by liberal japonicus
From ObWi alumni Thomas Nephew's FB, this article is really great. A few quotes
About the recently resigned University of Missouri President Tim Wolfe:
In 2015, you cannot run a school while being blasé in the face of acts of racist harassment.
About the power student athletes have:
Yet [student athletes] also have a power that if exercised can bring the powerful to their knees. So much of the political and social economy of state universities is tied to football, especially in big-money conferences like Southeastern Conference, where Mizzou plays…These conferences, particularly the Southeastern Conference, field teams that, in the words of sports sociologist Harry Edwards, “look like Ghana on the field and Sweden in the stands.” In other words, black football players in particular have a social power often unseen and not commented upon. It’s there all the same.
On the necessity for cooperative action:
The protests of students and faculty members whose names the public does not know is what laid the groundwork for the players to showcase their courage. It’s like a stool: students, faculty, and athletes. When one leg on that stool isn’t there, this falls apart.
And the finale
The administrators created this world where our universities revolve socially, politically and economically around the exploited labor of big time football. Now let them reap what they sow.
Interesting stuff.
Do the facts matter?
There were two (Two!!!) racial incidents, one by a student who is on suspension and the other an anonymous drive by epithet. And, an anonymous swastika allegedly created out of feces. Of course the president should have resigned.
Here is my favorite demand:
IV. We demand that the University of Missouri creates and enforces comprehensive racial awareness and inclusion curriculum throughout all campus departments and units, mandatory for all students, faculty, staff, and administration. This curriculum must be vetted, maintained, and overseen by a board comprised of students, staff, and faculty of color.
If enacted, surely this will bring people together. Nothing like compelled indoctrination imposed from a single perspective. Just imagine the open give and take this lovely exercise in liberal democracy would engender.
Meanwhile, at Yale:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/the-new-intolerance-of-student-activism-at-yale/414810/
At Mizzou, the student protesters have declared a “no press zone”. Lovely.
When this kind of over-reactive, hyper-inflated demand and response scenario becomes the norm, who will be left to teach? To disagree?
And what happens when these children graduate? Can you imagine a private employer extending a job offer? Wouldn’t these folks make great fellow employees?
These are the offspring of the Left. Will you discipline your own? Will you demand that dissent and disagreement be tolerated?
Count, you wrote about the children of Hitler yesterday. Who would you say these actual children belong to?
And, if the commentariat here does not consider these children of the Left, then whose children are they? And, regardless, will the Progressives here call for pushing back, for demanding reciprocal respect, etc?
Or will it just be more drivel about white privilege?
Do the facts matter?
There were two (Two!!!) racial incidents, one by a student who is on suspension and the other an anonymous drive by epithet. And, an anonymous swastika allegedly created out of feces. Of course the president should have resigned.
Here is my favorite demand:
IV. We demand that the University of Missouri creates and enforces comprehensive racial awareness and inclusion curriculum throughout all campus departments and units, mandatory for all students, faculty, staff, and administration. This curriculum must be vetted, maintained, and overseen by a board comprised of students, staff, and faculty of color.
If enacted, surely this will bring people together. Nothing like compelled indoctrination imposed from a single perspective. Just imagine the open give and take this lovely exercise in liberal democracy would engender.
Meanwhile, at Yale:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/the-new-intolerance-of-student-activism-at-yale/414810/
At Mizzou, the student protesters have declared a “no press zone”. Lovely.
When this kind of over-reactive, hyper-inflated demand and response scenario becomes the norm, who will be left to teach? To disagree?
And what happens when these children graduate? Can you imagine a private employer extending a job offer? Wouldn’t these folks make great fellow employees?
These are the offspring of the Left. Will you discipline your own? Will you demand that dissent and disagreement be tolerated?
Count, you wrote about the children of Hitler yesterday. Who would you say these actual children belong to?
And, if the commentariat here does not consider these children of the Left, then whose children are they? And, regardless, will the Progressives here call for pushing back, for demanding reciprocal respect, etc?
Or will it just be more drivel about white privilege?
Do the facts matter?
There were two (Two!!!) racial incidents, one by a student who is on suspension and the other an anonymous drive by epithet. And, an anonymous swastika allegedly created out of feces. Of course the president should have resigned.
Here is my favorite demand:
IV. We demand that the University of Missouri creates and enforces comprehensive racial awareness and inclusion curriculum throughout all campus departments and units, mandatory for all students, faculty, staff, and administration. This curriculum must be vetted, maintained, and overseen by a board comprised of students, staff, and faculty of color.
If enacted, surely this will bring people together. Nothing like compelled indoctrination imposed from a single perspective. Just imagine the open give and take this lovely exercise in liberal democracy would engender.
Meanwhile, at Yale:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/the-new-intolerance-of-student-activism-at-yale/414810/
At Mizzou, the student protesters have declared a “no press zone”. Lovely.
When this kind of over-reactive, hyper-inflated demand and response scenario becomes the norm, who will be left to teach? To disagree?
And what happens when these children graduate? Can you imagine a private employer extending a job offer? Wouldn’t these folks make great fellow employees?
These are the offspring of the Left. Will you discipline your own? Will you demand that dissent and disagreement be tolerated?
Count, you wrote about the children of Hitler yesterday. Who would you say these actual children belong to?
And, if the commentariat here does not consider these children of the Left, then whose children are they? And, regardless, will the Progressives here call for pushing back, for demanding reciprocal respect, etc?
Or will it just be more drivel about white privilege?
There were two (Two!!!) racial incidents, one by a student who is on suspension and the other an anonymous drive by epithet.
12 hour drive to Columbia, yet you feel sure you know exactly how many ‘racial incidents’ occurred. I’m sure that you have a clearer perspective than Gary Pinkel does.
Or will it just be more drivel about white privilege?
I thought the piece was interesting because of the question of where power lies. Sorry you felt it was yet another whiplash on your hyperthin skin…
There were two (Two!!!) racial incidents, one by a student who is on suspension and the other an anonymous drive by epithet.
12 hour drive to Columbia, yet you feel sure you know exactly how many ‘racial incidents’ occurred. I’m sure that you have a clearer perspective than Gary Pinkel does.
Or will it just be more drivel about white privilege?
I thought the piece was interesting because of the question of where power lies. Sorry you felt it was yet another whiplash on your hyperthin skin…
There were two (Two!!!) racial incidents, one by a student who is on suspension and the other an anonymous drive by epithet.
12 hour drive to Columbia, yet you feel sure you know exactly how many ‘racial incidents’ occurred. I’m sure that you have a clearer perspective than Gary Pinkel does.
Or will it just be more drivel about white privilege?
I thought the piece was interesting because of the question of where power lies. Sorry you felt it was yet another whiplash on your hyperthin skin…
12 hour drive to Columbia, yet you feel sure you know exactly how many ‘racial incidents’ occurred.
LJ, I’ve taken the time to check the facts. Have you? Sometimes they matter. Care to address the quoted demand? Care to document why this is justified, or is the simple fact that it fits your narrative enough? As for the coach, just because someone else enables this foolishness, doesn’t make it any less foolish. You seriously expect a coach to fire his players? He’s in it to win, not that Mizzou is doing much of that this year, and he isn’t going to alienate his team.
As for thin-skinned, hmm? Let’s see how others respond. Hopefully someone will respond substantively.
12 hour drive to Columbia, yet you feel sure you know exactly how many ‘racial incidents’ occurred.
LJ, I’ve taken the time to check the facts. Have you? Sometimes they matter. Care to address the quoted demand? Care to document why this is justified, or is the simple fact that it fits your narrative enough? As for the coach, just because someone else enables this foolishness, doesn’t make it any less foolish. You seriously expect a coach to fire his players? He’s in it to win, not that Mizzou is doing much of that this year, and he isn’t going to alienate his team.
As for thin-skinned, hmm? Let’s see how others respond. Hopefully someone will respond substantively.
12 hour drive to Columbia, yet you feel sure you know exactly how many ‘racial incidents’ occurred.
LJ, I’ve taken the time to check the facts. Have you? Sometimes they matter. Care to address the quoted demand? Care to document why this is justified, or is the simple fact that it fits your narrative enough? As for the coach, just because someone else enables this foolishness, doesn’t make it any less foolish. You seriously expect a coach to fire his players? He’s in it to win, not that Mizzou is doing much of that this year, and he isn’t going to alienate his team.
As for thin-skinned, hmm? Let’s see how others respond. Hopefully someone will respond substantively.
Nothing like compelled indoctrination imposed from a single perspective.
I don’t necessarily agree with mandatory diversity curricula, but it’s hyperbolic to refer to it as “indoctrination” and I’m not sure what makes it from a “single” perspective. It’s sounds almost as though you think all people of color are the same when you write something like that.
Nothing like compelled indoctrination imposed from a single perspective.
I don’t necessarily agree with mandatory diversity curricula, but it’s hyperbolic to refer to it as “indoctrination” and I’m not sure what makes it from a “single” perspective. It’s sounds almost as though you think all people of color are the same when you write something like that.
Nothing like compelled indoctrination imposed from a single perspective.
I don’t necessarily agree with mandatory diversity curricula, but it’s hyperbolic to refer to it as “indoctrination” and I’m not sure what makes it from a “single” perspective. It’s sounds almost as though you think all people of color are the same when you write something like that.
So when lj writes this: I thought the piece was interesting because of the question of where power lies.
You have the nerve to write this: Hopefully someone will respond substantively.
after responding with something that boils down to “WAAAAHHH!!”
So when lj writes this: I thought the piece was interesting because of the question of where power lies.
You have the nerve to write this: Hopefully someone will respond substantively.
after responding with something that boils down to “WAAAAHHH!!”
So when lj writes this: I thought the piece was interesting because of the question of where power lies.
You have the nerve to write this: Hopefully someone will respond substantively.
after responding with something that boils down to “WAAAAHHH!!”
McTx: When this kind of over-reactive, hyper-inflated demand and response scenario becomes the norm, who will be left to teach? To disagree?
And what happens when these children graduate? Can you imagine a private employer extending a job offer? Wouldn’t these folks make great fellow employees?
These are the offspring of the Left. Will you discipline your own? Will you demand that dissent and disagreement be tolerated?
Lighten up Francis.
The goings on at Mizzou are almost an exact parallel to what went on at my alma mater 20+ years ago, right down to the hunger strike, the rather grandiose demands in response to genuine grievances that look rather minor to outsiders, the jackassery of the college republicans, etc. etc. Admittedly the football team was not involved and the president didn’t resign, but it is all very familiar.
And of course there was the widespread campus-based unrest in response to the Vietnam war 20+ years before that.
Somehow, things turned out okay with the “kids.” Not sure why this will be any different.
McTx: When this kind of over-reactive, hyper-inflated demand and response scenario becomes the norm, who will be left to teach? To disagree?
And what happens when these children graduate? Can you imagine a private employer extending a job offer? Wouldn’t these folks make great fellow employees?
These are the offspring of the Left. Will you discipline your own? Will you demand that dissent and disagreement be tolerated?
Lighten up Francis.
The goings on at Mizzou are almost an exact parallel to what went on at my alma mater 20+ years ago, right down to the hunger strike, the rather grandiose demands in response to genuine grievances that look rather minor to outsiders, the jackassery of the college republicans, etc. etc. Admittedly the football team was not involved and the president didn’t resign, but it is all very familiar.
And of course there was the widespread campus-based unrest in response to the Vietnam war 20+ years before that.
Somehow, things turned out okay with the “kids.” Not sure why this will be any different.
McTx: When this kind of over-reactive, hyper-inflated demand and response scenario becomes the norm, who will be left to teach? To disagree?
And what happens when these children graduate? Can you imagine a private employer extending a job offer? Wouldn’t these folks make great fellow employees?
These are the offspring of the Left. Will you discipline your own? Will you demand that dissent and disagreement be tolerated?
Lighten up Francis.
The goings on at Mizzou are almost an exact parallel to what went on at my alma mater 20+ years ago, right down to the hunger strike, the rather grandiose demands in response to genuine grievances that look rather minor to outsiders, the jackassery of the college republicans, etc. etc. Admittedly the football team was not involved and the president didn’t resign, but it is all very familiar.
And of course there was the widespread campus-based unrest in response to the Vietnam war 20+ years before that.
Somehow, things turned out okay with the “kids.” Not sure why this will be any different.
And, if the commentariat here does not consider these children of the Left, then whose children are they?
America’s?
And, if the commentariat here does not consider these children of the Left, then whose children are they?
America’s?
And, if the commentariat here does not consider these children of the Left, then whose children are they?
America’s?
If someone gets angry upset at something, I presume that there is something there.
If someone gets upset at someone else getting upset, I’m sure that there’s something there, but probably not what the person who is getting upset thinks it is.
It’s also hard to have a substantive discussion if we have to keep prying the pearls out of your hand McT…
If someone gets angry upset at something, I presume that there is something there.
If someone gets upset at someone else getting upset, I’m sure that there’s something there, but probably not what the person who is getting upset thinks it is.
It’s also hard to have a substantive discussion if we have to keep prying the pearls out of your hand McT…
If someone gets angry upset at something, I presume that there is something there.
If someone gets upset at someone else getting upset, I’m sure that there’s something there, but probably not what the person who is getting upset thinks it is.
It’s also hard to have a substantive discussion if we have to keep prying the pearls out of your hand McT…
Lighten up Francis.
A man was forced to quit his job. Among other things.
America’s?
No. They are the Children of the Left. Intolerant, bigoted, spoiled, self-important, coddled and foolishly admired and enabled.
It is nothing for commenters here to go off on the right, on conservatives, on Republicans. The response is agreement and applause. When some quarter of the Left commits an excess, if that is even possible, and someone calls that out, the response is name calling, minimizing and side-stepping.
Lighten up Francis.
A man was forced to quit his job. Among other things.
America’s?
No. They are the Children of the Left. Intolerant, bigoted, spoiled, self-important, coddled and foolishly admired and enabled.
It is nothing for commenters here to go off on the right, on conservatives, on Republicans. The response is agreement and applause. When some quarter of the Left commits an excess, if that is even possible, and someone calls that out, the response is name calling, minimizing and side-stepping.
Lighten up Francis.
A man was forced to quit his job. Among other things.
America’s?
No. They are the Children of the Left. Intolerant, bigoted, spoiled, self-important, coddled and foolishly admired and enabled.
It is nothing for commenters here to go off on the right, on conservatives, on Republicans. The response is agreement and applause. When some quarter of the Left commits an excess, if that is even possible, and someone calls that out, the response is name calling, minimizing and side-stepping.
i see McTx took his wingnut buzzword and victimization supplements today!
i see McTx took his wingnut buzzword and victimization supplements today!
i see McTx took his wingnut buzzword and victimization supplements today!
I generally don’t go off on generalized rants about “the right.” It’s terribly unproductive. I’d rather focus on specific ideas. I can’t really defend “the left,” either. I’m not entirely sure what it is, though I’m sure I must be part of it.
I’d like to see some unpacking of the bigotry and intolerance being displayed. I’m not saying it’s not there, at least in some subset of the people involved. It happens. I’m just not sure that’s the general thrust of what’s going on. One thing it’s okay to be intolerant of is intolerance, and I don’t consider it bigotry to fight back against bigotry.
As far as general overreach is concerned, what Ugh said. It’s a college campus. Ideas aren’t as well tempered by maturity and perspective as one might like.
Besides all that, it is interesting how so much importance is placed on football on many college campuses and how that has turned out at this particular college at this particular time.
I generally don’t go off on generalized rants about “the right.” It’s terribly unproductive. I’d rather focus on specific ideas. I can’t really defend “the left,” either. I’m not entirely sure what it is, though I’m sure I must be part of it.
I’d like to see some unpacking of the bigotry and intolerance being displayed. I’m not saying it’s not there, at least in some subset of the people involved. It happens. I’m just not sure that’s the general thrust of what’s going on. One thing it’s okay to be intolerant of is intolerance, and I don’t consider it bigotry to fight back against bigotry.
As far as general overreach is concerned, what Ugh said. It’s a college campus. Ideas aren’t as well tempered by maturity and perspective as one might like.
Besides all that, it is interesting how so much importance is placed on football on many college campuses and how that has turned out at this particular college at this particular time.
I generally don’t go off on generalized rants about “the right.” It’s terribly unproductive. I’d rather focus on specific ideas. I can’t really defend “the left,” either. I’m not entirely sure what it is, though I’m sure I must be part of it.
I’d like to see some unpacking of the bigotry and intolerance being displayed. I’m not saying it’s not there, at least in some subset of the people involved. It happens. I’m just not sure that’s the general thrust of what’s going on. One thing it’s okay to be intolerant of is intolerance, and I don’t consider it bigotry to fight back against bigotry.
As far as general overreach is concerned, what Ugh said. It’s a college campus. Ideas aren’t as well tempered by maturity and perspective as one might like.
Besides all that, it is interesting how so much importance is placed on football on many college campuses and how that has turned out at this particular college at this particular time.
If someone gets angry upset at something, I presume that there is something there.
If someone gets upset at someone else getting upset, I’m sure that there’s something there, but probably not what the person who is getting upset thinks it is.
Spectacular logic.
At this point, some drivel about white privilege would be welcome. It’s as close to substantive as anyone is likely to get.
If someone gets angry upset at something, I presume that there is something there.
If someone gets upset at someone else getting upset, I’m sure that there’s something there, but probably not what the person who is getting upset thinks it is.
Spectacular logic.
At this point, some drivel about white privilege would be welcome. It’s as close to substantive as anyone is likely to get.
If someone gets angry upset at something, I presume that there is something there.
If someone gets upset at someone else getting upset, I’m sure that there’s something there, but probably not what the person who is getting upset thinks it is.
Spectacular logic.
At this point, some drivel about white privilege would be welcome. It’s as close to substantive as anyone is likely to get.
LJ, I’ve taken the time to check the facts. Have you? Sometimes they matter.
…and apparently sometimes they don’t. This diatribe of put-up practitioner of due diligence in research and citation is so very, very incredibly rich coming from you, McK.
Care to address the quoted demand?
…because you’d never pick and chose what you respond to. It’d be intellectually dishonest to only respond to points that fit your narrative, and to silently abandon them if they’re refuted.
Care to document why this is justified, or is the simple fact that it fits your narrative enough?
This line in particular is painful to read; it’s plainly good enough for you. Remember a week or two ago when you were told you fast and loose evidentary standards would be thrown back in your face in the future? Allow me to be the first to explicitly throw them at you.
But let’s keep your newfound concerns in mind going forward in this thread, shall we?
No. They are the Children of the Left. Intolerant, bigoted, spoiled, self-important, coddled and foolishly admired and enabled.
Wow, that didn’t take long at all. Your evidence for this broad and sweeping accusation is… where, again? You certainly checked the facts, as sometimes they matter, so what’s your basis for this claim? I’m sure there’s more to it than the simply and undeniable fact that it fits very neatly into your narrative…
It is nothing for commenters here to go off on the right, on conservatives, on Republicans. The response is agreement and applause. When some quarter of the Left commits an excess, if that is even possible, and someone calls that out, the response is name calling, minimizing and side-stepping.
You might want to reflect upon this for a moment, along with the unfortunate observation that you can rarely comment on any thread where you disagree with the bulk of the commenters w/o including at least one broad and all-inclusive screed against “the left”, full of unreferenced generalizations and assertions based on convenience of narrative rather than substance.
Seriously, McK. Glass houses. The myopic and blinkered lack of self-awareness being routinely put on display by someone as intelligent as you is frankly disheartening.
LJ, I’ve taken the time to check the facts. Have you? Sometimes they matter.
…and apparently sometimes they don’t. This diatribe of put-up practitioner of due diligence in research and citation is so very, very incredibly rich coming from you, McK.
Care to address the quoted demand?
…because you’d never pick and chose what you respond to. It’d be intellectually dishonest to only respond to points that fit your narrative, and to silently abandon them if they’re refuted.
Care to document why this is justified, or is the simple fact that it fits your narrative enough?
This line in particular is painful to read; it’s plainly good enough for you. Remember a week or two ago when you were told you fast and loose evidentary standards would be thrown back in your face in the future? Allow me to be the first to explicitly throw them at you.
But let’s keep your newfound concerns in mind going forward in this thread, shall we?
No. They are the Children of the Left. Intolerant, bigoted, spoiled, self-important, coddled and foolishly admired and enabled.
Wow, that didn’t take long at all. Your evidence for this broad and sweeping accusation is… where, again? You certainly checked the facts, as sometimes they matter, so what’s your basis for this claim? I’m sure there’s more to it than the simply and undeniable fact that it fits very neatly into your narrative…
It is nothing for commenters here to go off on the right, on conservatives, on Republicans. The response is agreement and applause. When some quarter of the Left commits an excess, if that is even possible, and someone calls that out, the response is name calling, minimizing and side-stepping.
You might want to reflect upon this for a moment, along with the unfortunate observation that you can rarely comment on any thread where you disagree with the bulk of the commenters w/o including at least one broad and all-inclusive screed against “the left”, full of unreferenced generalizations and assertions based on convenience of narrative rather than substance.
Seriously, McK. Glass houses. The myopic and blinkered lack of self-awareness being routinely put on display by someone as intelligent as you is frankly disheartening.
LJ, I’ve taken the time to check the facts. Have you? Sometimes they matter.
…and apparently sometimes they don’t. This diatribe of put-up practitioner of due diligence in research and citation is so very, very incredibly rich coming from you, McK.
Care to address the quoted demand?
…because you’d never pick and chose what you respond to. It’d be intellectually dishonest to only respond to points that fit your narrative, and to silently abandon them if they’re refuted.
Care to document why this is justified, or is the simple fact that it fits your narrative enough?
This line in particular is painful to read; it’s plainly good enough for you. Remember a week or two ago when you were told you fast and loose evidentary standards would be thrown back in your face in the future? Allow me to be the first to explicitly throw them at you.
But let’s keep your newfound concerns in mind going forward in this thread, shall we?
No. They are the Children of the Left. Intolerant, bigoted, spoiled, self-important, coddled and foolishly admired and enabled.
Wow, that didn’t take long at all. Your evidence for this broad and sweeping accusation is… where, again? You certainly checked the facts, as sometimes they matter, so what’s your basis for this claim? I’m sure there’s more to it than the simply and undeniable fact that it fits very neatly into your narrative…
It is nothing for commenters here to go off on the right, on conservatives, on Republicans. The response is agreement and applause. When some quarter of the Left commits an excess, if that is even possible, and someone calls that out, the response is name calling, minimizing and side-stepping.
You might want to reflect upon this for a moment, along with the unfortunate observation that you can rarely comment on any thread where you disagree with the bulk of the commenters w/o including at least one broad and all-inclusive screed against “the left”, full of unreferenced generalizations and assertions based on convenience of narrative rather than substance.
Seriously, McK. Glass houses. The myopic and blinkered lack of self-awareness being routinely put on display by someone as intelligent as you is frankly disheartening.
This is from McKinney’s Atlantic link about the Yale situation:
If I can represent “the left” here, I’d like to say that I disagree with the student’s overblown response. It’s utterly silly. The student is responding as though Christakis was condoning or encouraging students, say, to wear black face on Halloween or, worse yet, doing so, himself.
Suggesting that Yale students figure this stuff out for themselves rather than having top-down directives from administrators do it for them takes no position on what is or is not a socially acceptable Halloween costume and places no restriction on what opinion any student might have and express on a particular Halloween costume. It’s not an argument about Halloween costumes at all. It’s an argument about the best way to have an argument about Halloween costumes.
What it is certainly not is grounds for demands of resignation or cause to say someone is “disgusting.” On the other hand, that specific language is coming from one student – a spectacularly wrong student – but just one, none the less.
I’m not sure how my opinion on this affects anyone’s estimation of what “the left” thinks or how responsible it is for any it. Figuring that out would be like carrying a lot of water without a bucket … or something.
This is from McKinney’s Atlantic link about the Yale situation:
If I can represent “the left” here, I’d like to say that I disagree with the student’s overblown response. It’s utterly silly. The student is responding as though Christakis was condoning or encouraging students, say, to wear black face on Halloween or, worse yet, doing so, himself.
Suggesting that Yale students figure this stuff out for themselves rather than having top-down directives from administrators do it for them takes no position on what is or is not a socially acceptable Halloween costume and places no restriction on what opinion any student might have and express on a particular Halloween costume. It’s not an argument about Halloween costumes at all. It’s an argument about the best way to have an argument about Halloween costumes.
What it is certainly not is grounds for demands of resignation or cause to say someone is “disgusting.” On the other hand, that specific language is coming from one student – a spectacularly wrong student – but just one, none the less.
I’m not sure how my opinion on this affects anyone’s estimation of what “the left” thinks or how responsible it is for any it. Figuring that out would be like carrying a lot of water without a bucket … or something.
This is from McKinney’s Atlantic link about the Yale situation:
If I can represent “the left” here, I’d like to say that I disagree with the student’s overblown response. It’s utterly silly. The student is responding as though Christakis was condoning or encouraging students, say, to wear black face on Halloween or, worse yet, doing so, himself.
Suggesting that Yale students figure this stuff out for themselves rather than having top-down directives from administrators do it for them takes no position on what is or is not a socially acceptable Halloween costume and places no restriction on what opinion any student might have and express on a particular Halloween costume. It’s not an argument about Halloween costumes at all. It’s an argument about the best way to have an argument about Halloween costumes.
What it is certainly not is grounds for demands of resignation or cause to say someone is “disgusting.” On the other hand, that specific language is coming from one student – a spectacularly wrong student – but just one, none the less.
I’m not sure how my opinion on this affects anyone’s estimation of what “the left” thinks or how responsible it is for any it. Figuring that out would be like carrying a lot of water without a bucket … or something.
Count, you wrote about the children of Hitler yesterday. Who would you say these actual children belong to?
Godwin in one comment. That must be some kind of blog-world land speed record.
Seriously, WTF.
Also:
These are the offspring of the Left. Will you discipline your own? Will you demand that dissent and disagreement be tolerated?
What is “left” about people objecting to racism?
In what possible sense is the Missouri football team “my own”?
What influence or authority do I have over the students and faculty at Missouri U that would entitle me to “discipline” them?
Some folks were called nigger and somebody painted a swastika with their own turds. Or, somebody’s turds, anyway.
What “dissent and disagreement” are you trying to include here? The unheard, put-upon turd graffiti artists of America?
Is there some constituency who are against the protests who are being denied the ability to speak or act?
Apparently you find the protests overblown. You’re entitled to your opinion. You have demonstrated that you are free to express it.
What’s it to you if folks at Missouri want the President out? Apparently, a fairly large number of folks there, of all races, want him out.
It’s their school, not mine and not yours.
Count, you wrote about the children of Hitler yesterday. Who would you say these actual children belong to?
Godwin in one comment. That must be some kind of blog-world land speed record.
Seriously, WTF.
Also:
These are the offspring of the Left. Will you discipline your own? Will you demand that dissent and disagreement be tolerated?
What is “left” about people objecting to racism?
In what possible sense is the Missouri football team “my own”?
What influence or authority do I have over the students and faculty at Missouri U that would entitle me to “discipline” them?
Some folks were called nigger and somebody painted a swastika with their own turds. Or, somebody’s turds, anyway.
What “dissent and disagreement” are you trying to include here? The unheard, put-upon turd graffiti artists of America?
Is there some constituency who are against the protests who are being denied the ability to speak or act?
Apparently you find the protests overblown. You’re entitled to your opinion. You have demonstrated that you are free to express it.
What’s it to you if folks at Missouri want the President out? Apparently, a fairly large number of folks there, of all races, want him out.
It’s their school, not mine and not yours.
Count, you wrote about the children of Hitler yesterday. Who would you say these actual children belong to?
Godwin in one comment. That must be some kind of blog-world land speed record.
Seriously, WTF.
Also:
These are the offspring of the Left. Will you discipline your own? Will you demand that dissent and disagreement be tolerated?
What is “left” about people objecting to racism?
In what possible sense is the Missouri football team “my own”?
What influence or authority do I have over the students and faculty at Missouri U that would entitle me to “discipline” them?
Some folks were called nigger and somebody painted a swastika with their own turds. Or, somebody’s turds, anyway.
What “dissent and disagreement” are you trying to include here? The unheard, put-upon turd graffiti artists of America?
Is there some constituency who are against the protests who are being denied the ability to speak or act?
Apparently you find the protests overblown. You’re entitled to your opinion. You have demonstrated that you are free to express it.
What’s it to you if folks at Missouri want the President out? Apparently, a fairly large number of folks there, of all races, want him out.
It’s their school, not mine and not yours.
On a personal note, I’m always amazed that people who can find it understandable that bands of free-lance vigilantes might take up arms against the feds because Cows Must Roam Free, cannot grasp the idea that black people are sick of eating shit sandwiches.
If the response in Missouri seems overblown, perhaps there’s more to the story than “two (Two!!) racial incidents” and somebody finger-painting with their own poo.
On a personal note, I’m always amazed that people who can find it understandable that bands of free-lance vigilantes might take up arms against the feds because Cows Must Roam Free, cannot grasp the idea that black people are sick of eating shit sandwiches.
If the response in Missouri seems overblown, perhaps there’s more to the story than “two (Two!!) racial incidents” and somebody finger-painting with their own poo.
On a personal note, I’m always amazed that people who can find it understandable that bands of free-lance vigilantes might take up arms against the feds because Cows Must Roam Free, cannot grasp the idea that black people are sick of eating shit sandwiches.
If the response in Missouri seems overblown, perhaps there’s more to the story than “two (Two!!) racial incidents” and somebody finger-painting with their own poo.
let’s pause for a brief message from noted leftist enforcer of speech and thought, Donald Trump:
so McTx, how about you get off your own high horse and go punish Donald Trump for being a fascist thought-policing asshole; and then how about you got punish the non-trivial segment of the right who support Trump because he says these things?
how about it?
let’s pause for a brief message from noted leftist enforcer of speech and thought, Donald Trump:
so McTx, how about you get off your own high horse and go punish Donald Trump for being a fascist thought-policing asshole; and then how about you got punish the non-trivial segment of the right who support Trump because he says these things?
how about it?
let’s pause for a brief message from noted leftist enforcer of speech and thought, Donald Trump:
so McTx, how about you get off your own high horse and go punish Donald Trump for being a fascist thought-policing asshole; and then how about you got punish the non-trivial segment of the right who support Trump because he says these things?
how about it?
I’ll be responding over the course of today and tomorrow, McKT.
First, though, regarding my “baby Hitler” comment yesterday, my point is that, first, the question (in my own words): “If you knew an Austrian baby was going to grow up to be Hitler, would you kill that baby to save the world from adult Hitler’s and the Third Reich’s devastations,” is vaguely entertaining in an open-ended, thought experiment kind of way, but quickly gets you nowhere unless burrowing into an endless maze of dead-end passageways is a hobby.
Of mine, as it happens, but there isn’t the space or time here to take us on that journey and its endless, pointless permutations.
That’s not to say that there weren’t plenty of missed opportunities from the late 1920s on to kill adult Hitler, but the fact that hardly anyone tried by then only exposes the futility of thinking about snuffing out baby Hitler.
Second, asking a Presidential candidate the question is just plain stupid. It’s juvenile.
Third, a Presidential candidate answering the question is just plain stupid, unless the candidate feels the desperation of having to double down on previous stupidities like “I eat nails for breakfast” to prove his tough-guy bonafides in the face of this unexpected onslaught by his primary opponents to the far Right.
I’m sure Jeb muttered to his associates after that question; “Whew, that could have been worse. They might have asked if I would have aborted fetal Hitler.”
Fourth, Ted Cruz and his crew are glib fascists, but posting rules prevent me from speculating on how I would go back in time with a pillow to attend to baby Ted in his bassinet.
But I suppose to be even-handed, Hillary Clinton will have to be asked on Meet the Press if she would put baby Pol Pot (wasn’t he a liberal?) out of his and the Cambodian people’s misery, if she could go back in time.
I hope she would answer with the identical out loud laugh with which she answered the question “Were you home alone that night?” during the Benghazi deafings.
But I’m not hopeful.
I’ll be responding over the course of today and tomorrow, McKT.
First, though, regarding my “baby Hitler” comment yesterday, my point is that, first, the question (in my own words): “If you knew an Austrian baby was going to grow up to be Hitler, would you kill that baby to save the world from adult Hitler’s and the Third Reich’s devastations,” is vaguely entertaining in an open-ended, thought experiment kind of way, but quickly gets you nowhere unless burrowing into an endless maze of dead-end passageways is a hobby.
