it's a hotbed of racism, at all, but I don't walk in everyone else's shoes. I do know, and everyone acknowledges, that it's a hotbed of sensitivity, which is good at one level, but also, in some cases, stifling of dialogue. There are two sides to it, but it's probably a net good for now, just in terms of raising awareness. I do very sincerely worry that we just have more and more people primed to take offense and get angry, whether it's over a piece of tape, a Starbucks holiday cup, or an internet post. Sometimes raising awareness just plays into a narrative of "you have every right to get really angry about this," instead of thinking and talking about it, confronting it calmly and with a goal. I feel that I've seen this up close in my work life. But it's easy for me to say; I've had it pretty darned easy, all the way through. Worked hard but never had extra obstacles or people doubting me based on my color, sex or origin.
I didn't bring in Harvard either. Your original statement I responded to was a general statement, not Harvard specific. Thus, there was no reason to be Harvard-specific. How am I trivializing anybody? By illustrating the fact that many of their cries of racism on campuses can be credibly argued as an overreaction? Am I really trivializing, diminishing, marginalizing (or whatever word you want to insert here) any voices, or am I being realistic here. People use those words too much. I don't remember saying anything among those three phrases like "pathological liars". You mention: "That's not what people who have experienced racism on campus are saying. I feel like they'd know a lot more about that" So when they experience these "forms" of racism as mentioned above, there should be clear reason to call them out. That's trivializing? Sounds like they had their free speech ability, and then many people disagree with what they say. That's my point, I guess. They don't have a monopoly on the discussion. (example from previous) Their fact: racism because they are learning from a white professor. My reason: the argument is that a professor's skin color defines his teaching ability? Nobody is being racist to you; actually, it may be the other way around. Ironic you mentioned irony of dismissing expression, because it was ironic that the "marginalized" voices blocked anybody disagreeing with them on the class of '18 page. Whose voice is being silenced here?
His disagreement on a situation at Harvard Law brought up situations at Columbia. It has nothing at all to do with that particular student, who didn't at all vocalize expressions about "being traumatized by reading about white people" (???). Do I categorize his disagreement as being broad-based and seeking to paint a student as a liar, mentally weak, and deranged? um, yes. We're not even talking about the same campus, nevermind the same person.
...basically every post I had made above that you were replying to was about the Harvard situation, the person I quoted was from Harvard (again: https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2...ial-climate/KqHBA90H00S2AIXqBfWF4J/story.html), Mr. Clutch specifically said "these campuses". My whole point is that as much as people would jump to conclusions that people were overblowing the situation, they were as likely to disregard or dismiss situations based on a broad brush of students. You proved that by basically latching onto three anecdotal pieces of evidence from Columbia (???) to diminish the first-hand testimonial of racist incidents from a student at Harvard Law. And yes, implying that people are "experiencing" racism the wrong way implies they are either weak, deranged, or lying. It's fine for you to do that, but own up to what you're doing: stereotyping students so that their experiences have less weight.
This is a very fair statement, in no way did I mean to imply you were doing what I deplored (but of course several people then followed who did). In an ideal world, everybody would hum and ha, and share jokes about long-dead musical groups instead of getting so mad about things, but I've learned that a lot of people don't live in that ideal world. I think we come from about the same place, minus a few incidents here and there (I've had it pretty darned easy, all the way through), but it's important to be balanced on this and realize that not everybody can say the same, or close to it. You don't have to listen to everything--and there is some hysteria. But there is often some truth as well.
The accuser in your scenario has not yet detailed their observation with specific incidents or a genuine examination of alternate rational explanations. Absence of occurrence is the default state and therefore self-evident to the point that asserting it should not be considered assaultive or disdainful.
I don't think this is how it works on a college campus when it comes to racism or rape. Jameis Winston just had a documentary made about him that is a complete fabrication. The default state is guilty, unfortunately.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2...ial-climate/KqHBA90H00S2AIXqBfWF4J/story.html yeah, except if you read on there were very specific grievances pinged. There's more in the article, though judging by the fact that a professor openly stating that she was called the N-word by fellow faculty members barely got a navel-gaze here, I get the feeling not many people will care. Absence of occurrence is the default state? Like, when you assume a racially motivated crime happened because of magic, internet trolls and fairy dust?
I generally don't read your posts, and in this case I didn't reply to one. They are pointless, meandering and empty. I read pouhe's because he was short and he had something to say.
glad you progressed from getting frustrated at the lack of links to not reading at all Hope you're well, or that we keep on being apathetic to each other, if that's your thing haha. (I've excluded you from the convo as that seems to be what you want)