Of mine, as it happens, but there isn’t the space or time here to take us on that journey and its endless, pointless permutations.
That’s not to say that there weren’t plenty of missed opportunities from the late 1920s on to kill adult Hitler, but the fact that hardly anyone tried by then only exposes the futility of thinking about snuffing out baby Hitler.
Second, asking a Presidential candidate the question is just plain stupid. It’s juvenile.
Third, a Presidential candidate answering the question is just plain stupid, unless the candidate feels the desperation of having to double down on previous stupidities like “I eat nails for breakfast” to prove his tough-guy bonafides in the face of this unexpected onslaught by his primary opponents to the far Right.
I’m sure Jeb muttered to his associates after that question; “Whew, that could have been worse. They might have asked if I would have aborted fetal Hitler.”
Fourth, Ted Cruz and his crew are glib fascists, but posting rules prevent me from speculating on how I would go back in time with a pillow to attend to baby Ted in his bassinet.
But I suppose to be even-handed, Hillary Clinton will have to be asked on Meet the Press if she would put baby Pol Pot (wasn’t he a liberal?) out of his and the Cambodian people’s misery, if she could go back in time.
I hope she would answer with the identical out loud laugh with which she answered the question “Were you home alone that night?” during the Benghazi deafings.
But I’m not hopeful.
I’ll be responding over the course of today and tomorrow, McKT.
First, though, regarding my “baby Hitler” comment yesterday, my point is that, first, the question (in my own words): “If you knew an Austrian baby was going to grow up to be Hitler, would you kill that baby to save the world from adult Hitler’s and the Third Reich’s devastations,” is vaguely entertaining in an open-ended, thought experiment kind of way, but quickly gets you nowhere unless burrowing into an endless maze of dead-end passageways is a hobby.
Of mine, as it happens, but there isn’t the space or time here to take us on that journey and its endless, pointless permutations.
That’s not to say that there weren’t plenty of missed opportunities from the late 1920s on to kill adult Hitler, but the fact that hardly anyone tried by then only exposes the futility of thinking about snuffing out baby Hitler.
Second, asking a Presidential candidate the question is just plain stupid. It’s juvenile.
Third, a Presidential candidate answering the question is just plain stupid, unless the candidate feels the desperation of having to double down on previous stupidities like “I eat nails for breakfast” to prove his tough-guy bonafides in the face of this unexpected onslaught by his primary opponents to the far Right.
I’m sure Jeb muttered to his associates after that question; “Whew, that could have been worse. They might have asked if I would have aborted fetal Hitler.”
Fourth, Ted Cruz and his crew are glib fascists, but posting rules prevent me from speculating on how I would go back in time with a pillow to attend to baby Ted in his bassinet.
But I suppose to be even-handed, Hillary Clinton will have to be asked on Meet the Press if she would put baby Pol Pot (wasn’t he a liberal?) out of his and the Cambodian people’s misery, if she could go back in time.
I hope she would answer with the identical out loud laugh with which she answered the question “Were you home alone that night?” during the Benghazi deafings.
But I’m not hopeful.
Gary Pinkel supported the players boycott, but you, in your infinite wisdom, want to tell him it’s a crock. I guess that’s why Pinkel sucks at his job. Oh, wait..
Gary Robin Pinkel (born April 27, 1952) is a college football coach who currently is the head coach for the University of Missouri Tigers football team. From 1991 to 2000, he coached at the University of Toledo, winning a Mid-American Conference championship in 1995. He is the most winning coach in Toledo’s history. He is also the most winning coach in the history of Missouri, a position that he has held since the 2001 season.
Maybe he supported them because he knew that which side his bread was buttered, and if a real man like you had been their coach, you would have knocked some sense into their heads. Hop in the car, it’s only a 12 hour drive.
Care to address the quoted demand?
Sure, tell me what you charge for that kind of work and I’ll charge you 50% of that. I’m not greedy. You are in a tax bracket that can afford it and I’m sure your accountant can figure out how to deduct it.
I said it was interesting because of the questions of who ultimately has power. I’m not there, I am not going to talk about racism on campus. If you want to rant about racism, it says a lot more about you than about anything I’m thinking.
And about ‘the man who lost his job’, his job was being a representative of the university. As the article said and I quoted:
In 2015, you cannot run a school while being blasé in the face of acts of racist harassment.
cf Donald Sterling. I know this is hard to understand, but the uni president’s job is a PR job and if you hurt your brand, you are going to lose your job.
also
http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2015/11/9/9695416/missouri-university-football-tim-wolfe-strike
Of course, he lives in Columbia and is probably biased. Thank god we have McT doing the research to tell us like it is. Or what everyone else has said.
Gary Pinkel supported the players boycott, but you, in your infinite wisdom, want to tell him it’s a crock. I guess that’s why Pinkel sucks at his job. Oh, wait..
Gary Robin Pinkel (born April 27, 1952) is a college football coach who currently is the head coach for the University of Missouri Tigers football team. From 1991 to 2000, he coached at the University of Toledo, winning a Mid-American Conference championship in 1995. He is the most winning coach in Toledo’s history. He is also the most winning coach in the history of Missouri, a position that he has held since the 2001 season.
Maybe he supported them because he knew that which side his bread was buttered, and if a real man like you had been their coach, you would have knocked some sense into their heads. Hop in the car, it’s only a 12 hour drive.
Care to address the quoted demand?
Sure, tell me what you charge for that kind of work and I’ll charge you 50% of that. I’m not greedy. You are in a tax bracket that can afford it and I’m sure your accountant can figure out how to deduct it.
I said it was interesting because of the questions of who ultimately has power. I’m not there, I am not going to talk about racism on campus. If you want to rant about racism, it says a lot more about you than about anything I’m thinking.
And about ‘the man who lost his job’, his job was being a representative of the university. As the article said and I quoted:
In 2015, you cannot run a school while being blasé in the face of acts of racist harassment.
cf Donald Sterling. I know this is hard to understand, but the uni president’s job is a PR job and if you hurt your brand, you are going to lose your job.
also
http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2015/11/9/9695416/missouri-university-football-tim-wolfe-strike
Of course, he lives in Columbia and is probably biased. Thank god we have McT doing the research to tell us like it is. Or what everyone else has said.
Gary Pinkel supported the players boycott, but you, in your infinite wisdom, want to tell him it’s a crock. I guess that’s why Pinkel sucks at his job. Oh, wait..
Gary Robin Pinkel (born April 27, 1952) is a college football coach who currently is the head coach for the University of Missouri Tigers football team. From 1991 to 2000, he coached at the University of Toledo, winning a Mid-American Conference championship in 1995. He is the most winning coach in Toledo’s history. He is also the most winning coach in the history of Missouri, a position that he has held since the 2001 season.
Maybe he supported them because he knew that which side his bread was buttered, and if a real man like you had been their coach, you would have knocked some sense into their heads. Hop in the car, it’s only a 12 hour drive.
Care to address the quoted demand?
Sure, tell me what you charge for that kind of work and I’ll charge you 50% of that. I’m not greedy. You are in a tax bracket that can afford it and I’m sure your accountant can figure out how to deduct it.
I said it was interesting because of the questions of who ultimately has power. I’m not there, I am not going to talk about racism on campus. If you want to rant about racism, it says a lot more about you than about anything I’m thinking.
And about ‘the man who lost his job’, his job was being a representative of the university. As the article said and I quoted:
In 2015, you cannot run a school while being blasé in the face of acts of racist harassment.
cf Donald Sterling. I know this is hard to understand, but the uni president’s job is a PR job and if you hurt your brand, you are going to lose your job.
also
http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2015/11/9/9695416/missouri-university-football-tim-wolfe-strike
Of course, he lives in Columbia and is probably biased. Thank god we have McT doing the research to tell us like it is. Or what everyone else has said.
To answer McT.’s request (the fruits of all of two minutes googling by someone who until today was unaware of the existence of the University…):
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/11/09/timeline_of_u_of_missouri_protests_and_president_resignation.html
For years, the University of Missouri has struggled with addressing race and diversity on campus. In 2001, the university conducted a survey to gauge campus-wide attitudes toward diversity. Based on those findings, a chief diversity officer was appointed in 2005, but efforts to include a required diversity course in the school’s curriculum stalled out in 2010 and still haven’t been implemented. “People tend to focus on this very obvious act of racism, as opposed to the more subvert acts of oppression which occur every day,” former Four Front chairwoman ChaToyya Sewell told student newspaper The Maneater at the time.
Acts of oppression on campus and beyond have continued, including racist graffiti and fliers posted around campus, cotton balls spread in front of a black culture center (a reference to slaves picking cotton), and a newspaper column accusing black students of vandalism in Greek town and telling them to, “stay in their little worlds.” (Many instances took place in February, which is black history month.) In each case, officials have investigated and issued statements, but there has been little change…
What’s remarkable to an outsider is the vast disparity between the makeup of the football team and the student body; the economic power of the athletes themselves (I think “only in America” might literally be true, here); and the enormous sums of money at stake in college sports…
To answer McT.’s request (the fruits of all of two minutes googling by someone who until today was unaware of the existence of the University…):
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/11/09/timeline_of_u_of_missouri_protests_and_president_resignation.html
For years, the University of Missouri has struggled with addressing race and diversity on campus. In 2001, the university conducted a survey to gauge campus-wide attitudes toward diversity. Based on those findings, a chief diversity officer was appointed in 2005, but efforts to include a required diversity course in the school’s curriculum stalled out in 2010 and still haven’t been implemented. “People tend to focus on this very obvious act of racism, as opposed to the more subvert acts of oppression which occur every day,” former Four Front chairwoman ChaToyya Sewell told student newspaper The Maneater at the time.
Acts of oppression on campus and beyond have continued, including racist graffiti and fliers posted around campus, cotton balls spread in front of a black culture center (a reference to slaves picking cotton), and a newspaper column accusing black students of vandalism in Greek town and telling them to, “stay in their little worlds.” (Many instances took place in February, which is black history month.) In each case, officials have investigated and issued statements, but there has been little change…
What’s remarkable to an outsider is the vast disparity between the makeup of the football team and the student body; the economic power of the athletes themselves (I think “only in America” might literally be true, here); and the enormous sums of money at stake in college sports…
To answer McT.’s request (the fruits of all of two minutes googling by someone who until today was unaware of the existence of the University…):
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/11/09/timeline_of_u_of_missouri_protests_and_president_resignation.html
For years, the University of Missouri has struggled with addressing race and diversity on campus. In 2001, the university conducted a survey to gauge campus-wide attitudes toward diversity. Based on those findings, a chief diversity officer was appointed in 2005, but efforts to include a required diversity course in the school’s curriculum stalled out in 2010 and still haven’t been implemented. “People tend to focus on this very obvious act of racism, as opposed to the more subvert acts of oppression which occur every day,” former Four Front chairwoman ChaToyya Sewell told student newspaper The Maneater at the time.
Acts of oppression on campus and beyond have continued, including racist graffiti and fliers posted around campus, cotton balls spread in front of a black culture center (a reference to slaves picking cotton), and a newspaper column accusing black students of vandalism in Greek town and telling them to, “stay in their little worlds.” (Many instances took place in February, which is black history month.) In each case, officials have investigated and issued statements, but there has been little change…
What’s remarkable to an outsider is the vast disparity between the makeup of the football team and the student body; the economic power of the athletes themselves (I think “only in America” might literally be true, here); and the enormous sums of money at stake in college sports…
…Pol Pot (wasn’t he a liberal?)
No.
…Pol Pot (wasn’t he a liberal?)
No.
…Pol Pot (wasn’t he a liberal?)
No.
On another personal note, I’m always puzzled by the equation of dramatic protests and wild demands on the part of university communities with “the left”.
Universities are somewhat rarified environments. Things that happen there don’t really represent, or extrapolate to, the rest of the world.
To follow up on ugh’s 9:26, when I was at college there was a huge protest and groundswell of outrage because there was an insufficient supply of toilet paper in the dorms.
Also, finals week was frequently disrupted by folks who hadn’t hit the books calling in bomb threats.
A little perspective goes a long way.
What I find most interesting in the whole story is the fact that what finally pushed Wolfe out was the football team threatening to not play.
I understand that football is a Very Big Deal in parts of the country outside the liberal elite northeast where I live, but were I a resident of Missouri, I would be curious to know whether my educational tax dollars were funding a state college or an NFL farm system.
But, I’m not a resident of MO, so it ain’t my hash to settle. Whatever floats their boat.
On another personal note, I’m always puzzled by the equation of dramatic protests and wild demands on the part of university communities with “the left”.
Universities are somewhat rarified environments. Things that happen there don’t really represent, or extrapolate to, the rest of the world.
To follow up on ugh’s 9:26, when I was at college there was a huge protest and groundswell of outrage because there was an insufficient supply of toilet paper in the dorms.
Also, finals week was frequently disrupted by folks who hadn’t hit the books calling in bomb threats.
A little perspective goes a long way.
What I find most interesting in the whole story is the fact that what finally pushed Wolfe out was the football team threatening to not play.
I understand that football is a Very Big Deal in parts of the country outside the liberal elite northeast where I live, but were I a resident of Missouri, I would be curious to know whether my educational tax dollars were funding a state college or an NFL farm system.
But, I’m not a resident of MO, so it ain’t my hash to settle. Whatever floats their boat.
On another personal note, I’m always puzzled by the equation of dramatic protests and wild demands on the part of university communities with “the left”.
Universities are somewhat rarified environments. Things that happen there don’t really represent, or extrapolate to, the rest of the world.
To follow up on ugh’s 9:26, when I was at college there was a huge protest and groundswell of outrage because there was an insufficient supply of toilet paper in the dorms.
Also, finals week was frequently disrupted by folks who hadn’t hit the books calling in bomb threats.
A little perspective goes a long way.
What I find most interesting in the whole story is the fact that what finally pushed Wolfe out was the football team threatening to not play.
I understand that football is a Very Big Deal in parts of the country outside the liberal elite northeast where I live, but were I a resident of Missouri, I would be curious to know whether my educational tax dollars were funding a state college or an NFL farm system.
But, I’m not a resident of MO, so it ain’t my hash to settle. Whatever floats their boat.
What’s remarkable to an outsider is the vast disparity between the makeup of the football team and the student body; the economic power of the athletes themselves (I think “only in America” might literally be true, here); and the enormous sums of money at stake in college sports…
This. I think it was roughly 50% of the football team being Black, with only 7% of the student body. And then the enormous power of football on top of that. It’s quite a combination, which is what the post was about. But there’s nothing to see here, other than white butt-hurt, it seems.
What’s remarkable to an outsider is the vast disparity between the makeup of the football team and the student body; the economic power of the athletes themselves (I think “only in America” might literally be true, here); and the enormous sums of money at stake in college sports…
This. I think it was roughly 50% of the football team being Black, with only 7% of the student body. And then the enormous power of football on top of that. It’s quite a combination, which is what the post was about. But there’s nothing to see here, other than white butt-hurt, it seems.
What’s remarkable to an outsider is the vast disparity between the makeup of the football team and the student body; the economic power of the athletes themselves (I think “only in America” might literally be true, here); and the enormous sums of money at stake in college sports…
This. I think it was roughly 50% of the football team being Black, with only 7% of the student body. And then the enormous power of football on top of that. It’s quite a combination, which is what the post was about. But there’s nothing to see here, other than white butt-hurt, it seems.
Sorry. I should have written “White” rather than “white” – you know, out of fairness.
Sorry. I should have written “White” rather than “white” – you know, out of fairness.
Sorry. I should have written “White” rather than “white” – you know, out of fairness.
were I a resident of Missouri, I would be curious to know whether my educational tax dollars were funding a state college or an NFL farm system.
I don’t pretend to understand the economics of the US college system, but isn’t the football program helping fund the college (directly or indirectly) ?
Otherwise, what’s the point ?
were I a resident of Missouri, I would be curious to know whether my educational tax dollars were funding a state college or an NFL farm system.
I don’t pretend to understand the economics of the US college system, but isn’t the football program helping fund the college (directly or indirectly) ?
Otherwise, what’s the point ?
were I a resident of Missouri, I would be curious to know whether my educational tax dollars were funding a state college or an NFL farm system.
I don’t pretend to understand the economics of the US college system, but isn’t the football program helping fund the college (directly or indirectly) ?
Otherwise, what’s the point ?
I don’t pretend to understand the economics of the US college system, but isn’t the football program helping fund the college (directly or indirectly) ?
Otherwise, what’s the point ?
Whether the football program helps fund the college or vice versa depends on upon the college and what gets counted as revenue brought in by the football program. For example, post in LJ’s link to sbnation states:
When the football team reached No. 1 in the BCS standings in 2007, it sparked an applications surge, one that has been more or less sustained ever since. In the fall of 2014, the school boasted its largest student body, freshman class, and yes, minority enrollment.
Not that the University is going to double it’s actual enrollment and thus tuition revenue because of a surge in applicants, but more people applying to your school is generally thought of as a “good thing” (I would imagine) as you may be able to improve the general academic standing of the student body, among other things.
Also up in the air are alumni donations – does a successful football program bring in additional alumni donations that would not have otherwise been made and, how are any such funds used (e.g., are they plowed back into the football program, put into the university’s general fund, used for “non-revenue” sports, etc.)?
The only thing I can say for certain is that the primary beneficiaries of big time state university college football are the coaches and athletic directors, the coach of the biggest state university football (or basketball) program generally being the highest paid public employee in that state, sometimes by several orders of magnitude.
I don’t pretend to understand the economics of the US college system, but isn’t the football program helping fund the college (directly or indirectly) ?
Otherwise, what’s the point ?
Whether the football program helps fund the college or vice versa depends on upon the college and what gets counted as revenue brought in by the football program. For example, post in LJ’s link to sbnation states:
When the football team reached No. 1 in the BCS standings in 2007, it sparked an applications surge, one that has been more or less sustained ever since. In the fall of 2014, the school boasted its largest student body, freshman class, and yes, minority enrollment.
Not that the University is going to double it’s actual enrollment and thus tuition revenue because of a surge in applicants, but more people applying to your school is generally thought of as a “good thing” (I would imagine) as you may be able to improve the general academic standing of the student body, among other things.
Also up in the air are alumni donations – does a successful football program bring in additional alumni donations that would not have otherwise been made and, how are any such funds used (e.g., are they plowed back into the football program, put into the university’s general fund, used for “non-revenue” sports, etc.)?
The only thing I can say for certain is that the primary beneficiaries of big time state university college football are the coaches and athletic directors, the coach of the biggest state university football (or basketball) program generally being the highest paid public employee in that state, sometimes by several orders of magnitude.
I don’t pretend to understand the economics of the US college system, but isn’t the football program helping fund the college (directly or indirectly) ?
Otherwise, what’s the point ?
Whether the football program helps fund the college or vice versa depends on upon the college and what gets counted as revenue brought in by the football program. For example, post in LJ’s link to sbnation states:
When the football team reached No. 1 in the BCS standings in 2007, it sparked an applications surge, one that has been more or less sustained ever since. In the fall of 2014, the school boasted its largest student body, freshman class, and yes, minority enrollment.
Not that the University is going to double it’s actual enrollment and thus tuition revenue because of a surge in applicants, but more people applying to your school is generally thought of as a “good thing” (I would imagine) as you may be able to improve the general academic standing of the student body, among other things.
Also up in the air are alumni donations – does a successful football program bring in additional alumni donations that would not have otherwise been made and, how are any such funds used (e.g., are they plowed back into the football program, put into the university’s general fund, used for “non-revenue” sports, etc.)?
The only thing I can say for certain is that the primary beneficiaries of big time state university college football are the coaches and athletic directors, the coach of the biggest state university football (or basketball) program generally being the highest paid public employee in that state, sometimes by several orders of magnitude.
what happens when these children graduate?
That’s a really excellent question. Even aside from this particular incident. And regarding mosts major universities, not just Missouri.
Most of those football players are getting minimal college education.** They are there to play football (which, as noted, makes the college lots of money). Their classes are carefully selected to allow them to get (on paper) the grades that will keep them eligible to play. They are not selected to get them anything like the kind of education that would prepare them for life after graduation — except for the tiny minority which make it into the NFL.
(Of course, many of them could not have gotten admitted to college in the first place, without the special criteria applied to football players. That is, they are ill-prepated to benefit from a college education, even if they were to try to seize the opportunity to get one.)
That being the case, any administrator who feels ill-done-by in a case like this need only look to the institution that they have created and maintained. You’ve sown the wind; no complaining when you reap the whirlwind.
** An exception may, in some cases, be made for the offensive linemen. Who are generally the brightest guys on the team . . . possibly because far fewer of them get special treeatment. (Note that this distinction continues all the way to the NFL.)
what happens when these children graduate?
That’s a really excellent question. Even aside from this particular incident. And regarding mosts major universities, not just Missouri.
Most of those football players are getting minimal college education.** They are there to play football (which, as noted, makes the college lots of money). Their classes are carefully selected to allow them to get (on paper) the grades that will keep them eligible to play. They are not selected to get them anything like the kind of education that would prepare them for life after graduation — except for the tiny minority which make it into the NFL.
(Of course, many of them could not have gotten admitted to college in the first place, without the special criteria applied to football players. That is, they are ill-prepated to benefit from a college education, even if they were to try to seize the opportunity to get one.)
That being the case, any administrator who feels ill-done-by in a case like this need only look to the institution that they have created and maintained. You’ve sown the wind; no complaining when you reap the whirlwind.
** An exception may, in some cases, be made for the offensive linemen. Who are generally the brightest guys on the team . . . possibly because far fewer of them get special treeatment. (Note that this distinction continues all the way to the NFL.)
what happens when these children graduate?
That’s a really excellent question. Even aside from this particular incident. And regarding mosts major universities, not just Missouri.
Most of those football players are getting minimal college education.** They are there to play football (which, as noted, makes the college lots of money). Their classes are carefully selected to allow them to get (on paper) the grades that will keep them eligible to play. They are not selected to get them anything like the kind of education that would prepare them for life after graduation — except for the tiny minority which make it into the NFL.
(Of course, many of them could not have gotten admitted to college in the first place, without the special criteria applied to football players. That is, they are ill-prepated to benefit from a college education, even if they were to try to seize the opportunity to get one.)
That being the case, any administrator who feels ill-done-by in a case like this need only look to the institution that they have created and maintained. You’ve sown the wind; no complaining when you reap the whirlwind.
** An exception may, in some cases, be made for the offensive linemen. Who are generally the brightest guys on the team . . . possibly because far fewer of them get special treeatment. (Note that this distinction continues all the way to the NFL.)
If you really want your head to spin, on top of the individual schools’ sports finances, try to figure out how college sports conferences work. Oy vey!
If you really want your head to spin, on top of the individual schools’ sports finances, try to figure out how college sports conferences work. Oy vey!
If you really want your head to spin, on top of the individual schools’ sports finances, try to figure out how college sports conferences work. Oy vey!
Yeah, if the Mizzou poetry club would have thrown around THEIR muscle on this issue, we’d be looking at another Kent State.
Yeah, if the Mizzou poetry club would have thrown around THEIR muscle on this issue, we’d be looking at another Kent State.
Yeah, if the Mizzou poetry club would have thrown around THEIR muscle on this issue, we’d be looking at another Kent State.
I don’t pretend to understand the economics of the US college system, but isn’t the football program helping fund the college (directly or indirectly)
I would assume that the football program at Missouri is a net generator of revenue for the university.
Which would leave me with the same question: is the university a place for people to learn, or is it there to provide a farm system for professional sports?
Both objectives are legitimate, I’m just not sure I’d be equally interested in supporting both with public money.
I’m sure the American college athletics system makes sense to somebody, but I’m not a sports guy, so that somebody is not me.
I don’t pretend to understand the economics of the US college system, but isn’t the football program helping fund the college (directly or indirectly)
I would assume that the football program at Missouri is a net generator of revenue for the university.
Which would leave me with the same question: is the university a place for people to learn, or is it there to provide a farm system for professional sports?
Both objectives are legitimate, I’m just not sure I’d be equally interested in supporting both with public money.
I’m sure the American college athletics system makes sense to somebody, but I’m not a sports guy, so that somebody is not me.
I don’t pretend to understand the economics of the US college system, but isn’t the football program helping fund the college (directly or indirectly)
I would assume that the football program at Missouri is a net generator of revenue for the university.
Which would leave me with the same question: is the university a place for people to learn, or is it there to provide a farm system for professional sports?
Both objectives are legitimate, I’m just not sure I’d be equally interested in supporting both with public money.
I’m sure the American college athletics system makes sense to somebody, but I’m not a sports guy, so that somebody is not me.
Russell, it’s not college sports in general. It’s college football.
The college baseball teams, for example, function as (the first level of) professional baseball’s farm system. But college baseball players don’t get the free ride that college football players do.
When it comes to college sports, football is in a class by itself. Basketball comes closest, in a few places. But it’s still far behind when it comes to special treatment.
Anyone who doubts that might want to consider why it is that a major state university football coach routinely gets paid far more than the university president does. (And far more than the state governor does. Far more than anybody on the state payroll does.)
It tells you what the state’s voters value, I suppose. And what the university’s alumni value. But that it makes any sense, given what the state universities are supposed to be for (see the Morrill Act for details; note that the University of Missouri is one)? Hard to fathom.
Russell, it’s not college sports in general. It’s college football.
The college baseball teams, for example, function as (the first level of) professional baseball’s farm system. But college baseball players don’t get the free ride that college football players do.
When it comes to college sports, football is in a class by itself. Basketball comes closest, in a few places. But it’s still far behind when it comes to special treatment.
Anyone who doubts that might want to consider why it is that a major state university football coach routinely gets paid far more than the university president does. (And far more than the state governor does. Far more than anybody on the state payroll does.)
It tells you what the state’s voters value, I suppose. And what the university’s alumni value. But that it makes any sense, given what the state universities are supposed to be for (see the Morrill Act for details; note that the University of Missouri is one)? Hard to fathom.
Russell, it’s not college sports in general. It’s college football.
The college baseball teams, for example, function as (the first level of) professional baseball’s farm system. But college baseball players don’t get the free ride that college football players do.
When it comes to college sports, football is in a class by itself. Basketball comes closest, in a few places. But it’s still far behind when it comes to special treatment.
Anyone who doubts that might want to consider why it is that a major state university football coach routinely gets paid far more than the university president does. (And far more than the state governor does. Far more than anybody on the state payroll does.)
It tells you what the state’s voters value, I suppose. And what the university’s alumni value. But that it makes any sense, given what the state universities are supposed to be for (see the Morrill Act for details; note that the University of Missouri is one)? Hard to fathom.
As an educator, let me just say how tired I am of the Culture Wars.
Not the actual substance of the core issues of fairness we are trying to grapple with at the heart of these disagreements, just the fractious amygdala-driven pseudo-tribal astro-turf bullsh*t.
When I was an undergrad in the 80s/90s, we used to have regular, epic battles in the college paper between the Palestinian students and the Jewish students. The rhetoric got pretty heated and would, at times, boil over into invective. But what I remember of the situation was that the students and faculty themselves would handle the situation and work to bring all parties back to a reasonable standard of community. It worked because campuses are small enough that our conflicts always came with faces and our opponents were always real people with whom we shared classes and friends.
I see the exact same thing happen on the campus where I teach on a regular basis. Except now, whenever the two sides do the same things that students did 25 years ago, the talk radio/blogosphere throws a blanket on the Outrage Burro and start riding it. Within a day the dialogue is being driven from the outside and every issue is framed as a wedge. The Administration, fearful for their brand and their bond rating, starts working to appease the Culture Warriors and defuse the situation, and the faculty and students are cut out of the discussion and dictated to.
Students and faculty have not really changed all that much. The problem is the voices from outside the campus community that don’t care about the students, but only about their own selfish hobby horses.
They don’t want resolution.
As an educator, let me just say how tired I am of the Culture Wars.
Not the actual substance of the core issues of fairness we are trying to grapple with at the heart of these disagreements, just the fractious amygdala-driven pseudo-tribal astro-turf bullsh*t.
When I was an undergrad in the 80s/90s, we used to have regular, epic battles in the college paper between the Palestinian students and the Jewish students. The rhetoric got pretty heated and would, at times, boil over into invective. But what I remember of the situation was that the students and faculty themselves would handle the situation and work to bring all parties back to a reasonable standard of community. It worked because campuses are small enough that our conflicts always came with faces and our opponents were always real people with whom we shared classes and friends.
I see the exact same thing happen on the campus where I teach on a regular basis. Except now, whenever the two sides do the same things that students did 25 years ago, the talk radio/blogosphere throws a blanket on the Outrage Burro and start riding it. Within a day the dialogue is being driven from the outside and every issue is framed as a wedge. The Administration, fearful for their brand and their bond rating, starts working to appease the Culture Warriors and defuse the situation, and the faculty and students are cut out of the discussion and dictated to.
Students and faculty have not really changed all that much. The problem is the voices from outside the campus community that don’t care about the students, but only about their own selfish hobby horses.
They don’t want resolution.
As an educator, let me just say how tired I am of the Culture Wars.
Not the actual substance of the core issues of fairness we are trying to grapple with at the heart of these disagreements, just the fractious amygdala-driven pseudo-tribal astro-turf bullsh*t.
When I was an undergrad in the 80s/90s, we used to have regular, epic battles in the college paper between the Palestinian students and the Jewish students. The rhetoric got pretty heated and would, at times, boil over into invective. But what I remember of the situation was that the students and faculty themselves would handle the situation and work to bring all parties back to a reasonable standard of community. It worked because campuses are small enough that our conflicts always came with faces and our opponents were always real people with whom we shared classes and friends.
I see the exact same thing happen on the campus where I teach on a regular basis. Except now, whenever the two sides do the same things that students did 25 years ago, the talk radio/blogosphere throws a blanket on the Outrage Burro and start riding it. Within a day the dialogue is being driven from the outside and every issue is framed as a wedge. The Administration, fearful for their brand and their bond rating, starts working to appease the Culture Warriors and defuse the situation, and the faculty and students are cut out of the discussion and dictated to.
Students and faculty have not really changed all that much. The problem is the voices from outside the campus community that don’t care about the students, but only about their own selfish hobby horses.
They don’t want resolution.
is the university a place for people to learn, or is it there to provide a farm system for professional sports?
coming to NC from a tech school in upstate NY, i had very little knowledge of how HUGE college sports are in other parts of the country.
but now i live within a half hour of UNC, Duke, and NC State, with Wake Forest, ECU, and a half-dozen other colleges an hour or so away. and it’s HUGE. college football and basketball much bigger than pro sports, in this area. everyone goes to games, people fly their school flags year round, everybody knows who is a UNC fan vs an NC State fan (and everybody hates Duke). every spring, every employer in the area puts a TV in a conference room so people can watch the NCAA basketball tournament.
it’s such a big part of the culture down here – much bigger than just a farm system. and i’ve never heard anyone actually wonder if the players are getting an education. that UNC got caught slipping players through the academics is rather more embarrassing than shocking – and a good source of amusement, for NC State fans.
is the university a place for people to learn, or is it there to provide a farm system for professional sports?
coming to NC from a tech school in upstate NY, i had very little knowledge of how HUGE college sports are in other parts of the country.
but now i live within a half hour of UNC, Duke, and NC State, with Wake Forest, ECU, and a half-dozen other colleges an hour or so away. and it’s HUGE. college football and basketball much bigger than pro sports, in this area. everyone goes to games, people fly their school flags year round, everybody knows who is a UNC fan vs an NC State fan (and everybody hates Duke). every spring, every employer in the area puts a TV in a conference room so people can watch the NCAA basketball tournament.
it’s such a big part of the culture down here – much bigger than just a farm system. and i’ve never heard anyone actually wonder if the players are getting an education. that UNC got caught slipping players through the academics is rather more embarrassing than shocking – and a good source of amusement, for NC State fans.
is the university a place for people to learn, or is it there to provide a farm system for professional sports?
coming to NC from a tech school in upstate NY, i had very little knowledge of how HUGE college sports are in other parts of the country.
but now i live within a half hour of UNC, Duke, and NC State, with Wake Forest, ECU, and a half-dozen other colleges an hour or so away. and it’s HUGE. college football and basketball much bigger than pro sports, in this area. everyone goes to games, people fly their school flags year round, everybody knows who is a UNC fan vs an NC State fan (and everybody hates Duke). every spring, every employer in the area puts a TV in a conference room so people can watch the NCAA basketball tournament.
it’s such a big part of the culture down here – much bigger than just a farm system. and i’ve never heard anyone actually wonder if the players are getting an education. that UNC got caught slipping players through the academics is rather more embarrassing than shocking – and a good source of amusement, for NC State fans.
Apparently, where the power resides to define unacceptable acts of racism upsets some people. Do white people get to decide this, or do black people get to decide this?
A change in this power relationship appears to lead to heated disagreement.
I am appalled.
For decades, black people decried race based lynchings. White people appeared to be unconcerned. When enough of them changed their minds on this matter, lynchings ceased.
Same for voting suppression, job discrimination, housing discrimination, using the dreaded ‘n’ word, etc.
White people are very comfortable with the fact that when enough of them “come around” that all will be well.
This they call “progress”.
You will note in all the above examples, white people are seen as the ultimate deciders.
But when the power to effectively enforce these social and racial mores resides with the black community, white people like McKinney vociferously object.
This tells me a lot about white people and “white privilege”.
Apparently, where the power resides to define unacceptable acts of racism upsets some people. Do white people get to decide this, or do black people get to decide this?
A change in this power relationship appears to lead to heated disagreement.
I am appalled.
For decades, black people decried race based lynchings. White people appeared to be unconcerned. When enough of them changed their minds on this matter, lynchings ceased.
Same for voting suppression, job discrimination, housing discrimination, using the dreaded ‘n’ word, etc.
White people are very comfortable with the fact that when enough of them “come around” that all will be well.
This they call “progress”.
You will note in all the above examples, white people are seen as the ultimate deciders.
But when the power to effectively enforce these social and racial mores resides with the black community, white people like McKinney vociferously object.
This tells me a lot about white people and “white privilege”.
Apparently, where the power resides to define unacceptable acts of racism upsets some people. Do white people get to decide this, or do black people get to decide this?
A change in this power relationship appears to lead to heated disagreement.
I am appalled.
For decades, black people decried race based lynchings. White people appeared to be unconcerned. When enough of them changed their minds on this matter, lynchings ceased.
Same for voting suppression, job discrimination, housing discrimination, using the dreaded ‘n’ word, etc.
White people are very comfortable with the fact that when enough of them “come around” that all will be well.
This they call “progress”.
You will note in all the above examples, white people are seen as the ultimate deciders.
But when the power to effectively enforce these social and racial mores resides with the black community, white people like McKinney vociferously object.
This tells me a lot about white people and “white privilege”.
I don’t think it’s hard to understand what’s going on.
Some people did/said some racist stuff.
University administrators have minimal tools at their disposal to productively prevent this and everyone knows this.
Students demanded that the administration make conspicuous demonstrations of cultural affiliation with them.
The administration didn’t.
So the administration had to be proclaimed problematic and replaced.
Because ultimately this is all about power, and social status.
It’s not like the next guy will fix the problem. But he’ll learn the right language and identify as being on the team of the people who just demonstrated that they will hurt him if he doesn’t. And that will satisfy them.
That’s all that’s happening here. It’s pathetic, but in ten years it won’t matter. Every generation of students has a movement that is built on demonstrating it’s own power by demanding things and forcing the university to provide them. And it’s the demand and response that matters, the play act of declaring yourself David and slaying a nominated Goliath, not the content of the demand.
I don’t think it’s hard to understand what’s going on.
Some people did/said some racist stuff.
University administrators have minimal tools at their disposal to productively prevent this and everyone knows this.
Students demanded that the administration make conspicuous demonstrations of cultural affiliation with them.
The administration didn’t.
So the administration had to be proclaimed problematic and replaced.
Because ultimately this is all about power, and social status.
It’s not like the next guy will fix the problem. But he’ll learn the right language and identify as being on the team of the people who just demonstrated that they will hurt him if he doesn’t. And that will satisfy them.
That’s all that’s happening here. It’s pathetic, but in ten years it won’t matter. Every generation of students has a movement that is built on demonstrating it’s own power by demanding things and forcing the university to provide them. And it’s the demand and response that matters, the play act of declaring yourself David and slaying a nominated Goliath, not the content of the demand.
I don’t think it’s hard to understand what’s going on.
Some people did/said some racist stuff.
University administrators have minimal tools at their disposal to productively prevent this and everyone knows this.
Students demanded that the administration make conspicuous demonstrations of cultural affiliation with them.
The administration didn’t.
So the administration had to be proclaimed problematic and replaced.
Because ultimately this is all about power, and social status.
It’s not like the next guy will fix the problem. But he’ll learn the right language and identify as being on the team of the people who just demonstrated that they will hurt him if he doesn’t. And that will satisfy them.
That’s all that’s happening here. It’s pathetic, but in ten years it won’t matter. Every generation of students has a movement that is built on demonstrating it’s own power by demanding things and forcing the university to provide them. And it’s the demand and response that matters, the play act of declaring yourself David and slaying a nominated Goliath, not the content of the demand.
University administrators have minimal tools at their disposal to productively prevent this and everyone knows this…
‘Everyone’ is doing a whole load of work in that sentence.
Rather more than it’s capable of.
University administrators have minimal tools at their disposal to productively prevent this and everyone knows this…
‘Everyone’ is doing a whole load of work in that sentence.
Rather more than it’s capable of.
University administrators have minimal tools at their disposal to productively prevent this and everyone knows this…
‘Everyone’ is doing a whole load of work in that sentence.
Rather more than it’s capable of.
Because ultimately this is all about power, and social status.
Is this a bad thing?
Because ultimately this is all about power, and social status.
Is this a bad thing?
Because ultimately this is all about power, and social status.
Is this a bad thing?
Every generation of students has a movement that is built on demonstrating it’s own power by demanding things and forcing the university to provide them.
I more or less agree with this statement as a basic statement of fact, although I think you overstate the degree to which students succeed in “forcing” universities to do anything. In any case, I’m not sure why it’s a bad thing.
Different groups of people have different interests, and they each advocate for their respective interests using whatever means are available to them.
If they had burned down buildings to make their point, I’d say that was coloring outside the lines. Refusing to play football, not so much.
What’s unique in this case is the lever that was available to the football team (i.e., money), and the willingness of the university community overall to support them.
It’s not clear to me why students and faculty seeking a voice in university governance is anything other than legitimate.
You, or any of us, might find the substance of what they (students and faculty) were concerned about to be no biggie.
I don’t see that as our call to make. Assuming of course that you’re not a Missouri student or faculty member.
Every generation of students has a movement that is built on demonstrating it’s own power by demanding things and forcing the university to provide them.
I more or less agree with this statement as a basic statement of fact, although I think you overstate the degree to which students succeed in “forcing” universities to do anything. In any case, I’m not sure why it’s a bad thing.
Different groups of people have different interests, and they each advocate for their respective interests using whatever means are available to them.
If they had burned down buildings to make their point, I’d say that was coloring outside the lines. Refusing to play football, not so much.
What’s unique in this case is the lever that was available to the football team (i.e., money), and the willingness of the university community overall to support them.
It’s not clear to me why students and faculty seeking a voice in university governance is anything other than legitimate.
You, or any of us, might find the substance of what they (students and faculty) were concerned about to be no biggie.
I don’t see that as our call to make. Assuming of course that you’re not a Missouri student or faculty member.
Every generation of students has a movement that is built on demonstrating it’s own power by demanding things and forcing the university to provide them.
I more or less agree with this statement as a basic statement of fact, although I think you overstate the degree to which students succeed in “forcing” universities to do anything. In any case, I’m not sure why it’s a bad thing.
Different groups of people have different interests, and they each advocate for their respective interests using whatever means are available to them.
If they had burned down buildings to make their point, I’d say that was coloring outside the lines. Refusing to play football, not so much.
What’s unique in this case is the lever that was available to the football team (i.e., money), and the willingness of the university community overall to support them.
It’s not clear to me why students and faculty seeking a voice in university governance is anything other than legitimate.
You, or any of us, might find the substance of what they (students and faculty) were concerned about to be no biggie.
I don’t see that as our call to make. Assuming of course that you’re not a Missouri student or faculty member.
I don’t mind “seeking a voice” if you actually haven’t got “a voice.”
This is not that.
This is the pageantry of the empowering nature of making someone capitulate to a demand. The key is that this works no matter what the demand is.
This is the same psychology at work when your terrible boss makes you do something unpleasant, unnecessary, and ultimately pointless, because the act of “making you do a thing you don’t want to” establishes the nature of your relationship. Specifically, him on top.
It’s the same psychology as when some interest group declares some business “anti Christian” and harangues them into making pro Christian statements.
This isn’t about removing someone who wasn’t doing what he should. This is about removing someone, full stop, thereby establishing who has the power.
If you don’t believe me now, watch over the next few weeks or months. Nothing will change except for an increase in symbolic statements of affinity with the protesters, and maybe some symbolic measures that everyone knows won’t do anything. A bunch of people will reassess their relative status compared to each other, and this will in no way affect whether some random jerk anonymously writes racist graffiti. Because it can’t. That was never on the table and everyone knows it.
I don’t mind “seeking a voice” if you actually haven’t got “a voice.”
This is not that.
This is the pageantry of the empowering nature of making someone capitulate to a demand. The key is that this works no matter what the demand is.
This is the same psychology at work when your terrible boss makes you do something unpleasant, unnecessary, and ultimately pointless, because the act of “making you do a thing you don’t want to” establishes the nature of your relationship. Specifically, him on top.
It’s the same psychology as when some interest group declares some business “anti Christian” and harangues them into making pro Christian statements.
This isn’t about removing someone who wasn’t doing what he should. This is about removing someone, full stop, thereby establishing who has the power.
If you don’t believe me now, watch over the next few weeks or months. Nothing will change except for an increase in symbolic statements of affinity with the protesters, and maybe some symbolic measures that everyone knows won’t do anything. A bunch of people will reassess their relative status compared to each other, and this will in no way affect whether some random jerk anonymously writes racist graffiti. Because it can’t. That was never on the table and everyone knows it.
I don’t mind “seeking a voice” if you actually haven’t got “a voice.”
This is not that.
This is the pageantry of the empowering nature of making someone capitulate to a demand. The key is that this works no matter what the demand is.
This is the same psychology at work when your terrible boss makes you do something unpleasant, unnecessary, and ultimately pointless, because the act of “making you do a thing you don’t want to” establishes the nature of your relationship. Specifically, him on top.
It’s the same psychology as when some interest group declares some business “anti Christian” and harangues them into making pro Christian statements.
This isn’t about removing someone who wasn’t doing what he should. This is about removing someone, full stop, thereby establishing who has the power.
If you don’t believe me now, watch over the next few weeks or months. Nothing will change except for an increase in symbolic statements of affinity with the protesters, and maybe some symbolic measures that everyone knows won’t do anything. A bunch of people will reassess their relative status compared to each other, and this will in no way affect whether some random jerk anonymously writes racist graffiti. Because it can’t. That was never on the table and everyone knows it.
This is not that.
I guess my response to that is “sez you”.
Not necessarily “you’re wrong”, because I don’t know that much about the history and context of life at Missouri U.
Maybe minorities at Missouri have a long history of taking crap off of other folks, and they’re sick of it. Maybe the administration has a history of being idiotically ham-handed in dealing with student and faculty complaints.
I don’t know, so I can’t tell you.
But I’m not seeing anything in your comments to tell me that you know much more about it than I do.
Nothing will change except for an increase in symbolic statements of affinity with the protesters, and maybe some symbolic measures that everyone knows won’t do anything.
This would not surprise me.
What that would tell us about the power relations between administration relative to students and faculty would, as far as I can tell, make a different point than the one you want to make.
This is not that.
I guess my response to that is “sez you”.
Not necessarily “you’re wrong”, because I don’t know that much about the history and context of life at Missouri U.
Maybe minorities at Missouri have a long history of taking crap off of other folks, and they’re sick of it. Maybe the administration has a history of being idiotically ham-handed in dealing with student and faculty complaints.
I don’t know, so I can’t tell you.
But I’m not seeing anything in your comments to tell me that you know much more about it than I do.
Nothing will change except for an increase in symbolic statements of affinity with the protesters, and maybe some symbolic measures that everyone knows won’t do anything.
This would not surprise me.
What that would tell us about the power relations between administration relative to students and faculty would, as far as I can tell, make a different point than the one you want to make.
This is not that.
I guess my response to that is “sez you”.
Not necessarily “you’re wrong”, because I don’t know that much about the history and context of life at Missouri U.
Maybe minorities at Missouri have a long history of taking crap off of other folks, and they’re sick of it. Maybe the administration has a history of being idiotically ham-handed in dealing with student and faculty complaints.
I don’t know, so I can’t tell you.
But I’m not seeing anything in your comments to tell me that you know much more about it than I do.
Nothing will change except for an increase in symbolic statements of affinity with the protesters, and maybe some symbolic measures that everyone knows won’t do anything.
This would not surprise me.
What that would tell us about the power relations between administration relative to students and faculty would, as far as I can tell, make a different point than the one you want to make.
That was never on the table and everyone knows it.
“That” is precisely the whole point, and attempts by those without power to cease to be subjected to “it” will always be “on the table” as far as they are concerned and for as long as they find it to be objectionable.
I find nothing troubling about “this”.
That was never on the table and everyone knows it.
“That” is precisely the whole point, and attempts by those without power to cease to be subjected to “it” will always be “on the table” as far as they are concerned and for as long as they find it to be objectionable.
I find nothing troubling about “this”.
That was never on the table and everyone knows it.
“That” is precisely the whole point, and attempts by those without power to cease to be subjected to “it” will always be “on the table” as far as they are concerned and for as long as they find it to be objectionable.
I find nothing troubling about “this”.
Too soon for Mel Brooks?
Too soon for Mel Brooks?
Too soon for Mel Brooks?
I’m picturing Mel Brooks doing a film where the (successful) head football coach is brought in as university president. In order to make everything wonderful again.
Wonder if he would have to take a salary cut. Probably not; Mel Brooks’ films generally ignore such grubby details.
I’m picturing Mel Brooks doing a film where the (successful) head football coach is brought in as university president. In order to make everything wonderful again.
Wonder if he would have to take a salary cut. Probably not; Mel Brooks’ films generally ignore such grubby details.
I’m picturing Mel Brooks doing a film where the (successful) head football coach is brought in as university president. In order to make everything wonderful again.
Wonder if he would have to take a salary cut. Probably not; Mel Brooks’ films generally ignore such grubby details.
This is about removing someone, full stop, thereby establishing who has the power.
that seems a bit like mind reading.
This is about removing someone, full stop, thereby establishing who has the power.
that seems a bit like mind reading.
This is about removing someone, full stop, thereby establishing who has the power.
that seems a bit like mind reading.
I more or less agree with this statement as a basic statement of fact, although I think you overstate the degree to which students succeed in “forcing” universities to do anything.
The chatter amongst the professorial portions of my FB feed tended to conclude that any forcing that happened was done by the boosters moreso than the athletes, let alone the students at large, and that assuming this was a reproducible show of force by the student-atheltes is a risky presumption to hold. Ofc, while they’re more in tune with university politics in general, none of them are at MO, so…
I more or less agree with this statement as a basic statement of fact, although I think you overstate the degree to which students succeed in “forcing” universities to do anything.
The chatter amongst the professorial portions of my FB feed tended to conclude that any forcing that happened was done by the boosters moreso than the athletes, let alone the students at large, and that assuming this was a reproducible show of force by the student-atheltes is a risky presumption to hold. Ofc, while they’re more in tune with university politics in general, none of them are at MO, so…
I more or less agree with this statement as a basic statement of fact, although I think you overstate the degree to which students succeed in “forcing” universities to do anything.
The chatter amongst the professorial portions of my FB feed tended to conclude that any forcing that happened was done by the boosters moreso than the athletes, let alone the students at large, and that assuming this was a reproducible show of force by the student-atheltes is a risky presumption to hold. Ofc, while they’re more in tune with university politics in general, none of them are at MO, so…
russell, way up-thread: What is “left” about people objecting to racism?
Well, it’s not “right”, is it?
–TP
russell, way up-thread: What is “left” about people objecting to racism?
Well, it’s not “right”, is it?
–TP
russell, way up-thread: What is “left” about people objecting to racism?
Well, it’s not “right”, is it?
–TP
wj,
I’m picturing Mel Brooks doing a film where the (successful) head football coach is brought in as university president. In order to make everything wonderful again.
The Marx Brothers came within striking distance of this.
wj,
I’m picturing Mel Brooks doing a film where the (successful) head football coach is brought in as university president. In order to make everything wonderful again.
The Marx Brothers came within striking distance of this.
wj,
I’m picturing Mel Brooks doing a film where the (successful) head football coach is brought in as university president. In order to make everything wonderful again.
The Marx Brothers came within striking distance of this.
“What that would tell us about the power relations between administration relative to students and faculty would, as far as I can tell, make a different point than the one you want to make.”
That’s because you are
1. Engaged in the self indulgent fantasy that the university administration could have Done Something to solve racism on campus, and is only refusing to do so out of spite or apathy or racism.
2. Eager to erase the actual guy who lost his job.
In reality, nothing will happen because nothing CAN happen. I know you can beat your chest like a conservative pundit in 2004 and demand that the administration Show Leadership, but we all know, and I’m including you in this because I believe you know this as well, that there is no Show of Leadership that is going to stop things like anonymous graffiti.
The best the university can do is reassure angry students that the university is On Your Side by making conspicuous displays of affinity until the students direct their anger elsewhere.
Of course, if YOU have a solution that amounts to something other than Show Leadership, By Which I Mean Express My Anger For Me, Or I’ll Hurt You, by all means.
“What that would tell us about the power relations between administration relative to students and faculty would, as far as I can tell, make a different point than the one you want to make.”
That’s because you are
1. Engaged in the self indulgent fantasy that the university administration could have Done Something to solve racism on campus, and is only refusing to do so out of spite or apathy or racism.
2. Eager to erase the actual guy who lost his job.
In reality, nothing will happen because nothing CAN happen. I know you can beat your chest like a conservative pundit in 2004 and demand that the administration Show Leadership, but we all know, and I’m including you in this because I believe you know this as well, that there is no Show of Leadership that is going to stop things like anonymous graffiti.
The best the university can do is reassure angry students that the university is On Your Side by making conspicuous displays of affinity until the students direct their anger elsewhere.
Of course, if YOU have a solution that amounts to something other than Show Leadership, By Which I Mean Express My Anger For Me, Or I’ll Hurt You, by all means.
“What that would tell us about the power relations between administration relative to students and faculty would, as far as I can tell, make a different point than the one you want to make.”
That’s because you are
1. Engaged in the self indulgent fantasy that the university administration could have Done Something to solve racism on campus, and is only refusing to do so out of spite or apathy or racism.
2. Eager to erase the actual guy who lost his job.
In reality, nothing will happen because nothing CAN happen. I know you can beat your chest like a conservative pundit in 2004 and demand that the administration Show Leadership, but we all know, and I’m including you in this because I believe you know this as well, that there is no Show of Leadership that is going to stop things like anonymous graffiti.
The best the university can do is reassure angry students that the university is On Your Side by making conspicuous displays of affinity until the students direct their anger elsewhere.
Of course, if YOU have a solution that amounts to something other than Show Leadership, By Which I Mean Express My Anger For Me, Or I’ll Hurt You, by all means.
if mckinneytx’s monicker is a true indication of his city of residence he lives within a 90 minute drive of my house. i am a 7th or 8th generation native of this state. my ancestors migrated here in the late 1830s after the proclamation of the republic of texas from parts of georgia and tennessee. so far as my mother and i have found on census records, none of my ancestors ever owned a human being. i use all this as preface to the observation that he (is mct a he?) and i share a state, even more or less the same region of a state, i imagine that we are close to the same age (i am 54), and grew up listening to many of the same stories about texas, the south, and the southwest. yet i find his outlook almost incomprehensible, as if he had been raised in some terrible desert of the spirit far from me. i do not know what it is that accounts for his harsh, pinched, and implacable despise of all impulses broadminded and liberal but it cannot be accounted for on regional grounds. the only area where i find any common ground with him is in his derogation of the no press zone, a feature i find appallingly bush-like and unworthy of a progressive movement. i hold no rancor towards him but i do wish an intelligent individual such as he could find a better use of his powers than to spin the right wing talking points on the issues of the day.
if mckinneytx’s monicker is a true indication of his city of residence he lives within a 90 minute drive of my house. i am a 7th or 8th generation native of this state. my ancestors migrated here in the late 1830s after the proclamation of the republic of texas from parts of georgia and tennessee. so far as my mother and i have found on census records, none of my ancestors ever owned a human being. i use all this as preface to the observation that he (is mct a he?) and i share a state, even more or less the same region of a state, i imagine that we are close to the same age (i am 54), and grew up listening to many of the same stories about texas, the south, and the southwest. yet i find his outlook almost incomprehensible, as if he had been raised in some terrible desert of the spirit far from me. i do not know what it is that accounts for his harsh, pinched, and implacable despise of all impulses broadminded and liberal but it cannot be accounted for on regional grounds. the only area where i find any common ground with him is in his derogation of the no press zone, a feature i find appallingly bush-like and unworthy of a progressive movement. i hold no rancor towards him but i do wish an intelligent individual such as he could find a better use of his powers than to spin the right wing talking points on the issues of the day.
if mckinneytx’s monicker is a true indication of his city of residence he lives within a 90 minute drive of my house. i am a 7th or 8th generation native of this state. my ancestors migrated here in the late 1830s after the proclamation of the republic of texas from parts of georgia and tennessee. so far as my mother and i have found on census records, none of my ancestors ever owned a human being. i use all this as preface to the observation that he (is mct a he?) and i share a state, even more or less the same region of a state, i imagine that we are close to the same age (i am 54), and grew up listening to many of the same stories about texas, the south, and the southwest. yet i find his outlook almost incomprehensible, as if he had been raised in some terrible desert of the spirit far from me. i do not know what it is that accounts for his harsh, pinched, and implacable despise of all impulses broadminded and liberal but it cannot be accounted for on regional grounds. the only area where i find any common ground with him is in his derogation of the no press zone, a feature i find appallingly bush-like and unworthy of a progressive movement. i hold no rancor towards him but i do wish an intelligent individual such as he could find a better use of his powers than to spin the right wing talking points on the issues of the day.
While I’m not fully convinced that a university president can significantly decrease expressions of racism on campus if so inclined, I am convinced that one who isn’t so incined definitely will not and, in effect, cannot.
On the no-press zone, I can’t even fathom what that was supposed to accomplish, even in the most short-sightedly and narrowly self-interested way.
While I’m not fully convinced that a university president can significantly decrease expressions of racism on campus if so inclined, I am convinced that one who isn’t so incined definitely will not and, in effect, cannot.
On the no-press zone, I can’t even fathom what that was supposed to accomplish, even in the most short-sightedly and narrowly self-interested way.
While I’m not fully convinced that a university president can significantly decrease expressions of racism on campus if so inclined, I am convinced that one who isn’t so incined definitely will not and, in effect, cannot.
On the no-press zone, I can’t even fathom what that was supposed to accomplish, even in the most short-sightedly and narrowly self-interested way.
no-press zone n 1. A geometric shape that is an umpossibility in a free country such as the United State of America; 2. A location where heavy press machinery is forbidden, vizrowboats or hang gliders; 3. An absurd area delineated by spoiled liberal college students solely for the purpose of making themselves look silly; 4. An area on a television production set encompassing GOP candidates seeking the presidency. The boundaries of this zone are determined by the back stage curtain, the green rooms and side stages, and a line no less than 24 inches from their press interlocutors.
no-press zone n 1. A geometric shape that is an umpossibility in a free country such as the United State of America; 2. A location where heavy press machinery is forbidden, vizrowboats or hang gliders; 3. An absurd area delineated by spoiled liberal college students solely for the purpose of making themselves look silly; 4. An area on a television production set encompassing GOP candidates seeking the presidency. The boundaries of this zone are determined by the back stage curtain, the green rooms and side stages, and a line no less than 24 inches from their press interlocutors.
no-press zone n 1. A geometric shape that is an umpossibility in a free country such as the United State of America; 2. A location where heavy press machinery is forbidden, vizrowboats or hang gliders; 3. An absurd area delineated by spoiled liberal college students solely for the purpose of making themselves look silly; 4. An area on a television production set encompassing GOP candidates seeking the presidency. The boundaries of this zone are determined by the back stage curtain, the green rooms and side stages, and a line no less than 24 inches from their press interlocutors.
Back to the demand for a mandatory racial awareness and inclusion course, I think this will just continue to fuel the flames of exclusion and bigotry these naive kids already swim in.
Back to the demand for a mandatory racial awareness and inclusion course, I think this will just continue to fuel the flames of exclusion and bigotry these naive kids already swim in.
Back to the demand for a mandatory racial awareness and inclusion course, I think this will just continue to fuel the flames of exclusion and bigotry these naive kids already swim in.
Engaged in the self indulgent fantasy that the university administration could have Done Something to solve racism on campus
this is so silly.
there are innumerable things that can’t be
solved” but which we try very hard to reduce: murder, rape, theft, lying, etc.. religions have prohibitions of these at their core; legal systems everywhere forbid them; all of human history, people have fought them. they still happen. and if a person who is in charge of an institution were to shrug-off ongoing murders, we’d probably ask them to resign. and no preening cynics would bat an eye about it.
racism is not murder.
but it still sucks. and it’s something people are going to have to continue to fight, even if it’s slow going, and even if people want to throw up their hands and say “oh noes, it can never be solved!”
Engaged in the self indulgent fantasy that the university administration could have Done Something to solve racism on campus
this is so silly.
there are innumerable things that can’t be
solved” but which we try very hard to reduce: murder, rape, theft, lying, etc.. religions have prohibitions of these at their core; legal systems everywhere forbid them; all of human history, people have fought them. they still happen. and if a person who is in charge of an institution were to shrug-off ongoing murders, we’d probably ask them to resign. and no preening cynics would bat an eye about it.
racism is not murder.
but it still sucks. and it’s something people are going to have to continue to fight, even if it’s slow going, and even if people want to throw up their hands and say “oh noes, it can never be solved!”
Engaged in the self indulgent fantasy that the university administration could have Done Something to solve racism on campus
this is so silly.
there are innumerable things that can’t be
solved” but which we try very hard to reduce: murder, rape, theft, lying, etc.. religions have prohibitions of these at their core; legal systems everywhere forbid them; all of human history, people have fought them. they still happen. and if a person who is in charge of an institution were to shrug-off ongoing murders, we’d probably ask them to resign. and no preening cynics would bat an eye about it.
racism is not murder.
but it still sucks. and it’s something people are going to have to continue to fight, even if it’s slow going, and even if people want to throw up their hands and say “oh noes, it can never be solved!”
Eager to erase the actual guy who lost his job.
That’s Tim Wolfe, putting on a hard hat and carrying his lunch pail to work. I look forward to folks pointing out previous times where it has been important to defend that put-upon demographic of University Presidents losing their jobs.
Speaking of erasing
things like anonymous graffiti
Something else got erased here, but oh crap, I can’t seem to put my finger on it.
I’ve got no idea what it is like on the Mizzou campus or in Missouri in general. The OP pulled out the following points
1) about what a Uni president can (or should I say can’t) do
2) about the possibility of student activists and student athletes cooperating
3) how changes in the structure of universities have handed the power to these student athletes
I fail to see a word about racism there. However, I do know that in America’s history, Missouri has been a flash point for racial relations, not only in the political history (Alec, What is ‘The Missouri Compromise’?), but also for, believe it or not, sports (do the names Enos Slaughter and Jackie Robinson ring a bell?) However, this letter from a UM faculty suggests that it isn’t just 2 events.
I have always been interested in the worldwide phenomenon of student protest and revolt and it is always very mundane things that trigger them. For Mai 68, the spark was expelling several students from the Sorbonne. In Japan, students occupied Todai were led by med students who didn’t like the idea of working as an intern for 3 years after graduating let them to lead other students (this is why all med schools were separated from regular universities in the early 70’s higher education reforms) In Thailand, 1973, we have this interesting echo:
In June 1973, several university students from Ramkhamhaeng University were expelled for publishing a satire on the ruling government. [related to the Thung Yai hunting scandal] The NSCT reacted by organising rallies to call for the reinstatement of the students. Subsequently, the government decided to close the universities which caused the rallies to grow in size, reaching 50,000. Eventually, the government relented in the end, with the students reinstated and the rector of the university forced to resign.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Thai_popular_uprising
I will leave it to dr ngo to fill everyone in on the details, but suffice it to say, everyone better hope that it doesn’t go the way the Thai one went…
Eager to erase the actual guy who lost his job.
That’s Tim Wolfe, putting on a hard hat and carrying his lunch pail to work. I look forward to folks pointing out previous times where it has been important to defend that put-upon demographic of University Presidents losing their jobs.
Speaking of erasing
things like anonymous graffiti
Something else got erased here, but oh crap, I can’t seem to put my finger on it.
I’ve got no idea what it is like on the Mizzou campus or in Missouri in general. The OP pulled out the following points
1) about what a Uni president can (or should I say can’t) do
2) about the possibility of student activists and student athletes cooperating
3) how changes in the structure of universities have handed the power to these student athletes
I fail to see a word about racism there. However, I do know that in America’s history, Missouri has been a flash point for racial relations, not only in the political history (Alec, What is ‘The Missouri Compromise’?), but also for, believe it or not, sports (do the names Enos Slaughter and Jackie Robinson ring a bell?) However, this letter from a UM faculty suggests that it isn’t just 2 events.
I have always been interested in the worldwide phenomenon of student protest and revolt and it is always very mundane things that trigger them. For Mai 68, the spark was expelling several students from the Sorbonne. In Japan, students occupied Todai were led by med students who didn’t like the idea of working as an intern for 3 years after graduating let them to lead other students (this is why all med schools were separated from regular universities in the early 70’s higher education reforms) In Thailand, 1973, we have this interesting echo:
In June 1973, several university students from Ramkhamhaeng University were expelled for publishing a satire on the ruling government. [related to the Thung Yai hunting scandal] The NSCT reacted by organising rallies to call for the reinstatement of the students. Subsequently, the government decided to close the universities which caused the rallies to grow in size, reaching 50,000. Eventually, the government relented in the end, with the students reinstated and the rector of the university forced to resign.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Thai_popular_uprising
I will leave it to dr ngo to fill everyone in on the details, but suffice it to say, everyone better hope that it doesn’t go the way the Thai one went…
Eager to erase the actual guy who lost his job.
That’s Tim Wolfe, putting on a hard hat and carrying his lunch pail to work. I look forward to folks pointing out previous times where it has been important to defend that put-upon demographic of University Presidents losing their jobs.
Speaking of erasing
things like anonymous graffiti
Something else got erased here, but oh crap, I can’t seem to put my finger on it.
I’ve got no idea what it is like on the Mizzou campus or in Missouri in general. The OP pulled out the following points
1) about what a Uni president can (or should I say can’t) do
2) about the possibility of student activists and student athletes cooperating
3) how changes in the structure of universities have handed the power to these student athletes
I fail to see a word about racism there. However, I do know that in America’s history, Missouri has been a flash point for racial relations, not only in the political history (Alec, What is ‘The Missouri Compromise’?), but also for, believe it or not, sports (do the names Enos Slaughter and Jackie Robinson ring a bell?) However, this letter from a UM faculty suggests that it isn’t just 2 events.
I have always been interested in the worldwide phenomenon of student protest and revolt and it is always very mundane things that trigger them. For Mai 68, the spark was expelling several students from the Sorbonne. In Japan, students occupied Todai were led by med students who didn’t like the idea of working as an intern for 3 years after graduating let them to lead other students (this is why all med schools were separated from regular universities in the early 70’s higher education reforms) In Thailand, 1973, we have this interesting echo:
In June 1973, several university students from Ramkhamhaeng University were expelled for publishing a satire on the ruling government. [related to the Thung Yai hunting scandal] The NSCT reacted by organising rallies to call for the reinstatement of the students. Subsequently, the government decided to close the universities which caused the rallies to grow in size, reaching 50,000. Eventually, the government relented in the end, with the students reinstated and the rector of the university forced to resign.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Thai_popular_uprising
I will leave it to dr ngo to fill everyone in on the details, but suffice it to say, everyone better hope that it doesn’t go the way the Thai one went…
When you put it like that, lj, I suddenly have flashbacks to the Great Vapors Epidemic of 2014 when Brendan Eich resigned. There’s… more than a little tonal overlap between precisely how certain parties latched onto this as an event of particularly dire import…
When you put it like that, lj, I suddenly have flashbacks to the Great Vapors Epidemic of 2014 when Brendan Eich resigned. There’s… more than a little tonal overlap between precisely how certain parties latched onto this as an event of particularly dire import…
When you put it like that, lj, I suddenly have flashbacks to the Great Vapors Epidemic of 2014 when Brendan Eich resigned. There’s… more than a little tonal overlap between precisely how certain parties latched onto this as an event of particularly dire import…
When you put it like that, lj, I suddenly have flashbacks to the Great Vapors Epidemic of 2014 when Brendan Eich resigned. There’s… more than a little tonal overlap between precisely how certain parties latched onto this as an event of particularly dire import…
When you put it like that, lj, I suddenly have flashbacks to the Great Vapors Epidemic of 2014 when Brendan Eich resigned. There’s… more than a little tonal overlap between precisely how certain parties latched onto this as an event of particularly dire import…
When you put it like that, lj, I suddenly have flashbacks to the Great Vapors Epidemic of 2014 when Brendan Eich resigned. There’s… more than a little tonal overlap between precisely how certain parties latched onto this as an event of particularly dire import…
Tim Wolfe lost the job of overseeing the education of thousands of students in Missouri because he couldn’t define systemic oppression.
Systemic oppression is a big deal in he lives of many of his students. It’s the root of the grinding misery caused by a grossly bloated system of municipal governments in St. Louis County, one that pays for its inefficient structure on the backs of the poor.
This is systemic oppression. It is oppression baked into the structure of government and society. Other examples of systemic oppression include the carceral culture, that confines the highest prison population in the world, and means the Afican American men now studying at the University of Missouri have a one in three chance of getting sent to prison in their lives, and in many cases losing their right to vote as a consequence.
It’s OK to disagree about matters like this. But if you want a major role in education or really the delivery of any services to young Americans in the year of grace 2015, you need to have a basic clue about the challenges these students actually face.
Tim Wolfe lost the job of overseeing the education of thousands of students in Missouri because he couldn’t define systemic oppression.
Systemic oppression is a big deal in he lives of many of his students. It’s the root of the grinding misery caused by a grossly bloated system of municipal governments in St. Louis County, one that pays for its inefficient structure on the backs of the poor.
This is systemic oppression. It is oppression baked into the structure of government and society. Other examples of systemic oppression include the carceral culture, that confines the highest prison population in the world, and means the Afican American men now studying at the University of Missouri have a one in three chance of getting sent to prison in their lives, and in many cases losing their right to vote as a consequence.
It’s OK to disagree about matters like this. But if you want a major role in education or really the delivery of any services to young Americans in the year of grace 2015, you need to have a basic clue about the challenges these students actually face.
Tim Wolfe lost the job of overseeing the education of thousands of students in Missouri because he couldn’t define systemic oppression.
Systemic oppression is a big deal in he lives of many of his students. It’s the root of the grinding misery caused by a grossly bloated system of municipal governments in St. Louis County, one that pays for its inefficient structure on the backs of the poor.
This is systemic oppression. It is oppression baked into the structure of government and society. Other examples of systemic oppression include the carceral culture, that confines the highest prison population in the world, and means the Afican American men now studying at the University of Missouri have a one in three chance of getting sent to prison in their lives, and in many cases losing their right to vote as a consequence.
It’s OK to disagree about matters like this. But if you want a major role in education or really the delivery of any services to young Americans in the year of grace 2015, you need to have a basic clue about the challenges these students actually face.
Thank you Comrade Spragge. I’m sure that Mr. Wolfe never attended college and didn’t grow up in the US. So you’re right, he’s clueless about all the injustice faced by the students.
And here we go again. Sigh. The left believing pure BS that never happened because it fits their social justice narrative. A feces swastika was never smeared on a wall by a white supremist. No more than a Christian would smear a feces cross on a wall. No more than Michael Brown was a gentle giant shot in the back with his hands up.
As said upstream, this is about mobs grabbing power and not content.
Thank you Comrade Spragge. I’m sure that Mr. Wolfe never attended college and didn’t grow up in the US. So you’re right, he’s clueless about all the injustice faced by the students.
And here we go again. Sigh. The left believing pure BS that never happened because it fits their social justice narrative. A feces swastika was never smeared on a wall by a white supremist. No more than a Christian would smear a feces cross on a wall. No more than Michael Brown was a gentle giant shot in the back with his hands up.
As said upstream, this is about mobs grabbing power and not content.
Thank you Comrade Spragge. I’m sure that Mr. Wolfe never attended college and didn’t grow up in the US. So you’re right, he’s clueless about all the injustice faced by the students.
And here we go again. Sigh. The left believing pure BS that never happened because it fits their social justice narrative. A feces swastika was never smeared on a wall by a white supremist. No more than a Christian would smear a feces cross on a wall. No more than Michael Brown was a gentle giant shot in the back with his hands up.
As said upstream, this is about mobs grabbing power and not content.
Thank you Comrade Spragge. I’m sure that Mr. Wolfe never attended college and didn’t grow up in the US. So you’re right, he’s clueless about all the injustice faced by the students.
And here we go again. Sigh. The left believing pure BS that never happened because it fits their social justice narrative. A feces swastika was never smeared on a wall by a white supremist. No more than a Christian would smear a feces cross on a wall. No more than Michael Brown was a gentle giant shot in the back with his hands up.
As said upstream, this is about mobs grabbing power and not about the content that the social justice warriors want it to be.
Thank you Comrade Spragge. I’m sure that Mr. Wolfe never attended college and didn’t grow up in the US. So you’re right, he’s clueless about all the injustice faced by the students.
And here we go again. Sigh. The left believing pure BS that never happened because it fits their social justice narrative. A feces swastika was never smeared on a wall by a white supremist. No more than a Christian would smear a feces cross on a wall. No more than Michael Brown was a gentle giant shot in the back with his hands up.
As said upstream, this is about mobs grabbing power and not about the content that the social justice warriors want it to be.
Thank you Comrade Spragge. I’m sure that Mr. Wolfe never attended college and didn’t grow up in the US. So you’re right, he’s clueless about all the injustice faced by the students.
And here we go again. Sigh. The left believing pure BS that never happened because it fits their social justice narrative. A feces swastika was never smeared on a wall by a white supremist. No more than a Christian would smear a feces cross on a wall. No more than Michael Brown was a gentle giant shot in the back with his hands up.
As said upstream, this is about mobs grabbing power and not about the content that the social justice warriors want it to be.
Overreaching there, hoki. The feces swastika not being put up by a Nazi, might or might not be a good point. I could see it being done by a racist who wanted to be as upsetting as possible or it could be done by some dreaded lefty trying to be as upsetting as possible–either way the point would be to shock and not to express reference for a sacred symbol, which is where your feces cross analogy misses the point. And anyway, KKK types probably claim to be Christian and they burn crosses.
As for being born in the US and therefore understanding what it is like to be black in the US, that was funny.
I think from what I’ve read, which isn’t that much, is that some left-leaning college students, especially at Yale, are behaving childishly, but am facsinated by the rightwing hysteria over campus radicals going too far, as though it heralds the end of Western civilization. Over at Rod Dreher’ blog, where he is practically foaming at the mouth, he approvingly cites an anonymous reader who tells Rod that he used to be one of those horrid lefties himself, but has now come to his senses and plans to vote for Ben Carson. Maybe we are doomed.
Overreaching there, hoki. The feces swastika not being put up by a Nazi, might or might not be a good point. I could see it being done by a racist who wanted to be as upsetting as possible or it could be done by some dreaded lefty trying to be as upsetting as possible–either way the point would be to shock and not to express reference for a sacred symbol, which is where your feces cross analogy misses the point. And anyway, KKK types probably claim to be Christian and they burn crosses.
As for being born in the US and therefore understanding what it is like to be black in the US, that was funny.
I think from what I’ve read, which isn’t that much, is that some left-leaning college students, especially at Yale, are behaving childishly, but am facsinated by the rightwing hysteria over campus radicals going too far, as though it heralds the end of Western civilization. Over at Rod Dreher’ blog, where he is practically foaming at the mouth, he approvingly cites an anonymous reader who tells Rod that he used to be one of those horrid lefties himself, but has now come to his senses and plans to vote for Ben Carson. Maybe we are doomed.
Overreaching there, hoki. The feces swastika not being put up by a Nazi, might or might not be a good point. I could see it being done by a racist who wanted to be as upsetting as possible or it could be done by some dreaded lefty trying to be as upsetting as possible–either way the point would be to shock and not to express reference for a sacred symbol, which is where your feces cross analogy misses the point. And anyway, KKK types probably claim to be Christian and they burn crosses.
As for being born in the US and therefore understanding what it is like to be black in the US, that was funny.
I think from what I’ve read, which isn’t that much, is that some left-leaning college students, especially at Yale, are behaving childishly, but am facsinated by the rightwing hysteria over campus radicals going too far, as though it heralds the end of Western civilization. Over at Rod Dreher’ blog, where he is practically foaming at the mouth, he approvingly cites an anonymous reader who tells Rod that he used to be one of those horrid lefties himself, but has now come to his senses and plans to vote for Ben Carson. Maybe we are doomed.
Reverence, not reference for a sacred symbol. Not sure if that was auto-mistake or my own fingers missing the v.
Reverence, not reference for a sacred symbol. Not sure if that was auto-mistake or my own fingers missing the v.
Reverence, not reference for a sacred symbol. Not sure if that was auto-mistake or my own fingers missing the v.
this is about mobs grabbing power and not about the content that the social justice warriors want it to be
i just adore how people have fuck-all to do with the events on-campus feel comfortable to condescendingly explain just exactly what the people who are there mean and want, how they should behave and what it means if they don’t.
it’s like you’re trying to prove that the students have do valid complaints while pretending that they don’t.
this is about mobs grabbing power and not about the content that the social justice warriors want it to be
i just adore how people have fuck-all to do with the events on-campus feel comfortable to condescendingly explain just exactly what the people who are there mean and want, how they should behave and what it means if they don’t.
it’s like you’re trying to prove that the students have do valid complaints while pretending that they don’t.
this is about mobs grabbing power and not about the content that the social justice warriors want it to be
i just adore how people have fuck-all to do with the events on-campus feel comfortable to condescendingly explain just exactly what the people who are there mean and want, how they should behave and what it means if they don’t.
it’s like you’re trying to prove that the students have do valid complaints while pretending that they don’t.
Here is more right wing fantasy from another right wing rag: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/11/can-we-take-political-correctness-seriously-now.html
These truly are the children of the Left and the Left implicitly admits this, by and large, by dismissing those who push back, dismissing their own as ‘kids will be kids’, or ‘nothing here folks, let’s move along’.
These unguided missiles make it their business to demand either conformity or dismissal. That’s a new and scary level of coercion.
Has anyone here who leans left gotten around to addressing demand No. 4. LJ and Cleek bravely deflected the challenge. Anyone else? I haven’t read everything in depth having been out yesterday, most of today and tomorrow, so if you did, just refer me to your comment–thanks.
Here is more right wing fantasy from another right wing rag: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/11/can-we-take-political-correctness-seriously-now.html
These truly are the children of the Left and the Left implicitly admits this, by and large, by dismissing those who push back, dismissing their own as ‘kids will be kids’, or ‘nothing here folks, let’s move along’.
These unguided missiles make it their business to demand either conformity or dismissal. That’s a new and scary level of coercion.
Has anyone here who leans left gotten around to addressing demand No. 4. LJ and Cleek bravely deflected the challenge. Anyone else? I haven’t read everything in depth having been out yesterday, most of today and tomorrow, so if you did, just refer me to your comment–thanks.
Here is more right wing fantasy from another right wing rag: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/11/can-we-take-political-correctness-seriously-now.html
These truly are the children of the Left and the Left implicitly admits this, by and large, by dismissing those who push back, dismissing their own as ‘kids will be kids’, or ‘nothing here folks, let’s move along’.
These unguided missiles make it their business to demand either conformity or dismissal. That’s a new and scary level of coercion.
Has anyone here who leans left gotten around to addressing demand No. 4. LJ and Cleek bravely deflected the challenge. Anyone else? I haven’t read everything in depth having been out yesterday, most of today and tomorrow, so if you did, just refer me to your comment–thanks.
why haven’t i commented on a demand that the college create a diversity curriculum? because it’s such a banal and non-threatening demand that it didn’t seem worth the time.
i get that you’re all excited to use your new stock of catch-phrases and wingnut chaff-bombs, but i honestly have no idea what the fuck you’re all upset about.
diversity classes? so what? i’ve had to take them at every job i’ve had for the last 15 years or so. it’s just an hour of “Don’t be a dick.”
maybe that’s too much to ask of some.
why haven’t i commented on a demand that the college create a diversity curriculum? because it’s such a banal and non-threatening demand that it didn’t seem worth the time.
i get that you’re all excited to use your new stock of catch-phrases and wingnut chaff-bombs, but i honestly have no idea what the fuck you’re all upset about.
diversity classes? so what? i’ve had to take them at every job i’ve had for the last 15 years or so. it’s just an hour of “Don’t be a dick.”
maybe that’s too much to ask of some.
why haven’t i commented on a demand that the college create a diversity curriculum? because it’s such a banal and non-threatening demand that it didn’t seem worth the time.
i get that you’re all excited to use your new stock of catch-phrases and wingnut chaff-bombs, but i honestly have no idea what the fuck you’re all upset about.
diversity classes? so what? i’ve had to take them at every job i’ve had for the last 15 years or so. it’s just an hour of “Don’t be a dick.”
maybe that’s too much to ask of some.
McT, I don’t know where your list of demands are. The OP is about Missouri and was focussed around the power of the football team in having the president leave a lot more quickly than might have been the case. I’m not sure you’d get the same result with the Yale football team.
McT, I don’t know where your list of demands are. The OP is about Missouri and was focussed around the power of the football team in having the president leave a lot more quickly than might have been the case. I’m not sure you’d get the same result with the Yale football team.
McT, I don’t know where your list of demands are. The OP is about Missouri and was focussed around the power of the football team in having the president leave a lot more quickly than might have been the case. I’m not sure you’d get the same result with the Yale football team.
LJ: “McT, I don’t know where your list of demands are.”
I plan on stoutly ignoring McT’s demands until he mobilizes a shutdown of a major university football team.
Pro tip: that would not include “Yale”.
LJ: “McT, I don’t know where your list of demands are.”
I plan on stoutly ignoring McT’s demands until he mobilizes a shutdown of a major university football team.
Pro tip: that would not include “Yale”.
LJ: “McT, I don’t know where your list of demands are.”
I plan on stoutly ignoring McT’s demands until he mobilizes a shutdown of a major university football team.
Pro tip: that would not include “Yale”.
The treatment the Christakises have received at Yale is ridiculous. That doesn’t mean there aren’t legitimate grievances worthy of protest. The no-press zone at Mizzou is wrong-headed and silly. That doesn’t mean there aren’t legitimate grievances worthy of protest or that the president didn’t need to go. Like cleek wrote, whether diversity classes will be much help or not is an open question in my mind, but they’re hardly something worth getting worked up about either way.
If the term “pollitical correctness” weren’t thrown around willy-nilly and loosely defined, at best, and used a cudgel to quash legitimate criticism, maybe it would be time to take it seriously.
The treatment the Christakises have received at Yale is ridiculous. That doesn’t mean there aren’t legitimate grievances worthy of protest. The no-press zone at Mizzou is wrong-headed and silly. That doesn’t mean there aren’t legitimate grievances worthy of protest or that the president didn’t need to go. Like cleek wrote, whether diversity classes will be much help or not is an open question in my mind, but they’re hardly something worth getting worked up about either way.
If the term “pollitical correctness” weren’t thrown around willy-nilly and loosely defined, at best, and used a cudgel to quash legitimate criticism, maybe it would be time to take it seriously.
The treatment the Christakises have received at Yale is ridiculous. That doesn’t mean there aren’t legitimate grievances worthy of protest. The no-press zone at Mizzou is wrong-headed and silly. That doesn’t mean there aren’t legitimate grievances worthy of protest or that the president didn’t need to go. Like cleek wrote, whether diversity classes will be much help or not is an open question in my mind, but they’re hardly something worth getting worked up about either way.
If the term “pollitical correctness” weren’t thrown around willy-nilly and loosely defined, at best, and used a cudgel to quash legitimate criticism, maybe it would be time to take it seriously.
To be honest, I don’t know why the protests in MO are happening at such a large scale. To McK’s point, they do seem to be out of proportion to the specific events that precipitated them – somebody called the student body president a nigger, somebody stood up at a theater rehearsal and spouted racist crap, somebody drew a swastika with poo.
LJ posted this comment to talk about the nature of the power relations that would enable a football team to cause the resignation of a university president. The discussion has, from the first comment on, zeroed in on the racial aspects.
Since (as far as I can tell) none of us here live in MO or attend the University thereof, none of us is in a position to provide any kind of insider’s view of what’s going on there. So, we’re mostly speculating.
Speculating is fine, but it has to at least account for the phenomena.
IMO, McK’s rants about “children of the left” makes no sense. The crucial constituencies we’re talking about are a football team, the coach, and at least enough of the boosters to result in the president and chancellor resigning. The idea of any of those folks spending their free time reading essays from the Frankfurt school is just not persuasive.
Patrick’s comments about it being purely an exercise in Sticking It To The Man fails for the same reason. However you construe a phrase like The Man, it’s likely to include the coach and the boosters.
As far as the motivation for the protests, a history of racial tension coupled with an ineffective response from the administration makes more sense. Especially, as LJ notes, given the history of Missouri.
I’m not presenting that as The Reason, I’m simply pointing out that, as an explanation, it accounts for the things we know better than McK’s or Patrick’s.
It saves the phenomena, as the ancients would say. McK and Patrick’s speculations do not.
As far as “the guy who lost his job”, I’m sympathetic to Wolf and the chancellor in that regard, but people lose their jobs every f***king day. Both of those guys will land on their feet. Their children will not go hungry.
As far as “demand number 4”, what cleek said.
I don’t know what the media exclusion thing is about, it makes no sense to me and in fact it seems wrong.
For the record, every person “of the left” who I’ve seen comment about that, here or elsewhere, has made the same statement.
Apparently our children are not following the party line we have laid down.
To be honest, I don’t know why the protests in MO are happening at such a large scale. To McK’s point, they do seem to be out of proportion to the specific events that precipitated them – somebody called the student body president a nigger, somebody stood up at a theater rehearsal and spouted racist crap, somebody drew a swastika with poo.
LJ posted this comment to talk about the nature of the power relations that would enable a football team to cause the resignation of a university president. The discussion has, from the first comment on, zeroed in on the racial aspects.
Since (as far as I can tell) none of us here live in MO or attend the University thereof, none of us is in a position to provide any kind of insider’s view of what’s going on there. So, we’re mostly speculating.
Speculating is fine, but it has to at least account for the phenomena.
IMO, McK’s rants about “children of the left” makes no sense. The crucial constituencies we’re talking about are a football team, the coach, and at least enough of the boosters to result in the president and chancellor resigning. The idea of any of those folks spending their free time reading essays from the Frankfurt school is just not persuasive.
Patrick’s comments about it being purely an exercise in Sticking It To The Man fails for the same reason. However you construe a phrase like The Man, it’s likely to include the coach and the boosters.
As far as the motivation for the protests, a history of racial tension coupled with an ineffective response from the administration makes more sense. Especially, as LJ notes, given the history of Missouri.
I’m not presenting that as The Reason, I’m simply pointing out that, as an explanation, it accounts for the things we know better than McK’s or Patrick’s.
It saves the phenomena, as the ancients would say. McK and Patrick’s speculations do not.
As far as “the guy who lost his job”, I’m sympathetic to Wolf and the chancellor in that regard, but people lose their jobs every f***king day. Both of those guys will land on their feet. Their children will not go hungry.
As far as “demand number 4”, what cleek said.
I don’t know what the media exclusion thing is about, it makes no sense to me and in fact it seems wrong.
For the record, every person “of the left” who I’ve seen comment about that, here or elsewhere, has made the same statement.
Apparently our children are not following the party line we have laid down.
To be honest, I don’t know why the protests in MO are happening at such a large scale. To McK’s point, they do seem to be out of proportion to the specific events that precipitated them – somebody called the student body president a nigger, somebody stood up at a theater rehearsal and spouted racist crap, somebody drew a swastika with poo.
LJ posted this comment to talk about the nature of the power relations that would enable a football team to cause the resignation of a university president. The discussion has, from the first comment on, zeroed in on the racial aspects.
Since (as far as I can tell) none of us here live in MO or attend the University thereof, none of us is in a position to provide any kind of insider’s view of what’s going on there. So, we’re mostly speculating.
Speculating is fine, but it has to at least account for the phenomena.
IMO, McK’s rants about “children of the left” makes no sense. The crucial constituencies we’re talking about are a football team, the coach, and at least enough of the boosters to result in the president and chancellor resigning. The idea of any of those folks spending their free time reading essays from the Frankfurt school is just not persuasive.
Patrick’s comments about it being purely an exercise in Sticking It To The Man fails for the same reason. However you construe a phrase like The Man, it’s likely to include the coach and the boosters.
As far as the motivation for the protests, a history of racial tension coupled with an ineffective response from the administration makes more sense. Especially, as LJ notes, given the history of Missouri.
I’m not presenting that as The Reason, I’m simply pointing out that, as an explanation, it accounts for the things we know better than McK’s or Patrick’s.
It saves the phenomena, as the ancients would say. McK and Patrick’s speculations do not.
As far as “the guy who lost his job”, I’m sympathetic to Wolf and the chancellor in that regard, but people lose their jobs every f***king day. Both of those guys will land on their feet. Their children will not go hungry.
As far as “demand number 4”, what cleek said.
I don’t know what the media exclusion thing is about, it makes no sense to me and in fact it seems wrong.
For the record, every person “of the left” who I’ve seen comment about that, here or elsewhere, has made the same statement.
Apparently our children are not following the party line we have laid down.
Lord, can it get any more lame?
LJ–
McT, I don’t know where your list of demands are.
Me, quoting those crazy, fun loving kids at Mizzou–
IV. We demand that the University of Missouri creates and enforces comprehensive racial awareness and inclusion curriculum throughout all campus departments and units, mandatory for all students, faculty, staff, and administration. This curriculum must be vetted, maintained, and overseen by a board comprised of students, staff, and faculty of color.
Cleek, to his/her credit responded, in and amongst his/her standard invective, to indicate being on board with this and seeing it as no a big deal. That is a separate debate. Snarki, LJ, Navarro, NV, should demand No. IV be met?
Inquiring minds want to know?
And, since Cleek responded to me: if Trump gets elected and if he attempts to require everyone to say Merry Christmas, I will join you at the ramparts.
PS. As a total side note, I attended Mizzou for what might very generously and loosely be referred to as my freshman year, 1972-73. If it was a hotbed of racism, I missed it, but that doesn’t mean much since I mostly played cards, dated when I could and drank beer/got high.
Lord, can it get any more lame?
LJ–
McT, I don’t know where your list of demands are.
Me, quoting those crazy, fun loving kids at Mizzou–
IV. We demand that the University of Missouri creates and enforces comprehensive racial awareness and inclusion curriculum throughout all campus departments and units, mandatory for all students, faculty, staff, and administration. This curriculum must be vetted, maintained, and overseen by a board comprised of students, staff, and faculty of color.
Cleek, to his/her credit responded, in and amongst his/her standard invective, to indicate being on board with this and seeing it as no a big deal. That is a separate debate. Snarki, LJ, Navarro, NV, should demand No. IV be met?
Inquiring minds want to know?
And, since Cleek responded to me: if Trump gets elected and if he attempts to require everyone to say Merry Christmas, I will join you at the ramparts.
PS. As a total side note, I attended Mizzou for what might very generously and loosely be referred to as my freshman year, 1972-73. If it was a hotbed of racism, I missed it, but that doesn’t mean much since I mostly played cards, dated when I could and drank beer/got high.
Lord, can it get any more lame?
LJ–
McT, I don’t know where your list of demands are.
Me, quoting those crazy, fun loving kids at Mizzou–
IV. We demand that the University of Missouri creates and enforces comprehensive racial awareness and inclusion curriculum throughout all campus departments and units, mandatory for all students, faculty, staff, and administration. This curriculum must be vetted, maintained, and overseen by a board comprised of students, staff, and faculty of color.
Cleek, to his/her credit responded, in and amongst his/her standard invective, to indicate being on board with this and seeing it as no a big deal. That is a separate debate. Snarki, LJ, Navarro, NV, should demand No. IV be met?
Inquiring minds want to know?
And, since Cleek responded to me: if Trump gets elected and if he attempts to require everyone to say Merry Christmas, I will join you at the ramparts.
PS. As a total side note, I attended Mizzou for what might very generously and loosely be referred to as my freshman year, 1972-73. If it was a hotbed of racism, I missed it, but that doesn’t mean much since I mostly played cards, dated when I could and drank beer/got high.
Here is more right wing fantasy from another right wing rag: “>http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/11/can-we-take-political-correctness-seriously-now.html
For the record:
No, I do not take the demands for political correctness by undergrads at colleges and universities particularly seriously.
Whether the demands are made by left-wing or right-wing students.
When I say I “don’t take them seriously” I don’t mean they are without merit (from either side), I simply mean that I don’t see that phenomenon as being typical or representative of any broader dynamic or events.
Colleges are wonderful and important places, but they have dynamics of their own, which don’t really translate to the rest of the world.
These truly are the children of the Left and the Left implicitly admits this, by and large, by dismissing those who push back, dismissing their own as ‘kids will be kids’, or ‘nothing here folks, let’s move along’.
Speaking as a lefty, my response is not “kids will be kids”, or “nothing here folks”.
It’s “I’m not sure exactly what’s going on in MO”. Because I’m not.
I doubt that you are, either.
Here is more right wing fantasy from another right wing rag: “>http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/11/can-we-take-political-correctness-seriously-now.html
For the record:
No, I do not take the demands for political correctness by undergrads at colleges and universities particularly seriously.
Whether the demands are made by left-wing or right-wing students.
When I say I “don’t take them seriously” I don’t mean they are without merit (from either side), I simply mean that I don’t see that phenomenon as being typical or representative of any broader dynamic or events.
Colleges are wonderful and important places, but they have dynamics of their own, which don’t really translate to the rest of the world.
These truly are the children of the Left and the Left implicitly admits this, by and large, by dismissing those who push back, dismissing their own as ‘kids will be kids’, or ‘nothing here folks, let’s move along’.
Speaking as a lefty, my response is not “kids will be kids”, or “nothing here folks”.
It’s “I’m not sure exactly what’s going on in MO”. Because I’m not.
I doubt that you are, either.
Here is more right wing fantasy from another right wing rag: “>http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/11/can-we-take-political-correctness-seriously-now.html
For the record:
No, I do not take the demands for political correctness by undergrads at colleges and universities particularly seriously.
Whether the demands are made by left-wing or right-wing students.
When I say I “don’t take them seriously” I don’t mean they are without merit (from either side), I simply mean that I don’t see that phenomenon as being typical or representative of any broader dynamic or events.
Colleges are wonderful and important places, but they have dynamics of their own, which don’t really translate to the rest of the world.
These truly are the children of the Left and the Left implicitly admits this, by and large, by dismissing those who push back, dismissing their own as ‘kids will be kids’, or ‘nothing here folks, let’s move along’.
Speaking as a lefty, my response is not “kids will be kids”, or “nothing here folks”.
It’s “I’m not sure exactly what’s going on in MO”. Because I’m not.
I doubt that you are, either.
That is a separate debate. Snarki, LJ, Navarro, NV, should demand No. IV be met?
Inquiring minds want to know?
OK, I’ll bite.
If the stakeholders in governance at U Missouri want it to be met, then it should be met.
Beyond that, none of my business and none of yours either.
That is a separate debate. Snarki, LJ, Navarro, NV, should demand No. IV be met?
Inquiring minds want to know?
OK, I’ll bite.
If the stakeholders in governance at U Missouri want it to be met, then it should be met.
Beyond that, none of my business and none of yours either.
That is a separate debate. Snarki, LJ, Navarro, NV, should demand No. IV be met?
Inquiring minds want to know?
OK, I’ll bite.
If the stakeholders in governance at U Missouri want it to be met, then it should be met.
Beyond that, none of my business and none of yours either.
If the stakeholders in governance at U Missouri want it to be met, then it should be met.
Beyond that, none of my business and none of yours either.
This is kind of a cop out. Should student groups of any kind be able to demand this level of control over the curriculum ACROSS ALL DEPARTMENTS AND MANDATORY FOR EVERY STUDENT AND FACULTY MEMBER, vetted by a minority council? At Univ of MO or anywhere?
My answer to this ends with “and the horse they rode in on”.
If the stakeholders in governance at U Missouri want it to be met, then it should be met.
Beyond that, none of my business and none of yours either.
This is kind of a cop out. Should student groups of any kind be able to demand this level of control over the curriculum ACROSS ALL DEPARTMENTS AND MANDATORY FOR EVERY STUDENT AND FACULTY MEMBER, vetted by a minority council? At Univ of MO or anywhere?
My answer to this ends with “and the horse they rode in on”.
If the stakeholders in governance at U Missouri want it to be met, then it should be met.
Beyond that, none of my business and none of yours either.
This is kind of a cop out. Should student groups of any kind be able to demand this level of control over the curriculum ACROSS ALL DEPARTMENTS AND MANDATORY FOR EVERY STUDENT AND FACULTY MEMBER, vetted by a minority council? At Univ of MO or anywhere?
My answer to this ends with “and the horse they rode in on”.
Lord, can it get any more lame?
Only if this thread turns into repeated demands that people discuss diversity curricula. Somehow, that seems to be the elephant in the room.
Lord, can it get any more lame?
Only if this thread turns into repeated demands that people discuss diversity curricula. Somehow, that seems to be the elephant in the room.
Lord, can it get any more lame?
Only if this thread turns into repeated demands that people discuss diversity curricula. Somehow, that seems to be the elephant in the room.
Perhaps the moral of this story should be: The consequences of blindly concentrating so much power into so few hands should not go unanticipated.
Perhaps the moral of this story should be: The consequences of blindly concentrating so much power into so few hands should not go unanticipated.
Perhaps the moral of this story should be: The consequences of blindly concentrating so much power into so few hands should not go unanticipated.
Should student groups of any kind be able to demand this level of control over the curriculum ACROSS ALL DEPARTMENTS AND MANDATORY FOR EVERY STUDENT AND FACULTY MEMBER, vetted by a minority council?
People can demand whatever they want.
Student groups, per se, generally don’t have the clout to have their demands met.
That brings us back to LJ’s original point, I think.
Should student groups of any kind be able to demand this level of control over the curriculum ACROSS ALL DEPARTMENTS AND MANDATORY FOR EVERY STUDENT AND FACULTY MEMBER, vetted by a minority council?
People can demand whatever they want.
Student groups, per se, generally don’t have the clout to have their demands met.
That brings us back to LJ’s original point, I think.
Should student groups of any kind be able to demand this level of control over the curriculum ACROSS ALL DEPARTMENTS AND MANDATORY FOR EVERY STUDENT AND FACULTY MEMBER, vetted by a minority council?
People can demand whatever they want.
Student groups, per se, generally don’t have the clout to have their demands met.
That brings us back to LJ’s original point, I think.
Has anyone here who leans left gotten around to addressing demand No. 4. LJ and Cleek bravely deflected the challenge. Anyone else? I haven’t read everything in depth having been out yesterday, most of today and tomorrow, so if you did, just refer me to your comment–thanks.
Oh, we’re allowed to demand commenters go back and address comments that we feel they nefariously glossed over for ideological reasons, and cry foul if they don’t do so? Well, then, clear your calendar, McK, because you’ve got quite a backlog to clear…
These truly are the children of the Left and the Left implicitly admits this, by and large, by dismissing those who push back, dismissing their own as ‘kids will be kids’, or ‘nothing here folks, let’s move along’.
More Proof By Convenience of Narrative.
The Right implicitly admits that their entitled, naive, self-important, self-martyring, whinging, -ism-corrupted youths are Children of the Right by their wholesale denial of their existence (seriously, if you don’t know about contemporary right-wing cults of victimhood and entitlement, you need to spend more time with Kids Today) and nigh-religious assertion that generational attitudes are a product of perfidious political ideology rather than collective cultural changes.
Wow, that was fun! I can see why you do that instead of actually presenting a coherent argument and reasoning from facts…
Snarki, LJ, Navarro, NV, should demand No. IV be met?
WRS.
If I were a stakeholder, I’d have different opinions than I do now, so it’s pointless to discuss on how I – the non-stakeholder – feel about it. I could address it from the fantasy world of “if I were a stakeholder at MO but magically retained the beliefs, opinions, and personal history of a particular non-stakeholder”, but that’s frankly the sort of absurdist counterfactual that looks reasonable on the surface but doesn’t withstand any sort of close scrutiny.
Has anyone here who leans left gotten around to addressing demand No. 4. LJ and Cleek bravely deflected the challenge. Anyone else? I haven’t read everything in depth having been out yesterday, most of today and tomorrow, so if you did, just refer me to your comment–thanks.
Oh, we’re allowed to demand commenters go back and address comments that we feel they nefariously glossed over for ideological reasons, and cry foul if they don’t do so? Well, then, clear your calendar, McK, because you’ve got quite a backlog to clear…
These truly are the children of the Left and the Left implicitly admits this, by and large, by dismissing those who push back, dismissing their own as ‘kids will be kids’, or ‘nothing here folks, let’s move along’.
More Proof By Convenience of Narrative.
The Right implicitly admits that their entitled, naive, self-important, self-martyring, whinging, -ism-corrupted youths are Children of the Right by their wholesale denial of their existence (seriously, if you don’t know about contemporary right-wing cults of victimhood and entitlement, you need to spend more time with Kids Today) and nigh-religious assertion that generational attitudes are a product of perfidious political ideology rather than collective cultural changes.
Wow, that was fun! I can see why you do that instead of actually presenting a coherent argument and reasoning from facts…
Snarki, LJ, Navarro, NV, should demand No. IV be met?
WRS.
If I were a stakeholder, I’d have different opinions than I do now, so it’s pointless to discuss on how I – the non-stakeholder – feel about it. I could address it from the fantasy world of “if I were a stakeholder at MO but magically retained the beliefs, opinions, and personal history of a particular non-stakeholder”, but that’s frankly the sort of absurdist counterfactual that looks reasonable on the surface but doesn’t withstand any sort of close scrutiny.
Has anyone here who leans left gotten around to addressing demand No. 4. LJ and Cleek bravely deflected the challenge. Anyone else? I haven’t read everything in depth having been out yesterday, most of today and tomorrow, so if you did, just refer me to your comment–thanks.
Oh, we’re allowed to demand commenters go back and address comments that we feel they nefariously glossed over for ideological reasons, and cry foul if they don’t do so? Well, then, clear your calendar, McK, because you’ve got quite a backlog to clear…
These truly are the children of the Left and the Left implicitly admits this, by and large, by dismissing those who push back, dismissing their own as ‘kids will be kids’, or ‘nothing here folks, let’s move along’.
More Proof By Convenience of Narrative.
The Right implicitly admits that their entitled, naive, self-important, self-martyring, whinging, -ism-corrupted youths are Children of the Right by their wholesale denial of their existence (seriously, if you don’t know about contemporary right-wing cults of victimhood and entitlement, you need to spend more time with Kids Today) and nigh-religious assertion that generational attitudes are a product of perfidious political ideology rather than collective cultural changes.
Wow, that was fun! I can see why you do that instead of actually presenting a coherent argument and reasoning from facts…
Snarki, LJ, Navarro, NV, should demand No. IV be met?
WRS.
If I were a stakeholder, I’d have different opinions than I do now, so it’s pointless to discuss on how I – the non-stakeholder – feel about it. I could address it from the fantasy world of “if I were a stakeholder at MO but magically retained the beliefs, opinions, and personal history of a particular non-stakeholder”, but that’s frankly the sort of absurdist counterfactual that looks reasonable on the surface but doesn’t withstand any sort of close scrutiny.
I’m not sure you’d get the same result with the Yale football team.
Perhaps. Could you say the same about their rugby team?
I’m not sure you’d get the same result with the Yale football team.
Perhaps. Could you say the same about their rugby team?
I’m not sure you’d get the same result with the Yale football team.
Perhaps. Could you say the same about their rugby team?
And again, WRS.
Students are free to make whatever demands they want. The administration typically takes those under consideration only when accompanied by enough furor to risk brand damage. The fact that MO administration capitulated not in the face of mass unrest but rather when faced with a threat to a revenue stream is the interesting matter here. Not that an overpaid administrator was pressured to resign – people are fired or pressured to quit for more suspect reasons than this every day, and it’s taken as “business as usual” (if you want to have a conversation about this, we need to start with consideration of the glorious American custom of “at-will” employment). Not the specific grievances – I don’t have enough information to have an informed opinion about the current goings-on at MO, and to my knowledge no one else here (McK notwithstanding) does either, so any discussion about specific context or policy is necessarily seen through the subjective lens of whatever secondary/tertiary/quaternary/etc. source we’ve gotten our incomplete information from. The part of this situation which is atypical was the sort of pressure applied, not the demands that were made, or even the real, perceived, or fabricated root causes for said demands.
And again, WRS.
Students are free to make whatever demands they want. The administration typically takes those under consideration only when accompanied by enough furor to risk brand damage. The fact that MO administration capitulated not in the face of mass unrest but rather when faced with a threat to a revenue stream is the interesting matter here. Not that an overpaid administrator was pressured to resign – people are fired or pressured to quit for more suspect reasons than this every day, and it’s taken as “business as usual” (if you want to have a conversation about this, we need to start with consideration of the glorious American custom of “at-will” employment). Not the specific grievances – I don’t have enough information to have an informed opinion about the current goings-on at MO, and to my knowledge no one else here (McK notwithstanding) does either, so any discussion about specific context or policy is necessarily seen through the subjective lens of whatever secondary/tertiary/quaternary/etc. source we’ve gotten our incomplete information from. The part of this situation which is atypical was the sort of pressure applied, not the demands that were made, or even the real, perceived, or fabricated root causes for said demands.
And again, WRS.
Students are free to make whatever demands they want. The administration typically takes those under consideration only when accompanied by enough furor to risk brand damage. The fact that MO administration capitulated not in the face of mass unrest but rather when faced with a threat to a revenue stream is the interesting matter here. Not that an overpaid administrator was pressured to resign – people are fired or pressured to quit for more suspect reasons than this every day, and it’s taken as “business as usual” (if you want to have a conversation about this, we need to start with consideration of the glorious American custom of “at-will” employment). Not the specific grievances – I don’t have enough information to have an informed opinion about the current goings-on at MO, and to my knowledge no one else here (McK notwithstanding) does either, so any discussion about specific context or policy is necessarily seen through the subjective lens of whatever secondary/tertiary/quaternary/etc. source we’ve gotten our incomplete information from. The part of this situation which is atypical was the sort of pressure applied, not the demands that were made, or even the real, perceived, or fabricated root causes for said demands.
Perhaps the moral of this story should be: The consequences of blindly concentrating so much power into so few hands should not go unanticipated.
This is actually an excellent point which deserves more than a little emphasis. Much of the “thought-policing” that is decried in regards to modern university campuses arises strictly from the actions of brand-protective administrators acting pre-emptively to perceived dangers to the university’s reputation, or reactively to noisy grievances involving the same. The collegiate administrative class, while broadly corrupt, does not owe its corruption to any particularly liberal ideological tendencies – to the contrary. When administrative and academic decisions are being made with marketing as the primary consideration, bad things will happen, and it’s frankly laughable to heap those outcomes at the doorstep of a mythical, ill-defined “the Left”.
Perhaps the moral of this story should be: The consequences of blindly concentrating so much power into so few hands should not go unanticipated.
This is actually an excellent point which deserves more than a little emphasis. Much of the “thought-policing” that is decried in regards to modern university campuses arises strictly from the actions of brand-protective administrators acting pre-emptively to perceived dangers to the university’s reputation, or reactively to noisy grievances involving the same. The collegiate administrative class, while broadly corrupt, does not owe its corruption to any particularly liberal ideological tendencies – to the contrary. When administrative and academic decisions are being made with marketing as the primary consideration, bad things will happen, and it’s frankly laughable to heap those outcomes at the doorstep of a mythical, ill-defined “the Left”.
Perhaps the moral of this story should be: The consequences of blindly concentrating so much power into so few hands should not go unanticipated.
This is actually an excellent point which deserves more than a little emphasis. Much of the “thought-policing” that is decried in regards to modern university campuses arises strictly from the actions of brand-protective administrators acting pre-emptively to perceived dangers to the university’s reputation, or reactively to noisy grievances involving the same. The collegiate administrative class, while broadly corrupt, does not owe its corruption to any particularly liberal ideological tendencies – to the contrary. When administrative and academic decisions are being made with marketing as the primary consideration, bad things will happen, and it’s frankly laughable to heap those outcomes at the doorstep of a mythical, ill-defined “the Left”.
I thought you were a lawyer, McT, but your belief that demands have to be always take it or leave it suggests that you don’t really understand how negotiation works.
Also, you don’t seem to understand that colleges have these things called ‘required courses’. That students want to be a part of the process is something that has been developing for at least the past 30 years. As inexplicable as it may seem, being told they have to do something without having any say in what they are told bothers students for some reason. Sorry they can’t just get the hint and be like everyone else who realizes that they shouldn’t have any say.
And to help you realize that demanding diversity training (which seems to knot your knickers) is not some sort of crime against education and humanity, I have to point out that plenty of universities have some sort of diversity requirements. Like
U Vermont
http://www.uvm.edu/provost/diversitycourse/
UCLA
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/04/13/ucla-faculty-approves-diversity-requirement
Cornell
https://cals.cornell.edu/academics/registrar/degree-requirements/human-diversity
Montana State University
http://www.montana.edu/core2/diversity.html
The fact that this surprises you so much indicates that you really don’t have a clue what goes on at a university campus or how a university education works.
Maybe you could read this
http://www.washington.edu/diversity/appraisal-process/sec-ix-diversity-in-curriculum/
and explain where they get it wrong.
Or maybe explain why the army is doing it too
http://www.armydiversity.army.mil/document/Diversity_Roadmap.pdf
So should it be met? I would think so, it’s not that huge a leap, and it would indicate some accomodation to the demands. From an put upon faculty members standpoint, I wouldn’t like it much because it creates another administrative bureaucracy that needs to be fed, but those sorts of things are created all the time, so if you think that the university is doing something beyond the pale, you really need to talk to your accountant and see if you could afford to buy a clue.
I thought you were a lawyer, McT, but your belief that demands have to be always take it or leave it suggests that you don’t really understand how negotiation works.
Also, you don’t seem to understand that colleges have these things called ‘required courses’. That students want to be a part of the process is something that has been developing for at least the past 30 years. As inexplicable as it may seem, being told they have to do something without having any say in what they are told bothers students for some reason. Sorry they can’t just get the hint and be like everyone else who realizes that they shouldn’t have any say.
And to help you realize that demanding diversity training (which seems to knot your knickers) is not some sort of crime against education and humanity, I have to point out that plenty of universities have some sort of diversity requirements. Like
U Vermont
http://www.uvm.edu/provost/diversitycourse/
UCLA
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/04/13/ucla-faculty-approves-diversity-requirement
Cornell
https://cals.cornell.edu/academics/registrar/degree-requirements/human-diversity
Montana State University
http://www.montana.edu/core2/diversity.html
The fact that this surprises you so much indicates that you really don’t have a clue what goes on at a university campus or how a university education works.
Maybe you could read this
http://www.washington.edu/diversity/appraisal-process/sec-ix-diversity-in-curriculum/
and explain where they get it wrong.
Or maybe explain why the army is doing it too
http://www.armydiversity.army.mil/document/Diversity_Roadmap.pdf
So should it be met? I would think so, it’s not that huge a leap, and it would indicate some accomodation to the demands. From an put upon faculty members standpoint, I wouldn’t like it much because it creates another administrative bureaucracy that needs to be fed, but those sorts of things are created all the time, so if you think that the university is doing something beyond the pale, you really need to talk to your accountant and see if you could afford to buy a clue.
I thought you were a lawyer, McT, but your belief that demands have to be always take it or leave it suggests that you don’t really understand how negotiation works.
Also, you don’t seem to understand that colleges have these things called ‘required courses’. That students want to be a part of the process is something that has been developing for at least the past 30 years. As inexplicable as it may seem, being told they have to do something without having any say in what they are told bothers students for some reason. Sorry they can’t just get the hint and be like everyone else who realizes that they shouldn’t have any say.
And to help you realize that demanding diversity training (which seems to knot your knickers) is not some sort of crime against education and humanity, I have to point out that plenty of universities have some sort of diversity requirements. Like
U Vermont
http://www.uvm.edu/provost/diversitycourse/
UCLA
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/04/13/ucla-faculty-approves-diversity-requirement
Cornell
https://cals.cornell.edu/academics/registrar/degree-requirements/human-diversity
Montana State University
http://www.montana.edu/core2/diversity.html
The fact that this surprises you so much indicates that you really don’t have a clue what goes on at a university campus or how a university education works.
Maybe you could read this
http://www.washington.edu/diversity/appraisal-process/sec-ix-diversity-in-curriculum/
and explain where they get it wrong.
Or maybe explain why the army is doing it too
http://www.armydiversity.army.mil/document/Diversity_Roadmap.pdf
So should it be met? I would think so, it’s not that huge a leap, and it would indicate some accomodation to the demands. From an put upon faculty members standpoint, I wouldn’t like it much because it creates another administrative bureaucracy that needs to be fed, but those sorts of things are created all the time, so if you think that the university is doing something beyond the pale, you really need to talk to your accountant and see if you could afford to buy a clue.
Should student groups of any kind be able to demand this level of control over the curriculum ACROSS ALL DEPARTMENTS AND MANDATORY FOR EVERY STUDENT AND FACULTY MEMBER, vetted by a minority council? At Univ of MO or anywhere?
Simple question. Yes, they should be able to demand whatever they want, including free ice cream.
Is this demand reasonable, sensible, worthy of serious consideration? No. I think it’s idiotic.
Should student groups of any kind be able to demand this level of control over the curriculum ACROSS ALL DEPARTMENTS AND MANDATORY FOR EVERY STUDENT AND FACULTY MEMBER, vetted by a minority council? At Univ of MO or anywhere?
Simple question. Yes, they should be able to demand whatever they want, including free ice cream.
Is this demand reasonable, sensible, worthy of serious consideration? No. I think it’s idiotic.
Should student groups of any kind be able to demand this level of control over the curriculum ACROSS ALL DEPARTMENTS AND MANDATORY FOR EVERY STUDENT AND FACULTY MEMBER, vetted by a minority council? At Univ of MO or anywhere?
Simple question. Yes, they should be able to demand whatever they want, including free ice cream.
Is this demand reasonable, sensible, worthy of serious consideration? No. I think it’s idiotic.
in and amongst his/her standard invective
go ahead and read your first contribution to this thread. see if you think you have any standing to complain about other peoples’ “invective”.
in and amongst his/her standard invective
go ahead and read your first contribution to this thread. see if you think you have any standing to complain about other peoples’ “invective”.
in and amongst his/her standard invective
go ahead and read your first contribution to this thread. see if you think you have any standing to complain about other peoples’ “invective”.
Nothing to see here, move along
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-university-of-missouri-tension-threats-20151111-story.html
Nothing to see here, move along
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-university-of-missouri-tension-threats-20151111-story.html
Nothing to see here, move along
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-university-of-missouri-tension-threats-20151111-story.html
I wish I had a revenue-producing football team to get my back.
I’d demand a 50% raise in salary, door-to-door livery service to and from work, and an artisanal pizza with a nice caesar salad and a bottle of Pelligrino delivered to my cubicle, daily, at 11:45 AM.
A guy can dream.
I wish I had a revenue-producing football team to get my back.
I’d demand a 50% raise in salary, door-to-door livery service to and from work, and an artisanal pizza with a nice caesar salad and a bottle of Pelligrino delivered to my cubicle, daily, at 11:45 AM.
A guy can dream.
I wish I had a revenue-producing football team to get my back.
I’d demand a 50% raise in salary, door-to-door livery service to and from work, and an artisanal pizza with a nice caesar salad and a bottle of Pelligrino delivered to my cubicle, daily, at 11:45 AM.
A guy can dream.
children of the left!
children of the left!
children of the left!
Back story.
There are a couple of points where I actually generally agree with Patrick.
1. An inclusiveness / race awareness program is not going to change the hearts and minds of bigots. Certainly not in a time frame that will be meaningful or useful to the current student body.
2. There’s not a lot the university president and chancellor can do to address bigotry. At best, they can offer gestures.
Gestures have their uses, but unfortunately some folks just can’t give up hating, resenting, and otherwise obsessing negatively about black skin.
I wish it was just a matter of waiting for the dead-enders to die off. It’s not.
Back story.
There are a couple of points where I actually generally agree with Patrick.
1. An inclusiveness / race awareness program is not going to change the hearts and minds of bigots. Certainly not in a time frame that will be meaningful or useful to the current student body.
2. There’s not a lot the university president and chancellor can do to address bigotry. At best, they can offer gestures.
Gestures have their uses, but unfortunately some folks just can’t give up hating, resenting, and otherwise obsessing negatively about black skin.
I wish it was just a matter of waiting for the dead-enders to die off. It’s not.
Back story.
There are a couple of points where I actually generally agree with Patrick.
1. An inclusiveness / race awareness program is not going to change the hearts and minds of bigots. Certainly not in a time frame that will be meaningful or useful to the current student body.
2. There’s not a lot the university president and chancellor can do to address bigotry. At best, they can offer gestures.
Gestures have their uses, but unfortunately some folks just can’t give up hating, resenting, and otherwise obsessing negatively about black skin.
I wish it was just a matter of waiting for the dead-enders to die off. It’s not.
i’d say a diversity program it’s more than a gesture.
we’re talking about college kids here. they, unlike all of us oldies, aren’t set in their ways. they’re still learning about the world. college will be the first time some of them will see a person who isn’t exactly like them; and it will be the first time even more of them will have to spend time interacting with a person who isn’t exactly like them.
making them ponder the question “people are people so why should it that you and he should get along so awfully?” isn’t a waste of time.
no, it’s not going to solve racism. but it will make at least some of them think about racial issues, maybe for the first time ever. and it will contribute to the idea that the campus isn’t a place where racism is cool.
it’s not brainwashing. it’s “You’re not in South Haverbrook anymore. You’re going to meet people who aren’t like you. Some of you have already done this in your life; some of you haven’t. Either way, you need to keep in mind that everyone around you is a person just like you are, etc..”
i’d say a diversity program it’s more than a gesture.
we’re talking about college kids here. they, unlike all of us oldies, aren’t set in their ways. they’re still learning about the world. college will be the first time some of them will see a person who isn’t exactly like them; and it will be the first time even more of them will have to spend time interacting with a person who isn’t exactly like them.
making them ponder the question “people are people so why should it that you and he should get along so awfully?” isn’t a waste of time.
no, it’s not going to solve racism. but it will make at least some of them think about racial issues, maybe for the first time ever. and it will contribute to the idea that the campus isn’t a place where racism is cool.
it’s not brainwashing. it’s “You’re not in South Haverbrook anymore. You’re going to meet people who aren’t like you. Some of you have already done this in your life; some of you haven’t. Either way, you need to keep in mind that everyone around you is a person just like you are, etc..”
i’d say a diversity program it’s more than a gesture.
we’re talking about college kids here. they, unlike all of us oldies, aren’t set in their ways. they’re still learning about the world. college will be the first time some of them will see a person who isn’t exactly like them; and it will be the first time even more of them will have to spend time interacting with a person who isn’t exactly like them.
making them ponder the question “people are people so why should it that you and he should get along so awfully?” isn’t a waste of time.
no, it’s not going to solve racism. but it will make at least some of them think about racial issues, maybe for the first time ever. and it will contribute to the idea that the campus isn’t a place where racism is cool.
it’s not brainwashing. it’s “You’re not in South Haverbrook anymore. You’re going to meet people who aren’t like you. Some of you have already done this in your life; some of you haven’t. Either way, you need to keep in mind that everyone around you is a person just like you are, etc..”
fair enough.
I like your view of things better than mine.
thanks cleek.
fair enough.
I like your view of things better than mine.
thanks cleek.
fair enough.
I like your view of things better than mine.
thanks cleek.
McK: should demand No. IV be met?
Inquiring minds want to know?
No, that demand should not be met. That doesn’t mean, however, that the other demands that they have made do not have merit. As I’m sure you know, normal negotiating procedure is to demand more than you really want, so as to compromise down to what you really care about. (Of course, sometimes the other side folds up. But that’s on them for being fools.)
Marty: Should student groups of any kind be able to demand this level of control over the curriculum ACROSS ALL DEPARTMENTS AND MANDATORY FOR EVERY STUDENT AND FACULTY MEMBER, vetted by a minority council?
I’m with Russell’s 9:09 comment. The kids should be free to demand anything they want. Anything at all. I don’t think that they should get most of their demands, but they should be free to make them. And to try to justify them.
McK: should demand No. IV be met?
Inquiring minds want to know?
No, that demand should not be met. That doesn’t mean, however, that the other demands that they have made do not have merit. As I’m sure you know, normal negotiating procedure is to demand more than you really want, so as to compromise down to what you really care about. (Of course, sometimes the other side folds up. But that’s on them for being fools.)
Marty: Should student groups of any kind be able to demand this level of control over the curriculum ACROSS ALL DEPARTMENTS AND MANDATORY FOR EVERY STUDENT AND FACULTY MEMBER, vetted by a minority council?
I’m with Russell’s 9:09 comment. The kids should be free to demand anything they want. Anything at all. I don’t think that they should get most of their demands, but they should be free to make them. And to try to justify them.
McK: should demand No. IV be met?
Inquiring minds want to know?
No, that demand should not be met. That doesn’t mean, however, that the other demands that they have made do not have merit. As I’m sure you know, normal negotiating procedure is to demand more than you really want, so as to compromise down to what you really care about. (Of course, sometimes the other side folds up. But that’s on them for being fools.)
Marty: Should student groups of any kind be able to demand this level of control over the curriculum ACROSS ALL DEPARTMENTS AND MANDATORY FOR EVERY STUDENT AND FACULTY MEMBER, vetted by a minority council?
I’m with Russell’s 9:09 comment. The kids should be free to demand anything they want. Anything at all. I don’t think that they should get most of their demands, but they should be free to make them. And to try to justify them.
McTx: dismissing their own as ‘kids will be kids’, or ‘nothing here folks, let’s move along’.
These unguided missiles make it their business to demand either conformity or dismissal. That’s a new and scary level of coercion.
Oh FFS. There’s nothing new about a demand of conformity or dismissal. If there’s anything new about the situation at MO it’s who’s demanding conformity or dismissal (and I disagree that that’s what they’re demanding) and the results they achieved. Which again goes to point of LJ’s post.
Moreover, on “kids will be kids,” yes. A group of like-minded 18-22 year olds gets riled up about something (rightly or wrongly) and takes things to excess (and then backs of the very next day, at least on the “no media zone” thing, which was stupid and wrong). Film at 11.
Meanwhile, if you want to talk about new and scary things that might actually impact the entire country, how about that GOP debate last night?
McTx: dismissing their own as ‘kids will be kids’, or ‘nothing here folks, let’s move along’.
These unguided missiles make it their business to demand either conformity or dismissal. That’s a new and scary level of coercion.
Oh FFS. There’s nothing new about a demand of conformity or dismissal. If there’s anything new about the situation at MO it’s who’s demanding conformity or dismissal (and I disagree that that’s what they’re demanding) and the results they achieved. Which again goes to point of LJ’s post.
Moreover, on “kids will be kids,” yes. A group of like-minded 18-22 year olds gets riled up about something (rightly or wrongly) and takes things to excess (and then backs of the very next day, at least on the “no media zone” thing, which was stupid and wrong). Film at 11.
Meanwhile, if you want to talk about new and scary things that might actually impact the entire country, how about that GOP debate last night?
McTx: dismissing their own as ‘kids will be kids’, or ‘nothing here folks, let’s move along’.
These unguided missiles make it their business to demand either conformity or dismissal. That’s a new and scary level of coercion.
Oh FFS. There’s nothing new about a demand of conformity or dismissal. If there’s anything new about the situation at MO it’s who’s demanding conformity or dismissal (and I disagree that that’s what they’re demanding) and the results they achieved. Which again goes to point of LJ’s post.
Moreover, on “kids will be kids,” yes. A group of like-minded 18-22 year olds gets riled up about something (rightly or wrongly) and takes things to excess (and then backs of the very next day, at least on the “no media zone” thing, which was stupid and wrong). Film at 11.
Meanwhile, if you want to talk about new and scary things that might actually impact the entire country, how about that GOP debate last night?
On top of what cleek says, it’s also about setting the tone of acceptable public conduct and behavior. What an organization tolerates it implicitly condones, and what it condones it implicitly encourages. In a perfect world this would not be true, but sadly it is more often than not. IMO and experience, ofc; this can certainly be debated.
Most bigoted individuals will probably hold true to their values (like russell, I’m somewhat cynical on this point), but if the prevailing community standards do not condone open expression of those attitudes, they’ll become more subtle about them, and be less inclined to allow them in the public eye. This is obviously a mixed blessing, as it hides the problem rather than solving it, and I somewhat worry that the current generation of Kids Today has substantial portions who mistake concealing bigotry and making it more subtle/plausibly deniable for eliminating it (e.g., the “post-racial” crowd). But it’s simply not true that organizational leadership – even hapless and supposedly impotent leadership like university administrators – cannot meaningfully effect the organizational climate, albeit less so than in a denser or more hierarchical organization. Indeed, isn’t one of the recurring complaints when demonizing the cultural climate of universities how thoroughly it can be warped and manipulated? Or are we to believe this is something that only insidious left-wing students and faculty can effect?
On top of what cleek says, it’s also about setting the tone of acceptable public conduct and behavior. What an organization tolerates it implicitly condones, and what it condones it implicitly encourages. In a perfect world this would not be true, but sadly it is more often than not. IMO and experience, ofc; this can certainly be debated.
Most bigoted individuals will probably hold true to their values (like russell, I’m somewhat cynical on this point), but if the prevailing community standards do not condone open expression of those attitudes, they’ll become more subtle about them, and be less inclined to allow them in the public eye. This is obviously a mixed blessing, as it hides the problem rather than solving it, and I somewhat worry that the current generation of Kids Today has substantial portions who mistake concealing bigotry and making it more subtle/plausibly deniable for eliminating it (e.g., the “post-racial” crowd). But it’s simply not true that organizational leadership – even hapless and supposedly impotent leadership like university administrators – cannot meaningfully effect the organizational climate, albeit less so than in a denser or more hierarchical organization. Indeed, isn’t one of the recurring complaints when demonizing the cultural climate of universities how thoroughly it can be warped and manipulated? Or are we to believe this is something that only insidious left-wing students and faculty can effect?
On top of what cleek says, it’s also about setting the tone of acceptable public conduct and behavior. What an organization tolerates it implicitly condones, and what it condones it implicitly encourages. In a perfect world this would not be true, but sadly it is more often than not. IMO and experience, ofc; this can certainly be debated.
Most bigoted individuals will probably hold true to their values (like russell, I’m somewhat cynical on this point), but if the prevailing community standards do not condone open expression of those attitudes, they’ll become more subtle about them, and be less inclined to allow them in the public eye. This is obviously a mixed blessing, as it hides the problem rather than solving it, and I somewhat worry that the current generation of Kids Today has substantial portions who mistake concealing bigotry and making it more subtle/plausibly deniable for eliminating it (e.g., the “post-racial” crowd). But it’s simply not true that organizational leadership – even hapless and supposedly impotent leadership like university administrators – cannot meaningfully effect the organizational climate, albeit less so than in a denser or more hierarchical organization. Indeed, isn’t one of the recurring complaints when demonizing the cultural climate of universities how thoroughly it can be warped and manipulated? Or are we to believe this is something that only insidious left-wing students and faculty can effect?
also, the professor at the heart of the kick-the-reporter-out nonsense has quit her job.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/11/us/university-of-missouri-names-law-professor-to-diversity-post.html?_r=0
also, the professor at the heart of the kick-the-reporter-out nonsense has quit her job.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/11/us/university-of-missouri-names-law-professor-to-diversity-post.html?_r=0
also, the professor at the heart of the kick-the-reporter-out nonsense has quit her job.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/11/us/university-of-missouri-names-law-professor-to-diversity-post.html?_r=0
What an organization tolerates it implicitly condones, and what it condones it implicitly encourages.
Perhaps not the single dumbest thing I have ever seen in a comment, but maybe. What organization? The government, the administration of a public college? How much censorship should we condone? Is it now our contention that tolerance of any nonconforming view can be legitimately outlawed? AND SHOULD BE to keep from by implication encouraging it? What.The.F*CK?
What an organization tolerates it implicitly condones, and what it condones it implicitly encourages.
Perhaps not the single dumbest thing I have ever seen in a comment, but maybe. What organization? The government, the administration of a public college? How much censorship should we condone? Is it now our contention that tolerance of any nonconforming view can be legitimately outlawed? AND SHOULD BE to keep from by implication encouraging it? What.The.F*CK?
What an organization tolerates it implicitly condones, and what it condones it implicitly encourages.
Perhaps not the single dumbest thing I have ever seen in a comment, but maybe. What organization? The government, the administration of a public college? How much censorship should we condone? Is it now our contention that tolerance of any nonconforming view can be legitimately outlawed? AND SHOULD BE to keep from by implication encouraging it? What.The.F*CK?
I’m waiting to see if an actual stupid policy is implemented as a result of student protests.
In the meantime, the actual threats to academic freedom tend to come from donors and the administration which caves into them. See, for instance, Steven Salaita.
I’m waiting to see if an actual stupid policy is implemented as a result of student protests.
In the meantime, the actual threats to academic freedom tend to come from donors and the administration which caves into them. See, for instance, Steven Salaita.
I’m waiting to see if an actual stupid policy is implemented as a result of student protests.
In the meantime, the actual threats to academic freedom tend to come from donors and the administration which caves into them. See, for instance, Steven Salaita.
When I was young I got teased, quite a lot actually, because I had bright red hair. I would get very upset about it and the other kids, the bullies, thought that was great. My Dad asked me finally why I got upset when they teased me about my hair and, over time, I really couldn’t give him an answer.
I always wonder when I hear the stories of bigots strewing cotton balls about why that upsets black people. I mean, its been generations since a black person picked cotton as a slave. What is the insult? The actual insult that they are upset about? Is there an implied physical threat?
I am not condoning the cotton ball strewing, those people are bullies and jerks, just like the kids that teased me for having red hair. But what, other than recognizing they are jerks, is the actual correct response from the administration? Or the minority community?
When I was young I got teased, quite a lot actually, because I had bright red hair. I would get very upset about it and the other kids, the bullies, thought that was great. My Dad asked me finally why I got upset when they teased me about my hair and, over time, I really couldn’t give him an answer.
I always wonder when I hear the stories of bigots strewing cotton balls about why that upsets black people. I mean, its been generations since a black person picked cotton as a slave. What is the insult? The actual insult that they are upset about? Is there an implied physical threat?
I am not condoning the cotton ball strewing, those people are bullies and jerks, just like the kids that teased me for having red hair. But what, other than recognizing they are jerks, is the actual correct response from the administration? Or the minority community?
When I was young I got teased, quite a lot actually, because I had bright red hair. I would get very upset about it and the other kids, the bullies, thought that was great. My Dad asked me finally why I got upset when they teased me about my hair and, over time, I really couldn’t give him an answer.
I always wonder when I hear the stories of bigots strewing cotton balls about why that upsets black people. I mean, its been generations since a black person picked cotton as a slave. What is the insult? The actual insult that they are upset about? Is there an implied physical threat?
I am not condoning the cotton ball strewing, those people are bullies and jerks, just like the kids that teased me for having red hair. But what, other than recognizing they are jerks, is the actual correct response from the administration? Or the minority community?
An inclusiveness / race awareness program is not going to change the hearts and minds of bigots. Certainly not in a time frame that will be meaningful or useful to the current student body.
Quite true. (Although perhaps not absolutely across the board.)
However, the point isn’t to change the hearts and minds of those who are locked into bigotry. It is to try to broaden the horizons of those whose minds are still open to change. And, at most universities, that is still the bulk of the student body. To the extent that they have firm (as opposed to locked in) opinions, it is often a matter of simply never having been exposed to other points of view. And that kind of exposure is, IMHO, what college is all about.
An inclusiveness / race awareness program is not going to change the hearts and minds of bigots. Certainly not in a time frame that will be meaningful or useful to the current student body.
Quite true. (Although perhaps not absolutely across the board.)
However, the point isn’t to change the hearts and minds of those who are locked into bigotry. It is to try to broaden the horizons of those whose minds are still open to change. And, at most universities, that is still the bulk of the student body. To the extent that they have firm (as opposed to locked in) opinions, it is often a matter of simply never having been exposed to other points of view. And that kind of exposure is, IMHO, what college is all about.
An inclusiveness / race awareness program is not going to change the hearts and minds of bigots. Certainly not in a time frame that will be meaningful or useful to the current student body.
Quite true. (Although perhaps not absolutely across the board.)
However, the point isn’t to change the hearts and minds of those who are locked into bigotry. It is to try to broaden the horizons of those whose minds are still open to change. And, at most universities, that is still the bulk of the student body. To the extent that they have firm (as opposed to locked in) opinions, it is often a matter of simply never having been exposed to other points of view. And that kind of exposure is, IMHO, what college is all about.
No, of course not. However, I’d say that a claim that officially ignoring intentionally provocative behavior has no effect on it, let alone discourages it, would certainly be one of the dumbest things I’ve seen in a comment. Is that what you’re claiming? I really don’t see a lot of middleground between my statement and that one.
“The organization” in question would be the organization that the involved parties perceive themselves as jointly belonging to – in this case, the public university. And I didn’t say censorship. That was your personal interpretation, and IMO a rather telling one. Is there no such thing as censuring in your world? Can authorities only have nothing to do with activities, or exercise total control over them? The only pressure an authority can apply is absolute hard pressure? Really? No influencing, no soft pressure? This, too, is up there in the running for dumbest things I’ve read in a comment, though I will allow that I may be misreading you.
No, of course not. However, I’d say that a claim that officially ignoring intentionally provocative behavior has no effect on it, let alone discourages it, would certainly be one of the dumbest things I’ve seen in a comment. Is that what you’re claiming? I really don’t see a lot of middleground between my statement and that one.
“The organization” in question would be the organization that the involved parties perceive themselves as jointly belonging to – in this case, the public university. And I didn’t say censorship. That was your personal interpretation, and IMO a rather telling one. Is there no such thing as censuring in your world? Can authorities only have nothing to do with activities, or exercise total control over them? The only pressure an authority can apply is absolute hard pressure? Really? No influencing, no soft pressure? This, too, is up there in the running for dumbest things I’ve read in a comment, though I will allow that I may be misreading you.
No, of course not. However, I’d say that a claim that officially ignoring intentionally provocative behavior has no effect on it, let alone discourages it, would certainly be one of the dumbest things I’ve seen in a comment. Is that what you’re claiming? I really don’t see a lot of middleground between my statement and that one.
“The organization” in question would be the organization that the involved parties perceive themselves as jointly belonging to – in this case, the public university. And I didn’t say censorship. That was your personal interpretation, and IMO a rather telling one. Is there no such thing as censuring in your world? Can authorities only have nothing to do with activities, or exercise total control over them? The only pressure an authority can apply is absolute hard pressure? Really? No influencing, no soft pressure? This, too, is up there in the running for dumbest things I’ve read in a comment, though I will allow that I may be misreading you.
(@Marty’s 11:59)
(@Marty’s 11:59)
(@Marty’s 11:59)
I’m not sure your experience as a red head and the experience of American blacks are precisely commensurate.
That said, it’s true, folks at Missouri U could decide to blow off expressions of racism and move on.
Or, not.
Not your choice, not mine, but theirs.
If you want to know why it’s such a big deal to them, maybe you (or someone) should ask them.
I’m not sure your experience as a red head and the experience of American blacks are precisely commensurate.
That said, it’s true, folks at Missouri U could decide to blow off expressions of racism and move on.
Or, not.
Not your choice, not mine, but theirs.
If you want to know why it’s such a big deal to them, maybe you (or someone) should ask them.
I’m not sure your experience as a red head and the experience of American blacks are precisely commensurate.
That said, it’s true, folks at Missouri U could decide to blow off expressions of racism and move on.
Or, not.
Not your choice, not mine, but theirs.
If you want to know why it’s such a big deal to them, maybe you (or someone) should ask them.
If MO implements “diversity training”, but calls it “don’t be a jerkish *sshole training”, could we all just calm down and agree that it might be a good idea?
I, for one, would never take such a thing; it would ruin my jerkish *sshole creds. Better to hang out and get drunk with Count.
If MO implements “diversity training”, but calls it “don’t be a jerkish *sshole training”, could we all just calm down and agree that it might be a good idea?
I, for one, would never take such a thing; it would ruin my jerkish *sshole creds. Better to hang out and get drunk with Count.
If MO implements “diversity training”, but calls it “don’t be a jerkish *sshole training”, could we all just calm down and agree that it might be a good idea?
I, for one, would never take such a thing; it would ruin my jerkish *sshole creds. Better to hang out and get drunk with Count.
I always wonder when I hear the stories of bigots strewing cotton balls about why that upsets black people. I mean, its been generations since a black person picked cotton as a slave. What is the insult? The actual insult that they are upset about? Is there an implied physical threat…
One might equally ask why so upset about the n-word.
It’s effectively the same insult.
Actually, the football team withdrawing their labor rather effectively makes the point that they aren’t slaves – despite being unpaid labor.
I always wonder when I hear the stories of bigots strewing cotton balls about why that upsets black people. I mean, its been generations since a black person picked cotton as a slave. What is the insult? The actual insult that they are upset about? Is there an implied physical threat…
One might equally ask why so upset about the n-word.
It’s effectively the same insult.
Actually, the football team withdrawing their labor rather effectively makes the point that they aren’t slaves – despite being unpaid labor.
I always wonder when I hear the stories of bigots strewing cotton balls about why that upsets black people. I mean, its been generations since a black person picked cotton as a slave. What is the insult? The actual insult that they are upset about? Is there an implied physical threat…
One might equally ask why so upset about the n-word.
It’s effectively the same insult.
Actually, the football team withdrawing their labor rather effectively makes the point that they aren’t slaves – despite being unpaid labor.
Is it now our contention that tolerance of any nonconforming view can be legitimately outlawed?
I guess I’m unclear on what “nonconforming view” we’re talking about.
The behavior that folks object to is the harassment of black students. Is racial harassment somehow an expression of an opinion that needs to be heard in the marketplace of ideas?
Maybe I’m missing your point.
Is it now our contention that tolerance of any nonconforming view can be legitimately outlawed?
I guess I’m unclear on what “nonconforming view” we’re talking about.
The behavior that folks object to is the harassment of black students. Is racial harassment somehow an expression of an opinion that needs to be heard in the marketplace of ideas?
Maybe I’m missing your point.
Is it now our contention that tolerance of any nonconforming view can be legitimately outlawed?
I guess I’m unclear on what “nonconforming view” we’re talking about.
The behavior that folks object to is the harassment of black students. Is racial harassment somehow an expression of an opinion that needs to be heard in the marketplace of ideas?
Maybe I’m missing your point.
cleek,
She did not quit her job.
What she did was give up her “courtesy appointment” in the School of Journalism. She is still a member of the Arts and Sciences faculty.
cleek,
She did not quit her job.
What she did was give up her “courtesy appointment” in the School of Journalism. She is still a member of the Arts and Sciences faculty.
cleek,
She did not quit her job.
What she did was give up her “courtesy appointment” in the School of Journalism. She is still a member of the Arts and Sciences faculty.
quit her ‘post’, then.
quit her ‘post’, then.
quit her ‘post’, then.
I really wonder at anyone who mistakes a college football team for a band of merry Leftists. Most student athletes I know are about overwhelmed by trying to keep their spot on the team, and thus their scholarship. They barely have time to do their required readings and have far too little contact with their teachers to be acting from any sort of underlying political philosophy.
And speaking of overwhelmed, more of my students are working multiple jobs and scrambling for internships than ever before. It’s not a good time to be young and looking for a job that will pay all those loans.
I don’t think there is much that Tom Wolfe could have done to fix the racism problems on his campus, but he could have done a lot of things to demonstrate that he hears and understands the students that attend the institution that was in his care.
It’s the disconnect between the policy makers and the students that is driving this wave of unrest. Racism is just one of the issues. The Administration is dealing with austerity demands and the students are looking at that austerity and seeing their future.
I really wonder at anyone who mistakes a college football team for a band of merry Leftists. Most student athletes I know are about overwhelmed by trying to keep their spot on the team, and thus their scholarship. They barely have time to do their required readings and have far too little contact with their teachers to be acting from any sort of underlying political philosophy.
And speaking of overwhelmed, more of my students are working multiple jobs and scrambling for internships than ever before. It’s not a good time to be young and looking for a job that will pay all those loans.
I don’t think there is much that Tom Wolfe could have done to fix the racism problems on his campus, but he could have done a lot of things to demonstrate that he hears and understands the students that attend the institution that was in his care.
It’s the disconnect between the policy makers and the students that is driving this wave of unrest. Racism is just one of the issues. The Administration is dealing with austerity demands and the students are looking at that austerity and seeing their future.
I really wonder at anyone who mistakes a college football team for a band of merry Leftists. Most student athletes I know are about overwhelmed by trying to keep their spot on the team, and thus their scholarship. They barely have time to do their required readings and have far too little contact with their teachers to be acting from any sort of underlying political philosophy.
And speaking of overwhelmed, more of my students are working multiple jobs and scrambling for internships than ever before. It’s not a good time to be young and looking for a job that will pay all those loans.
I don’t think there is much that Tom Wolfe could have done to fix the racism problems on his campus, but he could have done a lot of things to demonstrate that he hears and understands the students that attend the institution that was in his care.
It’s the disconnect between the policy makers and the students that is driving this wave of unrest. Racism is just one of the issues. The Administration is dealing with austerity demands and the students are looking at that austerity and seeing their future.
“The behavior that folks object to is the harassment of black students. Is racial harassment somehow an expression of an opinion that needs to be heard in the marketplace of ideas?”
As you have said multiple times russell, I don’t know what they are thinking, but there seems to be little direct harassment based on the information provided. Any direct harassment, particularly physical either actual or threatened should not be tolerated. Those things are not “ideas” they are direct actions. I was, in large part, objecting to the overly broad statement that NV used. It is quite a popular sentiment to which I usually am unable to withhold objection.
AS for the football team being a merry band of leftists I suspect that they are more engaged in the world around them than they are usually given credit. And girls.
“The behavior that folks object to is the harassment of black students. Is racial harassment somehow an expression of an opinion that needs to be heard in the marketplace of ideas?”
As you have said multiple times russell, I don’t know what they are thinking, but there seems to be little direct harassment based on the information provided. Any direct harassment, particularly physical either actual or threatened should not be tolerated. Those things are not “ideas” they are direct actions. I was, in large part, objecting to the overly broad statement that NV used. It is quite a popular sentiment to which I usually am unable to withhold objection.
AS for the football team being a merry band of leftists I suspect that they are more engaged in the world around them than they are usually given credit. And girls.
“The behavior that folks object to is the harassment of black students. Is racial harassment somehow an expression of an opinion that needs to be heard in the marketplace of ideas?”
As you have said multiple times russell, I don’t know what they are thinking, but there seems to be little direct harassment based on the information provided. Any direct harassment, particularly physical either actual or threatened should not be tolerated. Those things are not “ideas” they are direct actions. I was, in large part, objecting to the overly broad statement that NV used. It is quite a popular sentiment to which I usually am unable to withhold objection.
AS for the football team being a merry band of leftists I suspect that they are more engaged in the world around them than they are usually given credit. And girls.
“AS for the football team being a merry band of leftists I suspect that they are more engaged in the world around them than they are usually given credit.”
Their engagement is channeled in very specific ways, though. It has to be, given their situation. I hear about it a lot because I teach a writing course. Many student athletes take my course. Many of them have to write personal essays for that class. We talk a lot about their experience during conferences as part of the writing process. I hear a lot about what they think and how they get through school.
Whether or not they are engaged in the world around them, they are quite aware that their biggest immediate priority is to please their coaches or risk losing their scholarship.
Point being, they are limited in how much they can engage with their professors. Any larger political ideas they have are their own, and the institutional politics of the sports program shapes their world far more thoroughly than any college course or professor.
“AS for the football team being a merry band of leftists I suspect that they are more engaged in the world around them than they are usually given credit.”
Their engagement is channeled in very specific ways, though. It has to be, given their situation. I hear about it a lot because I teach a writing course. Many student athletes take my course. Many of them have to write personal essays for that class. We talk a lot about their experience during conferences as part of the writing process. I hear a lot about what they think and how they get through school.
Whether or not they are engaged in the world around them, they are quite aware that their biggest immediate priority is to please their coaches or risk losing their scholarship.
Point being, they are limited in how much they can engage with their professors. Any larger political ideas they have are their own, and the institutional politics of the sports program shapes their world far more thoroughly than any college course or professor.
“AS for the football team being a merry band of leftists I suspect that they are more engaged in the world around them than they are usually given credit.”
Their engagement is channeled in very specific ways, though. It has to be, given their situation. I hear about it a lot because I teach a writing course. Many student athletes take my course. Many of them have to write personal essays for that class. We talk a lot about their experience during conferences as part of the writing process. I hear a lot about what they think and how they get through school.
Whether or not they are engaged in the world around them, they are quite aware that their biggest immediate priority is to please their coaches or risk losing their scholarship.
Point being, they are limited in how much they can engage with their professors. Any larger political ideas they have are their own, and the institutional politics of the sports program shapes their world far more thoroughly than any college course or professor.
Who’s child is the Yik Yak kid?
Who’s child is the Yik Yak kid?
Who’s child is the Yik Yak kid?
yik yak kid is the child of RINO’s…right?
yik yak kid is the child of RINO’s…right?
yik yak kid is the child of RINO’s…right?
Barry Goldwater’s.
Barry Goldwater’s.
Barry Goldwater’s.
Well, this thread is certainly checking all the spaces on the slacktivist bingo card.
To the guy who explained that the President was fired for not properly defining systemic oppression: thank you for acknowledging that the reason he was fired was because of a lack of familiarity with the jargon of the protesters in group, a familiarity which that in group, in classic form, associates with moral propriety. Thank you for conceding that this isn’t about the actual acts of racism it is putatively about, not about the university’s response to them, but rather about one social grouping exerting it’s power against those they perceive as outside that grouping.
To the people pulling the whole, “oh, cry me a river over the plight of the poor oppressed class of university presidents” line, thank you for demonstrating the correctness of every conservative troll that accuses social justice of using class based distinctions to justify being unfair to individual people. You’ve managed to exemplify a straw man of your position. Good work.
To those who responded to my request for an actual thing that actually could be done to actually reduce the sorts of racist acts putatively at issue, but only responded by insisting that we should “fight racism” without further detail… Or worse, who reinterpreted my request as a claim that racism shouldn’t be addressed at all unless it can be 100% solved and then STILL offered nothing more than that we should “fight” it… I don’t know what to say to that.
And for the record- we have an example policy in the demands of the protesters. A racial awareness and inclusion curriculum staffed by minorities. Anyone want to stand up and claim that this will have a meaningful effect on things like swastika graffiti? And if so, how?
Well, this thread is certainly checking all the spaces on the slacktivist bingo card.
To the guy who explained that the President was fired for not properly defining systemic oppression: thank you for acknowledging that the reason he was fired was because of a lack of familiarity with the jargon of the protesters in group, a familiarity which that in group, in classic form, associates with moral propriety. Thank you for conceding that this isn’t about the actual acts of racism it is putatively about, not about the university’s response to them, but rather about one social grouping exerting it’s power against those they perceive as outside that grouping.
To the people pulling the whole, “oh, cry me a river over the plight of the poor oppressed class of university presidents” line, thank you for demonstrating the correctness of every conservative troll that accuses social justice of using class based distinctions to justify being unfair to individual people. You’ve managed to exemplify a straw man of your position. Good work.
To those who responded to my request for an actual thing that actually could be done to actually reduce the sorts of racist acts putatively at issue, but only responded by insisting that we should “fight racism” without further detail… Or worse, who reinterpreted my request as a claim that racism shouldn’t be addressed at all unless it can be 100% solved and then STILL offered nothing more than that we should “fight” it… I don’t know what to say to that.
And for the record- we have an example policy in the demands of the protesters. A racial awareness and inclusion curriculum staffed by minorities. Anyone want to stand up and claim that this will have a meaningful effect on things like swastika graffiti? And if so, how?
Well, this thread is certainly checking all the spaces on the slacktivist bingo card.
To the guy who explained that the President was fired for not properly defining systemic oppression: thank you for acknowledging that the reason he was fired was because of a lack of familiarity with the jargon of the protesters in group, a familiarity which that in group, in classic form, associates with moral propriety. Thank you for conceding that this isn’t about the actual acts of racism it is putatively about, not about the university’s response to them, but rather about one social grouping exerting it’s power against those they perceive as outside that grouping.
To the people pulling the whole, “oh, cry me a river over the plight of the poor oppressed class of university presidents” line, thank you for demonstrating the correctness of every conservative troll that accuses social justice of using class based distinctions to justify being unfair to individual people. You’ve managed to exemplify a straw man of your position. Good work.
To those who responded to my request for an actual thing that actually could be done to actually reduce the sorts of racist acts putatively at issue, but only responded by insisting that we should “fight racism” without further detail… Or worse, who reinterpreted my request as a claim that racism shouldn’t be addressed at all unless it can be 100% solved and then STILL offered nothing more than that we should “fight” it… I don’t know what to say to that.
And for the record- we have an example policy in the demands of the protesters. A racial awareness and inclusion curriculum staffed by minorities. Anyone want to stand up and claim that this will have a meaningful effect on things like swastika graffiti? And if so, how?
To those who responded to my request for an actual thing that actually could be done to actually reduce the sorts of racist acts putatively at issue
We could take Yik Yak guy out back and tear him several new assholes, pants him, wrap him up in duct tape, and leave him in the middle of the quad with a big sign reading “KICK ME, I AM A MORAN”.
Schools still have quads, right?
We could find the poo swastika guy, make him clean every toilet on campus with a toothbrush while dressed up as Hitler, and live-stream it on Facebook.
We could find the guy who called the student body president a nigger and make him do 20 hours a week of community service in Ferguson for the next five years.
Personally, I like all of those ideas better than a touchy-feely consciousness raising seminar, but I’m not involved in governance at Missouri U, so my vote doesn’t count.
To those who responded to my request for an actual thing that actually could be done to actually reduce the sorts of racist acts putatively at issue
We could take Yik Yak guy out back and tear him several new assholes, pants him, wrap him up in duct tape, and leave him in the middle of the quad with a big sign reading “KICK ME, I AM A MORAN”.
Schools still have quads, right?
We could find the poo swastika guy, make him clean every toilet on campus with a toothbrush while dressed up as Hitler, and live-stream it on Facebook.
We could find the guy who called the student body president a nigger and make him do 20 hours a week of community service in Ferguson for the next five years.
Personally, I like all of those ideas better than a touchy-feely consciousness raising seminar, but I’m not involved in governance at Missouri U, so my vote doesn’t count.
To those who responded to my request for an actual thing that actually could be done to actually reduce the sorts of racist acts putatively at issue
We could take Yik Yak guy out back and tear him several new assholes, pants him, wrap him up in duct tape, and leave him in the middle of the quad with a big sign reading “KICK ME, I AM A MORAN”.
Schools still have quads, right?
We could find the poo swastika guy, make him clean every toilet on campus with a toothbrush while dressed up as Hitler, and live-stream it on Facebook.
We could find the guy who called the student body president a nigger and make him do 20 hours a week of community service in Ferguson for the next five years.
Personally, I like all of those ideas better than a touchy-feely consciousness raising seminar, but I’m not involved in governance at Missouri U, so my vote doesn’t count.
also, I’m not getting the slacktivist reference.
Isn’t that a blog about evangelical Christianity?
It’s getting harder and harder to keep up with the memes.
also, I’m not getting the slacktivist reference.
Isn’t that a blog about evangelical Christianity?
It’s getting harder and harder to keep up with the memes.
also, I’m not getting the slacktivist reference.
Isn’t that a blog about evangelical Christianity?
It’s getting harder and harder to keep up with the memes.
Slacktivism is on-line activism.
Slacktivism is on-line activism.
Slacktivism is on-line activism.
(That was also the origin of the now-defunct liberal Evangelical blog of the same name.)
(That was also the origin of the now-defunct liberal Evangelical blog of the same name.)
(That was also the origin of the now-defunct liberal Evangelical blog of the same name.)
Thanks NV.
I try to keep up, but sometimes it gets ahead of me.
Thanks NV.
I try to keep up, but sometimes it gets ahead of me.
Thanks NV.
I try to keep up, but sometimes it gets ahead of me.
And if so, how?
i explained my theory. i know you disagree.
and for the record, i still think your analysis is a failed attempt at mind reading.
And if so, how?
i explained my theory. i know you disagree.
and for the record, i still think your analysis is a failed attempt at mind reading.
And if so, how?
i explained my theory. i know you disagree.
and for the record, i still think your analysis is a failed attempt at mind reading.
To the people pulling the whole, “oh, cry me a river over the plight of the poor oppressed class of university presidents” line, thank you for demonstrating the correctness of every conservative troll that accuses social justice of using class based distinctions to justify being unfair to individual people. You’ve managed to exemplify a straw man of your position. Good work.
You know, this discussion doesn’t exist in a vacuum. When a party to the conversation who normally evinces no particular concern regarding arbitrary employee termination suddenly becomes very concerned about it, and they only seem to do so in very specific contexts… well, let’s just say I don’t really see my ilk as being the ones injecting class issues into the conversation.
Also, hate to break it to ya, but not all leftists are triangulating centerists, let alone High Broderists. Mentioning class-based distinctions is only anathema if you buy into the consensual delusion that they typically play no part in government.
To the people pulling the whole, “oh, cry me a river over the plight of the poor oppressed class of university presidents” line, thank you for demonstrating the correctness of every conservative troll that accuses social justice of using class based distinctions to justify being unfair to individual people. You’ve managed to exemplify a straw man of your position. Good work.
You know, this discussion doesn’t exist in a vacuum. When a party to the conversation who normally evinces no particular concern regarding arbitrary employee termination suddenly becomes very concerned about it, and they only seem to do so in very specific contexts… well, let’s just say I don’t really see my ilk as being the ones injecting class issues into the conversation.
Also, hate to break it to ya, but not all leftists are triangulating centerists, let alone High Broderists. Mentioning class-based distinctions is only anathema if you buy into the consensual delusion that they typically play no part in government.
To the people pulling the whole, “oh, cry me a river over the plight of the poor oppressed class of university presidents” line, thank you for demonstrating the correctness of every conservative troll that accuses social justice of using class based distinctions to justify being unfair to individual people. You’ve managed to exemplify a straw man of your position. Good work.
You know, this discussion doesn’t exist in a vacuum. When a party to the conversation who normally evinces no particular concern regarding arbitrary employee termination suddenly becomes very concerned about it, and they only seem to do so in very specific contexts… well, let’s just say I don’t really see my ilk as being the ones injecting class issues into the conversation.
Also, hate to break it to ya, but not all leftists are triangulating centerists, let alone High Broderists. Mentioning class-based distinctions is only anathema if you buy into the consensual delusion that they typically play no part in government.
I try to keep up, but sometimes it gets ahead of me.
Well, at the risk of making you feel old, the term slactivism is honestly passé at this point – its heyday was at least a decade ago…
I try to keep up, but sometimes it gets ahead of me.
Well, at the risk of making you feel old, the term slactivism is honestly passé at this point – its heyday was at least a decade ago…
I try to keep up, but sometimes it gets ahead of me.
Well, at the risk of making you feel old, the term slactivism is honestly passé at this point – its heyday was at least a decade ago…
next you’re gonna tell me that people are browsing the web on their phones…
next you’re gonna tell me that people are browsing the web on their phones…
next you’re gonna tell me that people are browsing the web on their phones…
To McKinneyTx:
What exactly do you find absurd about the demand you keep citing? Do you find it troubling that people in your country consider racism a problem that matters, just because African American men have a one in three chance of incarceration? That students at an American University want to promote education on that subject? That they want the teaching on that particular subject to reflect the life experiences of those people who have been personally exposed to it?
Once you get past the slogans and the emotions, past words like absurd and the legions of conservatives that are shocked shocked that students would ever want a university to teach something, this really seems pretty reasonable.
Or do you honestly think your country can keep piling up more inequality, sending more people to more jails? How long can you stave off any demand that students, faculty and staff at a major university learn something about the social conditions in their country and their state? What do you expect to gain by doing so?
To McKinneyTx:
What exactly do you find absurd about the demand you keep citing? Do you find it troubling that people in your country consider racism a problem that matters, just because African American men have a one in three chance of incarceration? That students at an American University want to promote education on that subject? That they want the teaching on that particular subject to reflect the life experiences of those people who have been personally exposed to it?
Once you get past the slogans and the emotions, past words like absurd and the legions of conservatives that are shocked shocked that students would ever want a university to teach something, this really seems pretty reasonable.
Or do you honestly think your country can keep piling up more inequality, sending more people to more jails? How long can you stave off any demand that students, faculty and staff at a major university learn something about the social conditions in their country and their state? What do you expect to gain by doing so?
To McKinneyTx:
What exactly do you find absurd about the demand you keep citing? Do you find it troubling that people in your country consider racism a problem that matters, just because African American men have a one in three chance of incarceration? That students at an American University want to promote education on that subject? That they want the teaching on that particular subject to reflect the life experiences of those people who have been personally exposed to it?
Once you get past the slogans and the emotions, past words like absurd and the legions of conservatives that are shocked shocked that students would ever want a university to teach something, this really seems pretty reasonable.
Or do you honestly think your country can keep piling up more inequality, sending more people to more jails? How long can you stave off any demand that students, faculty and staff at a major university learn something about the social conditions in their country and their state? What do you expect to gain by doing so?
John Spragge,
Not speaking for McTex, There are over 50 courses offered in the Black Studies program at University of Missouri, from lecture courses on the diaspora to BL_STU 3230: Studies in Black Sexual Politics.
John Spragge,
Not speaking for McTex, There are over 50 courses offered in the Black Studies program at University of Missouri, from lecture courses on the diaspora to BL_STU 3230: Studies in Black Sexual Politics.
John Spragge,
Not speaking for McTex, There are over 50 courses offered in the Black Studies program at University of Missouri, from lecture courses on the diaspora to BL_STU 3230: Studies in Black Sexual Politics.
I always wonder when I hear the stories of bigots strewing cotton balls about why that upsets black people. I mean, its been generations since a black person picked cotton as a slave. What is the insult?
Again, this is a question of power. If people like you get to define what constitutes an insult, then routinely being called a n*gg*r a couple times a day won’t be seen as an insult or, what it really is, an act of terror. But if others (i.e., not YOU) get to make this decision, based on how they see it-AND effectively enforce it, you get your pants in a knot.
In my day, we student activists made many demands….result? Well, the war in Viet Nam went on for several more deadly years, capitalism was not abolished, and racism did not end.
Much to my chagrin.
We do seem to have succeeded in getting Black/Women studies ensconced in the standard college curriculum (just so we could force McKinney to attend) and….coed dorms.
Beyond that…well, win some, lose some.
Keep on truckin’
I always wonder when I hear the stories of bigots strewing cotton balls about why that upsets black people. I mean, its been generations since a black person picked cotton as a slave. What is the insult?
Again, this is a question of power. If people like you get to define what constitutes an insult, then routinely being called a n*gg*r a couple times a day won’t be seen as an insult or, what it really is, an act of terror. But if others (i.e., not YOU) get to make this decision, based on how they see it-AND effectively enforce it, you get your pants in a knot.
In my day, we student activists made many demands….result? Well, the war in Viet Nam went on for several more deadly years, capitalism was not abolished, and racism did not end.
Much to my chagrin.
We do seem to have succeeded in getting Black/Women studies ensconced in the standard college curriculum (just so we could force McKinney to attend) and….coed dorms.
Beyond that…well, win some, lose some.
Keep on truckin’
I always wonder when I hear the stories of bigots strewing cotton balls about why that upsets black people. I mean, its been generations since a black person picked cotton as a slave. What is the insult?
Again, this is a question of power. If people like you get to define what constitutes an insult, then routinely being called a n*gg*r a couple times a day won’t be seen as an insult or, what it really is, an act of terror. But if others (i.e., not YOU) get to make this decision, based on how they see it-AND effectively enforce it, you get your pants in a knot.
In my day, we student activists made many demands….result? Well, the war in Viet Nam went on for several more deadly years, capitalism was not abolished, and racism did not end.
Much to my chagrin.
We do seem to have succeeded in getting Black/Women studies ensconced in the standard college curriculum (just so we could force McKinney to attend) and….coed dorms.
Beyond that…well, win some, lose some.
Keep on truckin’
There are over 50 courses offered in the Black Studies program at University of Missouri
is that too many or too few?
There are over 50 courses offered in the Black Studies program at University of Missouri
is that too many or too few?
There are over 50 courses offered in the Black Studies program at University of Missouri
is that too many or too few?
I don’t think there is much that Tom Wolfe could have done to fix the racism problems on his campus
Maybe he could spike the Kool-aid and everyone could start seeing things intersubjectively.
I don’t think there is much that Tom Wolfe could have done to fix the racism problems on his campus
Maybe he could spike the Kool-aid and everyone could start seeing things intersubjectively.
I don’t think there is much that Tom Wolfe could have done to fix the racism problems on his campus
Maybe he could spike the Kool-aid and everyone could start seeing things intersubjectively.
For the record, the evangelical blog known as Slacktivist is not, in fact, defunct. It’s at Patheos.
For the record, the evangelical blog known as Slacktivist is not, in fact, defunct. It’s at Patheos.
For the record, the evangelical blog known as Slacktivist is not, in fact, defunct. It’s at Patheos.
I don’t think there is much that Tom Wolfe could have done to fix the racism problems on his campus
I’d agree that there isn’t much he could have done to make it end. But he could definitely have spoken out against it. (Sometimes, silence sends a message, too.)
That’s what leadership is: talking to people and setting an example for them, so as to get them pointed in generally the right direction. Even if you can’t force them to go that way. And a university president is, at least in theory, supposed to be the leader of his institution.
I don’t think there is much that Tom Wolfe could have done to fix the racism problems on his campus
I’d agree that there isn’t much he could have done to make it end. But he could definitely have spoken out against it. (Sometimes, silence sends a message, too.)
That’s what leadership is: talking to people and setting an example for them, so as to get them pointed in generally the right direction. Even if you can’t force them to go that way. And a university president is, at least in theory, supposed to be the leader of his institution.
I don’t think there is much that Tom Wolfe could have done to fix the racism problems on his campus
I’d agree that there isn’t much he could have done to make it end. But he could definitely have spoken out against it. (Sometimes, silence sends a message, too.)
That’s what leadership is: talking to people and setting an example for them, so as to get them pointed in generally the right direction. Even if you can’t force them to go that way. And a university president is, at least in theory, supposed to be the leader of his institution.
John Spragge,
I can’t speak for McKinney, but I will provide my answer.
Do you find it troubling that people in your country consider racism a problem that matters,
No. I agree with that.
That students at an American University want to promote education on that subject?
No. That’s a worthwhile objective.
That they want the teaching on that particular subject to reflect the life experiences of those people who have been personally exposed to it?
No. That seems sensible. To fail to reflect those experiences would be foolish.
What I object to is first, the uber-mandatory nature of the proposal.
Students, administrators, faculty, and staff will be required to participate. Well, I don’t think the university has any business telling its employees they have to take this class. Nor am I convinced it should be required for students.
Among other problems this may be counter-productive, stirring resentment rather than educating. But even if not, the requirement is offensive. The university can, and should, impose standards on employees, but it should not be in the business of telling 50-year-old accountants they have to listen to lectures about racism in society.
Second, there is the notion that “This curriculum must be vetted, maintained, and overseen by a board comprised of students, staff, and faculty of color.”
No. The curriculum should not be “vetted” or controlled by such a board. No self-respecting faculty member would teach a class controlled that way. Certainly there should be major contributions from racial minorities, but just maybe there could be others involved as well. This smacks not of education but of the imposition of one set of approved opinions. Is it really the case that no one else has anything useful to say about racism in the US? I doubt it.
I suspect you will see as much respect for freedom of expression in these classes as was evidenced by the demonstrators in the notorious video.
No thanks. The whole thing is far too Maoist for me.
John Spragge,
I can’t speak for McKinney, but I will provide my answer.
Do you find it troubling that people in your country consider racism a problem that matters,
No. I agree with that.
That students at an American University want to promote education on that subject?
No. That’s a worthwhile objective.
That they want the teaching on that particular subject to reflect the life experiences of those people who have been personally exposed to it?
No. That seems sensible. To fail to reflect those experiences would be foolish.
What I object to is first, the uber-mandatory nature of the proposal.
Students, administrators, faculty, and staff will be required to participate. Well, I don’t think the university has any business telling its employees they have to take this class. Nor am I convinced it should be required for students.
Among other problems this may be counter-productive, stirring resentment rather than educating. But even if not, the requirement is offensive. The university can, and should, impose standards on employees, but it should not be in the business of telling 50-year-old accountants they have to listen to lectures about racism in society.
Second, there is the notion that “This curriculum must be vetted, maintained, and overseen by a board comprised of students, staff, and faculty of color.”
No. The curriculum should not be “vetted” or controlled by such a board. No self-respecting faculty member would teach a class controlled that way. Certainly there should be major contributions from racial minorities, but just maybe there could be others involved as well. This smacks not of education but of the imposition of one set of approved opinions. Is it really the case that no one else has anything useful to say about racism in the US? I doubt it.
I suspect you will see as much respect for freedom of expression in these classes as was evidenced by the demonstrators in the notorious video.
No thanks. The whole thing is far too Maoist for me.
John Spragge,
I can’t speak for McKinney, but I will provide my answer.
Do you find it troubling that people in your country consider racism a problem that matters,
No. I agree with that.
That students at an American University want to promote education on that subject?
No. That’s a worthwhile objective.
That they want the teaching on that particular subject to reflect the life experiences of those people who have been personally exposed to it?
No. That seems sensible. To fail to reflect those experiences would be foolish.
What I object to is first, the uber-mandatory nature of the proposal.
Students, administrators, faculty, and staff will be required to participate. Well, I don’t think the university has any business telling its employees they have to take this class. Nor am I convinced it should be required for students.
Among other problems this may be counter-productive, stirring resentment rather than educating. But even if not, the requirement is offensive. The university can, and should, impose standards on employees, but it should not be in the business of telling 50-year-old accountants they have to listen to lectures about racism in society.
Second, there is the notion that “This curriculum must be vetted, maintained, and overseen by a board comprised of students, staff, and faculty of color.”
No. The curriculum should not be “vetted” or controlled by such a board. No self-respecting faculty member would teach a class controlled that way. Certainly there should be major contributions from racial minorities, but just maybe there could be others involved as well. This smacks not of education but of the imposition of one set of approved opinions. Is it really the case that no one else has anything useful to say about racism in the US? I doubt it.
I suspect you will see as much respect for freedom of expression in these classes as was evidenced by the demonstrators in the notorious video.
No thanks. The whole thing is far too Maoist for me.
…but rather about one social grouping exerting it’s power against those they perceive as outside that grouping.
As a general principle, this is bad how?
Are you actually claiming that “social groupings” do not “exert power” against outsiders in other contexts?
Really?
…but rather about one social grouping exerting it’s power against those they perceive as outside that grouping.
As a general principle, this is bad how?
Are you actually claiming that “social groupings” do not “exert power” against outsiders in other contexts?
Really?
…but rather about one social grouping exerting it’s power against those they perceive as outside that grouping.
As a general principle, this is bad how?
Are you actually claiming that “social groupings” do not “exert power” against outsiders in other contexts?
Really?
cleek,
Just that it is more than one. not none. Duplicated in the Black Studies and English tracks when about literature. not, “Not Taught”.
But not mandatory for everyone from the freshman accounting student to the gym caretaker.
cleek,
Just that it is more than one. not none. Duplicated in the Black Studies and English tracks when about literature. not, “Not Taught”.
But not mandatory for everyone from the freshman accounting student to the gym caretaker.
cleek,
Just that it is more than one. not none. Duplicated in the Black Studies and English tracks when about literature. not, “Not Taught”.
But not mandatory for everyone from the freshman accounting student to the gym caretaker.
Patrick wrote:
Once you cut out the verbiage (“jargon”, “in group”, you end up with simple question: does systemic oppression exist? Do African Americans actually face oppressions, harms, baked into the American system? As my original post linked to several web pages describing in precise and appalling detail various depredations African Americans in the State of Missouri and in the larger United States face, I would say that a considerable volume of evidence indicates it does.
Given the evidence that the thing exists, that it exerts a very considerable and malign influence on African Americans in the State of Missouri, it seems clear that someone educating young people, including young African Americans in Missouri, should have at least a basic grasp of the problem and a willingness to talk about it. This is not a matter of in groups or jargon. It is a matter of being willing to discuss a serious problem. That has very little to do with “moral propriety”; I don’t consider it morally improper not to know what a white cell count is, but I don’t want anyone who lacks that knowledge working in a trauma centre.
Finally, please provide a source for your contention that the protest at University of Missouri concerns only three incidents. Various media outlets may have highlighted these specific events on their timelines, but multiple sources suggest a pervasive climate of racism gave rise to the protests, not just a small number of incidents.
Ultimately, this dialogue highlights the real problem with political correctness, a problem both left and right share: the conviction that words form reality and not the other way around. Insist that the issue is group dynamics and you can make it into group dynamics, whatever the evidence of pervasive, systemic, and largely race-base oppression. Insist that only three dubious incidents happened on the U. Missouri campus, and you can ignore the body of evidence that the problems went way beyond three incidents. That doesn’t work. As Abraham Lincoln said, if you call a tail a leg, a dog has four legs, because calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg. Calling a reaction to systemic oppression a matter of group dynamics doesn’t make the actual, exhaustively documented systemic oppressions go away. You can insist on a timeline with only three incidents as much as your heart desires; the other incidents won’t go away.
Patrick wrote:
Once you cut out the verbiage (“jargon”, “in group”, you end up with simple question: does systemic oppression exist? Do African Americans actually face oppressions, harms, baked into the American system? As my original post linked to several web pages describing in precise and appalling detail various depredations African Americans in the State of Missouri and in the larger United States face, I would say that a considerable volume of evidence indicates it does.
Given the evidence that the thing exists, that it exerts a very considerable and malign influence on African Americans in the State of Missouri, it seems clear that someone educating young people, including young African Americans in Missouri, should have at least a basic grasp of the problem and a willingness to talk about it. This is not a matter of in groups or jargon. It is a matter of being willing to discuss a serious problem. That has very little to do with “moral propriety”; I don’t consider it morally improper not to know what a white cell count is, but I don’t want anyone who lacks that knowledge working in a trauma centre.
Finally, please provide a source for your contention that the protest at University of Missouri concerns only three incidents. Various media outlets may have highlighted these specific events on their timelines, but multiple sources suggest a pervasive climate of racism gave rise to the protests, not just a small number of incidents.
Ultimately, this dialogue highlights the real problem with political correctness, a problem both left and right share: the conviction that words form reality and not the other way around. Insist that the issue is group dynamics and you can make it into group dynamics, whatever the evidence of pervasive, systemic, and largely race-base oppression. Insist that only three dubious incidents happened on the U. Missouri campus, and you can ignore the body of evidence that the problems went way beyond three incidents. That doesn’t work. As Abraham Lincoln said, if you call a tail a leg, a dog has four legs, because calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg. Calling a reaction to systemic oppression a matter of group dynamics doesn’t make the actual, exhaustively documented systemic oppressions go away. You can insist on a timeline with only three incidents as much as your heart desires; the other incidents won’t go away.
Patrick wrote:
Once you cut out the verbiage (“jargon”, “in group”, you end up with simple question: does systemic oppression exist? Do African Americans actually face oppressions, harms, baked into the American system? As my original post linked to several web pages describing in precise and appalling detail various depredations African Americans in the State of Missouri and in the larger United States face, I would say that a considerable volume of evidence indicates it does.
Given the evidence that the thing exists, that it exerts a very considerable and malign influence on African Americans in the State of Missouri, it seems clear that someone educating young people, including young African Americans in Missouri, should have at least a basic grasp of the problem and a willingness to talk about it. This is not a matter of in groups or jargon. It is a matter of being willing to discuss a serious problem. That has very little to do with “moral propriety”; I don’t consider it morally improper not to know what a white cell count is, but I don’t want anyone who lacks that knowledge working in a trauma centre.
Finally, please provide a source for your contention that the protest at University of Missouri concerns only three incidents. Various media outlets may have highlighted these specific events on their timelines, but multiple sources suggest a pervasive climate of racism gave rise to the protests, not just a small number of incidents.
Ultimately, this dialogue highlights the real problem with political correctness, a problem both left and right share: the conviction that words form reality and not the other way around. Insist that the issue is group dynamics and you can make it into group dynamics, whatever the evidence of pervasive, systemic, and largely race-base oppression. Insist that only three dubious incidents happened on the U. Missouri campus, and you can ignore the body of evidence that the problems went way beyond three incidents. That doesn’t work. As Abraham Lincoln said, if you call a tail a leg, a dog has four legs, because calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg. Calling a reaction to systemic oppression a matter of group dynamics doesn’t make the actual, exhaustively documented systemic oppressions go away. You can insist on a timeline with only three incidents as much as your heart desires; the other incidents won’t go away.
For the record, the evangelical blog known as Slacktivist is not, in fact, defunct. It’s at Patheos.
My understanding was that when Fred moved on to Pathos, Slactivist became a group blog for a bit, then closed down. But yes, the message of golden-age-of-blogs Slactivist lives on.
For the record, the evangelical blog known as Slacktivist is not, in fact, defunct. It’s at Patheos.
My understanding was that when Fred moved on to Pathos, Slactivist became a group blog for a bit, then closed down. But yes, the message of golden-age-of-blogs Slactivist lives on.
For the record, the evangelical blog known as Slacktivist is not, in fact, defunct. It’s at Patheos.
My understanding was that when Fred moved on to Pathos, Slactivist became a group blog for a bit, then closed down. But yes, the message of golden-age-of-blogs Slactivist lives on.
By all means, students, administrators, employees and faculty should not feel resentment. The cruelty of this is keeping me awake at night.
The subset of people of color in that cohort? Well, I guess their resentments really don’t amount to a hill of beans.
Truly, a recipe for social harmony.
By all means, students, administrators, employees and faculty should not feel resentment. The cruelty of this is keeping me awake at night.
The subset of people of color in that cohort? Well, I guess their resentments really don’t amount to a hill of beans.
Truly, a recipe for social harmony.
By all means, students, administrators, employees and faculty should not feel resentment. The cruelty of this is keeping me awake at night.
The subset of people of color in that cohort? Well, I guess their resentments really don’t amount to a hill of beans.
Truly, a recipe for social harmony.
No thanks. The whole thing is far too Maoist for me.
I don’t know if I’d say Maoist, but cleek’s comment notwithstanding, IMO the effective value of mandatory classes on race awareness is limited.
I offered my alternative upthread as kind of a joke, but to be honest I think it would be fine for the university to:
1. Define a policy against public expression of derogatory statements based on race, gender, or whatever demographic categories the university wants to protect.
2. Punish violations with things like mandatory community service, etc., as a condition of continued enrollment. Or, possibly, employment, for that matter.
The “tie him up in duct tape” thing actually was a joke.
You can think what you want, unfortunately in some cases, but if you want to hating on people, you need to leave it at home.
If you fail to do that, you pay with appropriate community service, or you leave.
Net/net, people should be able to go to freaking college without a bunch of idiots calling them rude names.
Feel free to include “cracker”, “peckerwood”, or similar terms directed at white folks if you like.
Don’t be blatantly and offensively rude. I’m not talking about cutting in the lunch line rude, I think it’s clear what I am talking about. If you can’t manage that, you have to go somewhere else and take your bad thinking and bad manners with you.
Works for me, hopefully it answers Patrick’s desperate need for a concrete proposal from the slacktivist commentariat.
In any case, I’m having a hard time seeing the kind of response that the folks in MO are bringing as some kind of over-wrought nanny-state left-wing attack of terminal PC. There are too many people, and too many different kinds of people, involved.
My intuition is that something more than two or three incidents of bone-headedness is going on at Missouri U. FWIW.
As an aside, it’s kind of comical for someone to make a comment on a blog putting down folks for making comments on blogs.
Irony is dead.
No thanks. The whole thing is far too Maoist for me.
I don’t know if I’d say Maoist, but cleek’s comment notwithstanding, IMO the effective value of mandatory classes on race awareness is limited.
I offered my alternative upthread as kind of a joke, but to be honest I think it would be fine for the university to:
1. Define a policy against public expression of derogatory statements based on race, gender, or whatever demographic categories the university wants to protect.
2. Punish violations with things like mandatory community service, etc., as a condition of continued enrollment. Or, possibly, employment, for that matter.
The “tie him up in duct tape” thing actually was a joke.
You can think what you want, unfortunately in some cases, but if you want to hating on people, you need to leave it at home.
If you fail to do that, you pay with appropriate community service, or you leave.
Net/net, people should be able to go to freaking college without a bunch of idiots calling them rude names.
Feel free to include “cracker”, “peckerwood”, or similar terms directed at white folks if you like.
Don’t be blatantly and offensively rude. I’m not talking about cutting in the lunch line rude, I think it’s clear what I am talking about. If you can’t manage that, you have to go somewhere else and take your bad thinking and bad manners with you.
Works for me, hopefully it answers Patrick’s desperate need for a concrete proposal from the slacktivist commentariat.
In any case, I’m having a hard time seeing the kind of response that the folks in MO are bringing as some kind of over-wrought nanny-state left-wing attack of terminal PC. There are too many people, and too many different kinds of people, involved.
My intuition is that something more than two or three incidents of bone-headedness is going on at Missouri U. FWIW.
As an aside, it’s kind of comical for someone to make a comment on a blog putting down folks for making comments on blogs.
Irony is dead.
No thanks. The whole thing is far too Maoist for me.
I don’t know if I’d say Maoist, but cleek’s comment notwithstanding, IMO the effective value of mandatory classes on race awareness is limited.
I offered my alternative upthread as kind of a joke, but to be honest I think it would be fine for the university to:
1. Define a policy against public expression of derogatory statements based on race, gender, or whatever demographic categories the university wants to protect.
2. Punish violations with things like mandatory community service, etc., as a condition of continued enrollment. Or, possibly, employment, for that matter.
The “tie him up in duct tape” thing actually was a joke.
You can think what you want, unfortunately in some cases, but if you want to hating on people, you need to leave it at home.
If you fail to do that, you pay with appropriate community service, or you leave.
Net/net, people should be able to go to freaking college without a bunch of idiots calling them rude names.
Feel free to include “cracker”, “peckerwood”, or similar terms directed at white folks if you like.
Don’t be blatantly and offensively rude. I’m not talking about cutting in the lunch line rude, I think it’s clear what I am talking about. If you can’t manage that, you have to go somewhere else and take your bad thinking and bad manners with you.
Works for me, hopefully it answers Patrick’s desperate need for a concrete proposal from the slacktivist commentariat.
In any case, I’m having a hard time seeing the kind of response that the folks in MO are bringing as some kind of over-wrought nanny-state left-wing attack of terminal PC. There are too many people, and too many different kinds of people, involved.
My intuition is that something more than two or three incidents of bone-headedness is going on at Missouri U. FWIW.
As an aside, it’s kind of comical for someone to make a comment on a blog putting down folks for making comments on blogs.
Irony is dead.
In my part of the world, “peckerwood” is actually trees that are old and diseased enough to attract woodpeckers.
This is my contribution to the discussion, and it is my own.
Carry on.
In my part of the world, “peckerwood” is actually trees that are old and diseased enough to attract woodpeckers.
This is my contribution to the discussion, and it is my own.
Carry on.
In my part of the world, “peckerwood” is actually trees that are old and diseased enough to attract woodpeckers.
This is my contribution to the discussion, and it is my own.
Carry on.
Irony is dead.
I thought it was, “Irony is blind,” but sometimes I get confused by all the morally turpidacious jargon.
Irony is dead.
I thought it was, “Irony is blind,” but sometimes I get confused by all the morally turpidacious jargon.
Irony is dead.
I thought it was, “Irony is blind,” but sometimes I get confused by all the morally turpidacious jargon.
Oh, so soon they forget! bobbyp, irony died on 9/11, you traitorous swine!
(Even all these years later, I don’t have the first damned clue what that was supposed to mean.)
Oh, so soon they forget! bobbyp, irony died on 9/11, you traitorous swine!
(Even all these years later, I don’t have the first damned clue what that was supposed to mean.)
Oh, so soon they forget! bobbyp, irony died on 9/11, you traitorous swine!
(Even all these years later, I don’t have the first damned clue what that was supposed to mean.)
Over the years at my workplace we’ve had actual physical classes we were required to sign up for, or more recently on-line thingies you can click through on your computer during downtime, pertaining workplace behavior, ethical conduct within the profession and so forth. Sometimes they were silly and much mocked afterwards (“Does saying that get a ‘red light’ or a ‘green light'”, “Who knew there was a problem with grabbing your co-workers ass”, etc.), sometimes merely a mild annoyance.
The consensus I’ve found after talking to folks about this is that it’s less about “educating” or “consciousness-raising” than a shield for management to use against legal liability for the company in the event of litigation about workplace conditions. “We tell all our employees not to do X, so it’s all on Employee Z if they do X.” Not sure how much of a shield it would be in practice.
Over the years at my workplace we’ve had actual physical classes we were required to sign up for, or more recently on-line thingies you can click through on your computer during downtime, pertaining workplace behavior, ethical conduct within the profession and so forth. Sometimes they were silly and much mocked afterwards (“Does saying that get a ‘red light’ or a ‘green light'”, “Who knew there was a problem with grabbing your co-workers ass”, etc.), sometimes merely a mild annoyance.
The consensus I’ve found after talking to folks about this is that it’s less about “educating” or “consciousness-raising” than a shield for management to use against legal liability for the company in the event of litigation about workplace conditions. “We tell all our employees not to do X, so it’s all on Employee Z if they do X.” Not sure how much of a shield it would be in practice.
Over the years at my workplace we’ve had actual physical classes we were required to sign up for, or more recently on-line thingies you can click through on your computer during downtime, pertaining workplace behavior, ethical conduct within the profession and so forth. Sometimes they were silly and much mocked afterwards (“Does saying that get a ‘red light’ or a ‘green light'”, “Who knew there was a problem with grabbing your co-workers ass”, etc.), sometimes merely a mild annoyance.
The consensus I’ve found after talking to folks about this is that it’s less about “educating” or “consciousness-raising” than a shield for management to use against legal liability for the company in the event of litigation about workplace conditions. “We tell all our employees not to do X, so it’s all on Employee Z if they do X.” Not sure how much of a shield it would be in practice.
bernard,
I can understand that reaction, but a surprising amount of time and thought is taken in trying to figure out what students in general and college students in particular should be taught. Moreover, this is not simply abstract question of what the content should be. How does one check whether students have ‘learned’ it, for various values of learned, how they are evaluated on it, how they prove they have learned it and how this information is organized and delivered all enters into this. The students know that it is easy to simply make a token hire (the adjective there carries a lot of resonance), give him or her a few classes and claim the problem is solved. Ideally, as a college administrator, you want to be ahead of this and work with students and faculty because when it gets to the point that it has reached, you really have serious problems.
Of course, if you reach the point where demands are being made, someone has to lose face, which seems to be what offends some folks, that a white college president is forced to back down by some black students, white standing is threatened. It’s domino thinking redux. If one group of minority students can force one white university president to step down, what’s stopping them from forcing all white uni presidents from stepping down. Thus, the incidents that led up to this have to be minimized or dismissed, preferably with references to how “they wouldn’t bother me, so I don’t see why they should be so upset”.
That the University realizes it has to do this, well before these incidents, can be seen at their
http://diversity.missouri.edu/
which looks like it has been around for at least half a decade
https://utownblog.wordpress.com/tag/chancellors-diversity-initiative/
I would not be surprised if it came out of the spreading of cotton balls in front of the Black Culture Center. One of the features of white privilege (a word that seems to knot McKinney up, but I really don’t care because he’s made it clear that he doesn’t give a shit about what I think) is that there is an asymmetry in that lots of terms to demean and denigrate minorities and women, but it is really hard to think of terms to insult white people. Peckerwood, cracker and trailer trash only get there by implying a lack of education and social standing. Honky? Who was the last person to fly into a rage because they were called that? The other alternative is to identify some aspect of femininity and throw that at the white male, which underlines the privileged status of being a white male.
Of course, coming in and flinging poo is what monkeys do and we know that McKinney is far too fair skinned to ever do that.
bernard,
I can understand that reaction, but a surprising amount of time and thought is taken in trying to figure out what students in general and college students in particular should be taught. Moreover, this is not simply abstract question of what the content should be. How does one check whether students have ‘learned’ it, for various values of learned, how they are evaluated on it, how they prove they have learned it and how this information is organized and delivered all enters into this. The students know that it is easy to simply make a token hire (the adjective there carries a lot of resonance), give him or her a few classes and claim the problem is solved. Ideally, as a college administrator, you want to be ahead of this and work with students and faculty because when it gets to the point that it has reached, you really have serious problems.
Of course, if you reach the point where demands are being made, someone has to lose face, which seems to be what offends some folks, that a white college president is forced to back down by some black students, white standing is threatened. It’s domino thinking redux. If one group of minority students can force one white university president to step down, what’s stopping them from forcing all white uni presidents from stepping down. Thus, the incidents that led up to this have to be minimized or dismissed, preferably with references to how “they wouldn’t bother me, so I don’t see why they should be so upset”.
That the University realizes it has to do this, well before these incidents, can be seen at their
http://diversity.missouri.edu/
which looks like it has been around for at least half a decade
https://utownblog.wordpress.com/tag/chancellors-diversity-initiative/
I would not be surprised if it came out of the spreading of cotton balls in front of the Black Culture Center. One of the features of white privilege (a word that seems to knot McKinney up, but I really don’t care because he’s made it clear that he doesn’t give a shit about what I think) is that there is an asymmetry in that lots of terms to demean and denigrate minorities and women, but it is really hard to think of terms to insult white people. Peckerwood, cracker and trailer trash only get there by implying a lack of education and social standing. Honky? Who was the last person to fly into a rage because they were called that? The other alternative is to identify some aspect of femininity and throw that at the white male, which underlines the privileged status of being a white male.
Of course, coming in and flinging poo is what monkeys do and we know that McKinney is far too fair skinned to ever do that.
bernard,
I can understand that reaction, but a surprising amount of time and thought is taken in trying to figure out what students in general and college students in particular should be taught. Moreover, this is not simply abstract question of what the content should be. How does one check whether students have ‘learned’ it, for various values of learned, how they are evaluated on it, how they prove they have learned it and how this information is organized and delivered all enters into this. The students know that it is easy to simply make a token hire (the adjective there carries a lot of resonance), give him or her a few classes and claim the problem is solved. Ideally, as a college administrator, you want to be ahead of this and work with students and faculty because when it gets to the point that it has reached, you really have serious problems.
Of course, if you reach the point where demands are being made, someone has to lose face, which seems to be what offends some folks, that a white college president is forced to back down by some black students, white standing is threatened. It’s domino thinking redux. If one group of minority students can force one white university president to step down, what’s stopping them from forcing all white uni presidents from stepping down. Thus, the incidents that led up to this have to be minimized or dismissed, preferably with references to how “they wouldn’t bother me, so I don’t see why they should be so upset”.
That the University realizes it has to do this, well before these incidents, can be seen at their
http://diversity.missouri.edu/
which looks like it has been around for at least half a decade
https://utownblog.wordpress.com/tag/chancellors-diversity-initiative/
I would not be surprised if it came out of the spreading of cotton balls in front of the Black Culture Center. One of the features of white privilege (a word that seems to knot McKinney up, but I really don’t care because he’s made it clear that he doesn’t give a shit about what I think) is that there is an asymmetry in that lots of terms to demean and denigrate minorities and women, but it is really hard to think of terms to insult white people. Peckerwood, cracker and trailer trash only get there by implying a lack of education and social standing. Honky? Who was the last person to fly into a rage because they were called that? The other alternative is to identify some aspect of femininity and throw that at the white male, which underlines the privileged status of being a white male.
Of course, coming in and flinging poo is what monkeys do and we know that McKinney is far too fair skinned to ever do that.
lj,
Mctex aside, U am curious why calling a white person honky is ok with you. It is a derogatory term isolated to white people, cracker is worse. And you diminish its impact by deciding its not very insulting. It’s ONLY insulting because it implies being uneducated, and southern, and racist. That’s a pretty bad trio.
It is all bs. You have cuddled children demanding their right to get their way, never be exposed to anything that can be interpreted as insulting while feeling free to call names and act out anyway they want. Give them all an f’ing trophy.
lj,
Mctex aside, U am curious why calling a white person honky is ok with you. It is a derogatory term isolated to white people, cracker is worse. And you diminish its impact by deciding its not very insulting. It’s ONLY insulting because it implies being uneducated, and southern, and racist. That’s a pretty bad trio.
It is all bs. You have cuddled children demanding their right to get their way, never be exposed to anything that can be interpreted as insulting while feeling free to call names and act out anyway they want. Give them all an f’ing trophy.
lj,
Mctex aside, U am curious why calling a white person honky is ok with you. It is a derogatory term isolated to white people, cracker is worse. And you diminish its impact by deciding its not very insulting. It’s ONLY insulting because it implies being uneducated, and southern, and racist. That’s a pretty bad trio.
It is all bs. You have cuddled children demanding their right to get their way, never be exposed to anything that can be interpreted as insulting while feeling free to call names and act out anyway they want. Give them all an f’ing trophy.
Honky? Who was the last person to fly into a rage because they were called that?
George Will?
Honky? Who was the last person to fly into a rage because they were called that?
George Will?
Honky? Who was the last person to fly into a rage because they were called that?
George Will?
It is all bs. You have cuddled children demanding their right to get their way, never be exposed to anything that can be interpreted as insulting while feeling free to call names and act out anyway they want. Give them all an f’ing trophy.
So you agree, it is kids being kids!
It is all bs. You have cuddled children demanding their right to get their way, never be exposed to anything that can be interpreted as insulting while feeling free to call names and act out anyway they want. Give them all an f’ing trophy.
So you agree, it is kids being kids!
It is all bs. You have cuddled children demanding their right to get their way, never be exposed to anything that can be interpreted as insulting while feeling free to call names and act out anyway they want. Give them all an f’ing trophy.
So you agree, it is kids being kids!
“It is all bs. You have cuddled children demanding their right to get their way, never be exposed to anything that can be interpreted as insulting while feeling free to call names and act out anyway they want. Give them all an f’ing trophy.”
I was wondering when someone was going to drag Tuesday night’s Republican debate into this.
Cuddle your children and coddle the eggs.
“It is all bs. You have cuddled children demanding their right to get their way, never be exposed to anything that can be interpreted as insulting while feeling free to call names and act out anyway they want. Give them all an f’ing trophy.”
I was wondering when someone was going to drag Tuesday night’s Republican debate into this.
Cuddle your children and coddle the eggs.
“It is all bs. You have cuddled children demanding their right to get their way, never be exposed to anything that can be interpreted as insulting while feeling free to call names and act out anyway they want. Give them all an f’ing trophy.”
I was wondering when someone was going to drag Tuesday night’s Republican debate into this.
Cuddle your children and coddle the eggs.
U am curious why calling a white person honky is ok with you
I didn’t say it was ok, I don’t see any white people losing their cool when they are called that with the exception of Woody Harrelson’s character in White Men Can’t Jump
Enforcer: Why didn’t you go through with the fix?
Harrelson: Guy said I couldn’t score. He called me a honky motherf**ker.
Enforcer: You are a honky motherf**ker.
Harrelson: But I can score!
At any rate, my discussion of names was linguistic (the word asymmetry was a tip off), not some proposal to fit everyone with earplugs. But I’m wouldn’t expect a ginger like you to understand :^)
U am curious why calling a white person honky is ok with you
I didn’t say it was ok, I don’t see any white people losing their cool when they are called that with the exception of Woody Harrelson’s character in White Men Can’t Jump
Enforcer: Why didn’t you go through with the fix?
Harrelson: Guy said I couldn’t score. He called me a honky motherf**ker.
Enforcer: You are a honky motherf**ker.
Harrelson: But I can score!
At any rate, my discussion of names was linguistic (the word asymmetry was a tip off), not some proposal to fit everyone with earplugs. But I’m wouldn’t expect a ginger like you to understand :^)
U am curious why calling a white person honky is ok with you
I didn’t say it was ok, I don’t see any white people losing their cool when they are called that with the exception of Woody Harrelson’s character in White Men Can’t Jump
Enforcer: Why didn’t you go through with the fix?
Harrelson: Guy said I couldn’t score. He called me a honky motherf**ker.
Enforcer: You are a honky motherf**ker.
Harrelson: But I can score!
At any rate, my discussion of names was linguistic (the word asymmetry was a tip off), not some proposal to fit everyone with earplugs. But I’m wouldn’t expect a ginger like you to understand :^)
Thank you for addressing this question civilly, respectfully, and specifically.
I should emphasize that I neither speak for anyone at the University of Missouri, nor do I know anything about their situation that I have not read in the press. I can therefore neither endorse these demands nor dispute with them. What I can do is apply what we know about he situation, what we cannot seriously dispute, to supply some boundaries for the discussion. That may not change your mind, but it may provide some context to what appears to look like an unreasonable set of demands to you.
I hear you. I’d ask you to consider that, if my memories of student life provide any guidance, front line staff have a huge role in shaping the actual experience of education. If techs on the help desk give condescending or incomplete answers when they hear a voice or a name they identify as African American on the phone, it makes a difference. If custodial staff aggressive roust African American students from study rooms, it makes a difference. I can’t say whether or not the answer to that is education, training, or something else, but I can say that bias can be expressed by the staff of a university in many ways, and it does create a problem.
Well, nobody has lived the receiving end of racism but “people of colour” (a very wide group, by the way).
This assumes that expression is an issue here. That seems to me to embody two assumptions: that every issue has two sides, and that everyone must be free at all times to express their “side”. If, conversely, we look at this as a matter of solving a problem, the problem being how a diverse group of people can coexist in a university, state and country scarred by racism, I don’t consider it utterly inappropriate to ask students and workers alike to sit and listen to the perspectives of people most hurt by this history.
Thank you for addressing this question civilly, respectfully, and specifically.
I should emphasize that I neither speak for anyone at the University of Missouri, nor do I know anything about their situation that I have not read in the press. I can therefore neither endorse these demands nor dispute with them. What I can do is apply what we know about he situation, what we cannot seriously dispute, to supply some boundaries for the discussion. That may not change your mind, but it may provide some context to what appears to look like an unreasonable set of demands to you.
I hear you. I’d ask you to consider that, if my memories of student life provide any guidance, front line staff have a huge role in shaping the actual experience of education. If techs on the help desk give condescending or incomplete answers when they hear a voice or a name they identify as African American on the phone, it makes a difference. If custodial staff aggressive roust African American students from study rooms, it makes a difference. I can’t say whether or not the answer to that is education, training, or something else, but I can say that bias can be expressed by the staff of a university in many ways, and it does create a problem.
Well, nobody has lived the receiving end of racism but “people of colour” (a very wide group, by the way).
This assumes that expression is an issue here. That seems to me to embody two assumptions: that every issue has two sides, and that everyone must be free at all times to express their “side”. If, conversely, we look at this as a matter of solving a problem, the problem being how a diverse group of people can coexist in a university, state and country scarred by racism, I don’t consider it utterly inappropriate to ask students and workers alike to sit and listen to the perspectives of people most hurt by this history.
Thank you for addressing this question civilly, respectfully, and specifically.
I should emphasize that I neither speak for anyone at the University of Missouri, nor do I know anything about their situation that I have not read in the press. I can therefore neither endorse these demands nor dispute with them. What I can do is apply what we know about he situation, what we cannot seriously dispute, to supply some boundaries for the discussion. That may not change your mind, but it may provide some context to what appears to look like an unreasonable set of demands to you.
I hear you. I’d ask you to consider that, if my memories of student life provide any guidance, front line staff have a huge role in shaping the actual experience of education. If techs on the help desk give condescending or incomplete answers when they hear a voice or a name they identify as African American on the phone, it makes a difference. If custodial staff aggressive roust African American students from study rooms, it makes a difference. I can’t say whether or not the answer to that is education, training, or something else, but I can say that bias can be expressed by the staff of a university in many ways, and it does create a problem.
Well, nobody has lived the receiving end of racism but “people of colour” (a very wide group, by the way).
This assumes that expression is an issue here. That seems to me to embody two assumptions: that every issue has two sides, and that everyone must be free at all times to express their “side”. If, conversely, we look at this as a matter of solving a problem, the problem being how a diverse group of people can coexist in a university, state and country scarred by racism, I don’t consider it utterly inappropriate to ask students and workers alike to sit and listen to the perspectives of people most hurt by this history.
there’s no shortage of people on the “this is PC whining” side of this issue who will say that all the data is fake or incorrect or otherwise dismissable. and you can find people who insist that there is no (or vanishingly little) institutional racism left in America. and some will say that it’s all a bunch of whiners trying to grab attention and benefits that they don’t deserve. and some will say that it’s all a leftist conspiracy.
you can (or could) find some of each right here in these comments.
there’s no shortage of people on the “this is PC whining” side of this issue who will say that all the data is fake or incorrect or otherwise dismissable. and you can find people who insist that there is no (or vanishingly little) institutional racism left in America. and some will say that it’s all a bunch of whiners trying to grab attention and benefits that they don’t deserve. and some will say that it’s all a leftist conspiracy.
you can (or could) find some of each right here in these comments.
there’s no shortage of people on the “this is PC whining” side of this issue who will say that all the data is fake or incorrect or otherwise dismissable. and you can find people who insist that there is no (or vanishingly little) institutional racism left in America. and some will say that it’s all a bunch of whiners trying to grab attention and benefits that they don’t deserve. and some will say that it’s all a leftist conspiracy.
you can (or could) find some of each right here in these comments.
Regarding costumes, protests, etc – I think this is worth a read:
http://blogs.swarthmore.edu/burke/blog/2015/11/09/all-saints-day/
Regarding costumes, protests, etc – I think this is worth a read:
http://blogs.swarthmore.edu/burke/blog/2015/11/09/all-saints-day/
Regarding costumes, protests, etc – I think this is worth a read:
http://blogs.swarthmore.edu/burke/blog/2015/11/09/all-saints-day/
“So you agree, it is kids being kids!”
yes, and adults being kids
“So you agree, it is kids being kids!”
yes, and adults being kids
“So you agree, it is kids being kids!”
yes, and adults being kids
…so business as usual for America, then.
…so business as usual for America, then.
…so business as usual for America, then.
there’s no shortage of people on the “this is PC whining” side of this issue who will say that all the data is fake or incorrect or otherwise dismissable.
Take the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for example.
there’s no shortage of people on the “this is PC whining” side of this issue who will say that all the data is fake or incorrect or otherwise dismissable.
Take the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for example.
there’s no shortage of people on the “this is PC whining” side of this issue who will say that all the data is fake or incorrect or otherwise dismissable.
Take the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for example.
You have cuddled children demanding their right to get their way, never be exposed to anything that can be interpreted as insulting while feeling free to call names and act out anyway they want.
If I call somebody in my office nigger, faggot, bitch, peckerwood, or anything like any of those names, my @ss will be in my manager’s office in about five minutes, and I will likely be looking for a new job.
What’s coddled about that?
If some jerk wants to hang out in his dorm room with his friends and call people bad names, whatever.
If the same jerk wants to publicly address other folks on a college campus using the same language, or wants to express him or herself by distributing cotton balls in front of a place frequented by black students, or by hanging a noose, or by drawing swastikas on public walls whether with his or her own excrement or not, it’s beyond me why everybody else on the campus needs to put up with it.
College campuses are public places. It is, actually, a privilege rather than a right to attend college.
I have no problem holding people at schools – especially publicly funded schools – to the same minimal standard of basic human decency as I am held to at my place of work.
It is beyond me why that should be even remotely controversial.
You can’t walk around addressing people in public places using obviously and intentionally insulting and derogatory names. Because it’s f**king rude, and people shouldn’t have to put up with it as part of their participation in public contexts like jobs and schools.
IMO Missouri U is being held to a very low bar by being asked to have awareness and inclusivity classes.
IMO the appropriate response to behavior like that is an invitation to collect your things and go home, and you forfeit whatever tuition and board you’ve paid to date.
Refusing to be called a nigger in public is not being “coddled”.
WTF is wrong with people.
You have cuddled children demanding their right to get their way, never be exposed to anything that can be interpreted as insulting while feeling free to call names and act out anyway they want.
If I call somebody in my office nigger, faggot, bitch, peckerwood, or anything like any of those names, my @ss will be in my manager’s office in about five minutes, and I will likely be looking for a new job.
What’s coddled about that?
If some jerk wants to hang out in his dorm room with his friends and call people bad names, whatever.
If the same jerk wants to publicly address other folks on a college campus using the same language, or wants to express him or herself by distributing cotton balls in front of a place frequented by black students, or by hanging a noose, or by drawing swastikas on public walls whether with his or her own excrement or not, it’s beyond me why everybody else on the campus needs to put up with it.
College campuses are public places. It is, actually, a privilege rather than a right to attend college.
I have no problem holding people at schools – especially publicly funded schools – to the same minimal standard of basic human decency as I am held to at my place of work.
It is beyond me why that should be even remotely controversial.
You can’t walk around addressing people in public places using obviously and intentionally insulting and derogatory names. Because it’s f**king rude, and people shouldn’t have to put up with it as part of their participation in public contexts like jobs and schools.
IMO Missouri U is being held to a very low bar by being asked to have awareness and inclusivity classes.
IMO the appropriate response to behavior like that is an invitation to collect your things and go home, and you forfeit whatever tuition and board you’ve paid to date.
Refusing to be called a nigger in public is not being “coddled”.
WTF is wrong with people.
You have cuddled children demanding their right to get their way, never be exposed to anything that can be interpreted as insulting while feeling free to call names and act out anyway they want.
If I call somebody in my office nigger, faggot, bitch, peckerwood, or anything like any of those names, my @ss will be in my manager’s office in about five minutes, and I will likely be looking for a new job.
What’s coddled about that?
If some jerk wants to hang out in his dorm room with his friends and call people bad names, whatever.
If the same jerk wants to publicly address other folks on a college campus using the same language, or wants to express him or herself by distributing cotton balls in front of a place frequented by black students, or by hanging a noose, or by drawing swastikas on public walls whether with his or her own excrement or not, it’s beyond me why everybody else on the campus needs to put up with it.
College campuses are public places. It is, actually, a privilege rather than a right to attend college.
I have no problem holding people at schools – especially publicly funded schools – to the same minimal standard of basic human decency as I am held to at my place of work.
It is beyond me why that should be even remotely controversial.
You can’t walk around addressing people in public places using obviously and intentionally insulting and derogatory names. Because it’s f**king rude, and people shouldn’t have to put up with it as part of their participation in public contexts like jobs and schools.
IMO Missouri U is being held to a very low bar by being asked to have awareness and inclusivity classes.
IMO the appropriate response to behavior like that is an invitation to collect your things and go home, and you forfeit whatever tuition and board you’ve paid to date.
Refusing to be called a nigger in public is not being “coddled”.
WTF is wrong with people.
if liberals think it’s a good idea, it must be a bad idea.
if liberals think it’s a good idea, it must be a bad idea.
if liberals think it’s a good idea, it must be a bad idea.
“You can’t walk around addressing people in public places using obviously and intentionally insulting and derogatory names. Because it’s f**king rude, and people shouldn’t have to put up with it as part of their participation in public contexts like jobs and schools”
I agree with this. Then not with making several tens of thousands of people go to a class most of them don’t need.
“You can’t walk around addressing people in public places using obviously and intentionally insulting and derogatory names. Because it’s f**king rude, and people shouldn’t have to put up with it as part of their participation in public contexts like jobs and schools”
I agree with this. Then not with making several tens of thousands of people go to a class most of them don’t need.
“You can’t walk around addressing people in public places using obviously and intentionally insulting and derogatory names. Because it’s f**king rude, and people shouldn’t have to put up with it as part of their participation in public contexts like jobs and schools”
I agree with this. Then not with making several tens of thousands of people go to a class most of them don’t need.
I’d like to second Yama’s 09:57 AM link as being worth reading. The phrase “politically correct”
I’d like to second Yama’s 09:57 AM link as being worth reading. The phrase “politically correct”
I’d like to second Yama’s 09:57 AM link as being worth reading. The phrase “politically correct”
The consensus I’ve found after talking to folks about this is that it’s less about “educating” or “consciousness-raising” than a shield for management to use against legal liability for the company in the event of litigation about workplace conditions.
Priest, that’s exactly what it is. Box-checking, so they can say “we have a program in place to address that.” In short, “We are not ignoring the problem” — even though the only problem they are addressing is perception that they don’t care.
Whether it is a program which is of the slightest use is utterly beside the point. And, that being the case, why bother to put any effort into trying to create something worthwhile?
The consensus I’ve found after talking to folks about this is that it’s less about “educating” or “consciousness-raising” than a shield for management to use against legal liability for the company in the event of litigation about workplace conditions.
Priest, that’s exactly what it is. Box-checking, so they can say “we have a program in place to address that.” In short, “We are not ignoring the problem” — even though the only problem they are addressing is perception that they don’t care.
Whether it is a program which is of the slightest use is utterly beside the point. And, that being the case, why bother to put any effort into trying to create something worthwhile?
The consensus I’ve found after talking to folks about this is that it’s less about “educating” or “consciousness-raising” than a shield for management to use against legal liability for the company in the event of litigation about workplace conditions.
Priest, that’s exactly what it is. Box-checking, so they can say “we have a program in place to address that.” In short, “We are not ignoring the problem” — even though the only problem they are addressing is perception that they don’t care.
Whether it is a program which is of the slightest use is utterly beside the point. And, that being the case, why bother to put any effort into trying to create something worthwhile?
oops! Let’s take it right from where I left off before accidentally hitting “post.”
only comes up once and within quotation marks. But I think it speaks to the concerns of those who worry about or decry “political correctness” in a way that most of us here can at least appreciate if not fully agree with. The reason being that it discusses ideas in detail that are probably, at least in part, underlying what those who use “PC” are talking about, even if “PC” gets used too often and too loosely as a sort of all-purpose refutation, often in the absence of a supporting argument.
oops! Let’s take it right from where I left off before accidentally hitting “post.”
only comes up once and within quotation marks. But I think it speaks to the concerns of those who worry about or decry “political correctness” in a way that most of us here can at least appreciate if not fully agree with. The reason being that it discusses ideas in detail that are probably, at least in part, underlying what those who use “PC” are talking about, even if “PC” gets used too often and too loosely as a sort of all-purpose refutation, often in the absence of a supporting argument.
oops! Let’s take it right from where I left off before accidentally hitting “post.”
only comes up once and within quotation marks. But I think it speaks to the concerns of those who worry about or decry “political correctness” in a way that most of us here can at least appreciate if not fully agree with. The reason being that it discusses ideas in detail that are probably, at least in part, underlying what those who use “PC” are talking about, even if “PC” gets used too often and too loosely as a sort of all-purpose refutation, often in the absence of a supporting argument.
I totally fail to understand why Marty is so worked up by the thought of “making tens of thousands of people go to a class” that he admits only “most” of them don’t need.
If he’s figuring the “demand” is for a three-hour class that meets 3 times a week for 16 weeks, then, yes, that’s excessive.
But more than one person here has weighed in that they have to take these types of classes as a condition of employment. My company requires me personally to complete three online classes each year for diversity awareness and anti-harassment (one of those is “for managers”, so my developers only have to take two courses).
Of course, this is required because I work for a company that’s been around for a very long time in an industry with a history of racist and sexist actions. The company gets special attention from the EEOC as a result of years of having earned that attention. So these classes are completely a CYA move by legal and HR, in the interests of avoiding more expensive EEOC interactions.
But if the accountants and janitors working for my company can be required as a condition of continuing employment to sit through diversity and anti-harassment training on an annual basis, why is it beyond the pale to expect the same for accountants and janitors working for a major university?
I totally fail to understand why Marty is so worked up by the thought of “making tens of thousands of people go to a class” that he admits only “most” of them don’t need.
If he’s figuring the “demand” is for a three-hour class that meets 3 times a week for 16 weeks, then, yes, that’s excessive.
But more than one person here has weighed in that they have to take these types of classes as a condition of employment. My company requires me personally to complete three online classes each year for diversity awareness and anti-harassment (one of those is “for managers”, so my developers only have to take two courses).
Of course, this is required because I work for a company that’s been around for a very long time in an industry with a history of racist and sexist actions. The company gets special attention from the EEOC as a result of years of having earned that attention. So these classes are completely a CYA move by legal and HR, in the interests of avoiding more expensive EEOC interactions.
But if the accountants and janitors working for my company can be required as a condition of continuing employment to sit through diversity and anti-harassment training on an annual basis, why is it beyond the pale to expect the same for accountants and janitors working for a major university?
I totally fail to understand why Marty is so worked up by the thought of “making tens of thousands of people go to a class” that he admits only “most” of them don’t need.
If he’s figuring the “demand” is for a three-hour class that meets 3 times a week for 16 weeks, then, yes, that’s excessive.
But more than one person here has weighed in that they have to take these types of classes as a condition of employment. My company requires me personally to complete three online classes each year for diversity awareness and anti-harassment (one of those is “for managers”, so my developers only have to take two courses).
Of course, this is required because I work for a company that’s been around for a very long time in an industry with a history of racist and sexist actions. The company gets special attention from the EEOC as a result of years of having earned that attention. So these classes are completely a CYA move by legal and HR, in the interests of avoiding more expensive EEOC interactions.
But if the accountants and janitors working for my company can be required as a condition of continuing employment to sit through diversity and anti-harassment training on an annual basis, why is it beyond the pale to expect the same for accountants and janitors working for a major university?
I just had to go through 2 hours of mandatory diversity training on Monday. We do it every other year, so it amounts, on average, to an hour a year. They say explicitly in the class that they’d rather make everyone aware of and reinforce what is not acceptable behavior before someone does something wrong, even if (or maybe particularly) out of pure ignorance. It’s preferable for such things not to happen at all than to have to follow established procedures for dealing with them when they do.
I just had to go through 2 hours of mandatory diversity training on Monday. We do it every other year, so it amounts, on average, to an hour a year. They say explicitly in the class that they’d rather make everyone aware of and reinforce what is not acceptable behavior before someone does something wrong, even if (or maybe particularly) out of pure ignorance. It’s preferable for such things not to happen at all than to have to follow established procedures for dealing with them when they do.
I just had to go through 2 hours of mandatory diversity training on Monday. We do it every other year, so it amounts, on average, to an hour a year. They say explicitly in the class that they’d rather make everyone aware of and reinforce what is not acceptable behavior before someone does something wrong, even if (or maybe particularly) out of pure ignorance. It’s preferable for such things not to happen at all than to have to follow established procedures for dealing with them when they do.
nobody has lived the receiving end of racism but “people of colour” (a very wide group, by the way).
That may be true in the US. But I would bet that LJ can give eexamples from Japan where it was applied to whites there.
It seems to happen whenever a dominant group wants to express its dominance. Or when if feels like that dominance might be threatened. And while “group” can be defined by race (i.e. “racism”), it can equally well be defined by gender, or language, or national origin, or anything else. (See, for example, the reactions to the women’s sufferage movement a century or more ago.)
nobody has lived the receiving end of racism but “people of colour” (a very wide group, by the way).
That may be true in the US. But I would bet that LJ can give eexamples from Japan where it was applied to whites there.
It seems to happen whenever a dominant group wants to express its dominance. Or when if feels like that dominance might be threatened. And while “group” can be defined by race (i.e. “racism”), it can equally well be defined by gender, or language, or national origin, or anything else. (See, for example, the reactions to the women’s sufferage movement a century or more ago.)
nobody has lived the receiving end of racism but “people of colour” (a very wide group, by the way).
That may be true in the US. But I would bet that LJ can give eexamples from Japan where it was applied to whites there.
It seems to happen whenever a dominant group wants to express its dominance. Or when if feels like that dominance might be threatened. And while “group” can be defined by race (i.e. “racism”), it can equally well be defined by gender, or language, or national origin, or anything else. (See, for example, the reactions to the women’s sufferage movement a century or more ago.)
I’ve been holding off on comments because at this point I would just be repeating much of what others have written, but I’d like to put an explanation point on Russell’s 11:03am.
Personally, awareness and inclusivity classes give me the creeps (this has to do with the vague, guazy nature of the language of the social sciences — more later maybe. Example, we must teach the “whole child”. What does that mean and how can it be enforced? What happens to the teacher who only taught 77% of the child? And who is measuring? Etc). And I wonder about the effectiveness of such classes.
But it occurred to me the other day that racial and gender insults and these other behaviors students are up in arms about would not be tolerated in any professional place of business.
I would hope.
Or maybe women, for example, should get over it if a guy slaps them on the behind as they leave the company board meeting. What harm has been done exactly? Is that an insult? You see what I mean?
You’d be written up and/or out on your ear. Talk about Maoist reeducation.
In that light, as Russell pointed out, a class on how to tame your behavior to avoid politically incorrect behavior doesn’t seem too bad.
Universities have student handbooks and codes of behavior just like any institution, including the armed forces. State clearly in them what standards are expected and take action, including dismissal, if the rules are violated.
But in addition to that, here’s my idea of and awareness class regarding racial and gender intimidation: Cut this crap out now or your butts will be out if here. And if that doesn’t do it for you, you and I can go outside to the quad and settle it with me kicking your ass.
OK, look, as others have pointed out, there are vast gray areas that would have to be addressed by more subtle methods.
I also concede that college campuses are kind of rarified atmospheres in which kids/young adults age are free to get their freak on, including hypersensitivity, over-reaction, and finely-honed expressions of earnestness regarding issues (I remember every moment of taking over college buildings after Nixon invaded Cambodia; Kent State was right up the road) and I can tell you that there were self-important jerks and a&sholes among the demonstrators, the townies who wanted a piece of us, and the college and town authorities.
But, except for tragedies like Kent State, all of us got over it. Heck, I know SOME of the so-called “radicals” I hunkered down with during the “days of rage” have grown up to be successful attorneys and doctors who vote Republican and whine about their taxes hypersupersensitively.
Listen, instead of being involved in the demonstrations, I could have been up on frat hill being civilized with the straighter business majors as they drank enough alcohol to poison a horse, piled frat furniture out front, and lit the Saturday night bonfire.
Talk about coddled. It was handled by college admin and the town cops stayed out of it, by tacit agreement.
Of course, fires INSIDE the frats were different stories, because the college didn’t have its own fire department.
I’ve been holding off on comments because at this point I would just be repeating much of what others have written, but I’d like to put an explanation point on Russell’s 11:03am.
Personally, awareness and inclusivity classes give me the creeps (this has to do with the vague, guazy nature of the language of the social sciences — more later maybe. Example, we must teach the “whole child”. What does that mean and how can it be enforced? What happens to the teacher who only taught 77% of the child? And who is measuring? Etc). And I wonder about the effectiveness of such classes.
But it occurred to me the other day that racial and gender insults and these other behaviors students are up in arms about would not be tolerated in any professional place of business.
I would hope.
Or maybe women, for example, should get over it if a guy slaps them on the behind as they leave the company board meeting. What harm has been done exactly? Is that an insult? You see what I mean?
You’d be written up and/or out on your ear. Talk about Maoist reeducation.
In that light, as Russell pointed out, a class on how to tame your behavior to avoid politically incorrect behavior doesn’t seem too bad.
Universities have student handbooks and codes of behavior just like any institution, including the armed forces. State clearly in them what standards are expected and take action, including dismissal, if the rules are violated.
But in addition to that, here’s my idea of and awareness class regarding racial and gender intimidation: Cut this crap out now or your butts will be out if here. And if that doesn’t do it for you, you and I can go outside to the quad and settle it with me kicking your ass.
OK, look, as others have pointed out, there are vast gray areas that would have to be addressed by more subtle methods.
I also concede that college campuses are kind of rarified atmospheres in which kids/young adults age are free to get their freak on, including hypersensitivity, over-reaction, and finely-honed expressions of earnestness regarding issues (I remember every moment of taking over college buildings after Nixon invaded Cambodia; Kent State was right up the road) and I can tell you that there were self-important jerks and a&sholes among the demonstrators, the townies who wanted a piece of us, and the college and town authorities.
But, except for tragedies like Kent State, all of us got over it. Heck, I know SOME of the so-called “radicals” I hunkered down with during the “days of rage” have grown up to be successful attorneys and doctors who vote Republican and whine about their taxes hypersupersensitively.
Listen, instead of being involved in the demonstrations, I could have been up on frat hill being civilized with the straighter business majors as they drank enough alcohol to poison a horse, piled frat furniture out front, and lit the Saturday night bonfire.
Talk about coddled. It was handled by college admin and the town cops stayed out of it, by tacit agreement.
Of course, fires INSIDE the frats were different stories, because the college didn’t have its own fire department.
I’ve been holding off on comments because at this point I would just be repeating much of what others have written, but I’d like to put an explanation point on Russell’s 11:03am.
Personally, awareness and inclusivity classes give me the creeps (this has to do with the vague, guazy nature of the language of the social sciences — more later maybe. Example, we must teach the “whole child”. What does that mean and how can it be enforced? What happens to the teacher who only taught 77% of the child? And who is measuring? Etc). And I wonder about the effectiveness of such classes.
But it occurred to me the other day that racial and gender insults and these other behaviors students are up in arms about would not be tolerated in any professional place of business.
I would hope.
Or maybe women, for example, should get over it if a guy slaps them on the behind as they leave the company board meeting. What harm has been done exactly? Is that an insult? You see what I mean?
You’d be written up and/or out on your ear. Talk about Maoist reeducation.
In that light, as Russell pointed out, a class on how to tame your behavior to avoid politically incorrect behavior doesn’t seem too bad.
Universities have student handbooks and codes of behavior just like any institution, including the armed forces. State clearly in them what standards are expected and take action, including dismissal, if the rules are violated.
But in addition to that, here’s my idea of and awareness class regarding racial and gender intimidation: Cut this crap out now or your butts will be out if here. And if that doesn’t do it for you, you and I can go outside to the quad and settle it with me kicking your ass.
OK, look, as others have pointed out, there are vast gray areas that would have to be addressed by more subtle methods.
I also concede that college campuses are kind of rarified atmospheres in which kids/young adults age are free to get their freak on, including hypersensitivity, over-reaction, and finely-honed expressions of earnestness regarding issues (I remember every moment of taking over college buildings after Nixon invaded Cambodia; Kent State was right up the road) and I can tell you that there were self-important jerks and a&sholes among the demonstrators, the townies who wanted a piece of us, and the college and town authorities.
But, except for tragedies like Kent State, all of us got over it. Heck, I know SOME of the so-called “radicals” I hunkered down with during the “days of rage” have grown up to be successful attorneys and doctors who vote Republican and whine about their taxes hypersupersensitively.
Listen, instead of being involved in the demonstrations, I could have been up on frat hill being civilized with the straighter business majors as they drank enough alcohol to poison a horse, piled frat furniture out front, and lit the Saturday night bonfire.
Talk about coddled. It was handled by college admin and the town cops stayed out of it, by tacit agreement.
Of course, fires INSIDE the frats were different stories, because the college didn’t have its own fire department.
For the record, I spent two hours yesterday going to a university mandated class that I did not need (data security). I’ve done the same for student privacy, sexual harassment awareness, grant ethics, institutional research, and workplace ergonomics. It’s all, as Priest said upthread, an inoculation schedule to ward off a class (in)action suit.
No one outside of academia has been up in arms about any of the above classes (except, perhaps, the sexual harassment awareness, and that grouping is instructive). What’s one more? The diversity training is probably more useful than several of the others.
Which is not to say that I think the university will or should acquiesce to that demand. I just don’t see why that demand is any more beyond the pale than the ones that created these other mandates.
For the record, I spent two hours yesterday going to a university mandated class that I did not need (data security). I’ve done the same for student privacy, sexual harassment awareness, grant ethics, institutional research, and workplace ergonomics. It’s all, as Priest said upthread, an inoculation schedule to ward off a class (in)action suit.
No one outside of academia has been up in arms about any of the above classes (except, perhaps, the sexual harassment awareness, and that grouping is instructive). What’s one more? The diversity training is probably more useful than several of the others.
Which is not to say that I think the university will or should acquiesce to that demand. I just don’t see why that demand is any more beyond the pale than the ones that created these other mandates.
For the record, I spent two hours yesterday going to a university mandated class that I did not need (data security). I’ve done the same for student privacy, sexual harassment awareness, grant ethics, institutional research, and workplace ergonomics. It’s all, as Priest said upthread, an inoculation schedule to ward off a class (in)action suit.
No one outside of academia has been up in arms about any of the above classes (except, perhaps, the sexual harassment awareness, and that grouping is instructive). What’s one more? The diversity training is probably more useful than several of the others.
Which is not to say that I think the university will or should acquiesce to that demand. I just don’t see why that demand is any more beyond the pale than the ones that created these other mandates.
if the accountants and janitors working for my company can be required as a condition of continuing employment to sit through diversity and anti-harassment training on an annual basis, why is it beyond the pale to expect the same for accountants and janitors working for a major university?
Um, because (as everybody knows) they are public employees. And the LIBERALS insist on special privledges for public employees, so they shouldn’t have to go.
Oh wait….
if the accountants and janitors working for my company can be required as a condition of continuing employment to sit through diversity and anti-harassment training on an annual basis, why is it beyond the pale to expect the same for accountants and janitors working for a major university?
Um, because (as everybody knows) they are public employees. And the LIBERALS insist on special privledges for public employees, so they shouldn’t have to go.
Oh wait….
if the accountants and janitors working for my company can be required as a condition of continuing employment to sit through diversity and anti-harassment training on an annual basis, why is it beyond the pale to expect the same for accountants and janitors working for a major university?
Um, because (as everybody knows) they are public employees. And the LIBERALS insist on special privledges for public employees, so they shouldn’t have to go.
Oh wait….
Perhaps the short answer is that reasonable people can disagree on the usefulness of (mandatory) diversity classes. The people who are most likely wrong are the ones who are sure it’s the Worst Thing EVAR or The Best Thing EVAR.
Perhaps the short answer is that reasonable people can disagree on the usefulness of (mandatory) diversity classes. The people who are most likely wrong are the ones who are sure it’s the Worst Thing EVAR or The Best Thing EVAR.
Perhaps the short answer is that reasonable people can disagree on the usefulness of (mandatory) diversity classes. The people who are most likely wrong are the ones who are sure it’s the Worst Thing EVAR or The Best Thing EVAR.
For the record, I spent two hours yesterday going to a university mandated class that I did not need (data security). I’ve done the same for student privacy, sexual harassment awareness, grant ethics, institutional research, and workplace ergonomics.
i did a data security class last week. well, it was an online class and they’ve put timers between the pages so that we can’t just clicklicklickDONE and get back to work. now, if you try that it tells you to take some time to learn what’s on the page. borrrring.
and i did a sexual harassment course in the spring. and there have been diversity courses and company secrets courses and others that i can’t remember. multiple times.
sure it’s legal CYA. and, it’s mostly just basic, everyday, common sense. but, as inconvenient and somewhat insulting as it may feel to have to read the silly little scenarios about Bob and Alice and their office flirtations, having my employer tell me that i should pay a bit of attention to this stuff does sink in after a few times through. i’m not on high alert or anything, but it really does raise my awareness just a little.
For the record, I spent two hours yesterday going to a university mandated class that I did not need (data security). I’ve done the same for student privacy, sexual harassment awareness, grant ethics, institutional research, and workplace ergonomics.
i did a data security class last week. well, it was an online class and they’ve put timers between the pages so that we can’t just clicklicklickDONE and get back to work. now, if you try that it tells you to take some time to learn what’s on the page. borrrring.
and i did a sexual harassment course in the spring. and there have been diversity courses and company secrets courses and others that i can’t remember. multiple times.
sure it’s legal CYA. and, it’s mostly just basic, everyday, common sense. but, as inconvenient and somewhat insulting as it may feel to have to read the silly little scenarios about Bob and Alice and their office flirtations, having my employer tell me that i should pay a bit of attention to this stuff does sink in after a few times through. i’m not on high alert or anything, but it really does raise my awareness just a little.
For the record, I spent two hours yesterday going to a university mandated class that I did not need (data security). I’ve done the same for student privacy, sexual harassment awareness, grant ethics, institutional research, and workplace ergonomics.
i did a data security class last week. well, it was an online class and they’ve put timers between the pages so that we can’t just clicklicklickDONE and get back to work. now, if you try that it tells you to take some time to learn what’s on the page. borrrring.
and i did a sexual harassment course in the spring. and there have been diversity courses and company secrets courses and others that i can’t remember. multiple times.
sure it’s legal CYA. and, it’s mostly just basic, everyday, common sense. but, as inconvenient and somewhat insulting as it may feel to have to read the silly little scenarios about Bob and Alice and their office flirtations, having my employer tell me that i should pay a bit of attention to this stuff does sink in after a few times through. i’m not on high alert or anything, but it really does raise my awareness just a little.
Couple of other opinions:
I was going to post the link “yama” provided. I thought Christakis at Yale was a brave man offering himself up alone for discussion with a big crowd of people regarding their objections to his wife’s email.
And I don’t think they should lose their jobs.
I thought the university memo advising some caution about the choice of costumes was reasonable and I thought Erika Christakis’ email rejoinder was equally reasonable.
(I also was glad to see the Mizzou Communication Dept person, Ms. Click, relieved of her duties in that department for communicating her desire to call in the muscle on a journalist, an Asian American no less, and for killing the last vestige of irony.)
However, I’d have to see what costumes we’re talking about. If white kids are showing up dressed as “pickaninnies” carrying watermelons, then at the very least they need a dope slap from the nearest black kid and a kick in the pants from the University kick on the pants sensitivity ombudsman.
On the other hand, if the kids want to get really exercised, why don’t they look into William F. Buckley’s continued influence on campus as a Yale alum, given his standing athwart history for so many years and leading the charge against integration and Civil Rights.
Further, universities swim in the same waters all of us do. So, blacks and other minorities on campus, besides the local depredations, have had to listen to goddamed Presidential candidates and elected reps find ever new and creative ways of wedging Lee Atwater’s “N” word into the national political rhetoric.
They listen to Trump.
They watched Obama get harassed by Tea Party types carrying signs of him looking like an African witch doctor.
They use Twitter. They see too often the expression of racial animus and humiliation by certain types, and not just the “peckerwoods”. Usually a State republican rep or some other well-placed individual.
They watch unarmed blacks shot dead routinely by law enforcement on the TV.
So, yeah, they are a little jumpy.
And, natch, now at Mizzou, now they have to put up with threats of violence by idiots.
And these aren’t liberal idiots, do ya think?
MCTX and I agreed the other day that weapons on campus are a stupid idea. Doubly so as we watch tempers flare.
And the coup de grace, to my mind, is these students now watch Ben Carson look down his nose and lecture them and all of us on “political correctness”, whatever that is.
Here’s his latest grifting outrage:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/ben-carson-business-partner-felony-fraud
Good role model, don’t ya think? And he whines that he’s not being “coddled” by the media.
As he’s being judged as an individual, who says one thing, usually of an oddly false nature, and yet does another in his life.
By the way, the crooked dentist who steals from his patients and the government, which Carson has pivoted from thinking types like him should be dealt with in the “Saudi Arabian manner” to testifying there ain’t nothing to see here, lives about a mile from my mother in Pittsburgh.
We haven’t seen Carson depicted as a witch doctor, have we, though I’m pretty sure a Trump operative or two has suggested it.
Do you know why? I know why.
Because liberals are politically correct (except for me), whatever that is, and everyone ought to get down on their knees and thank us for that.
Couple of other opinions:
I was going to post the link “yama” provided. I thought Christakis at Yale was a brave man offering himself up alone for discussion with a big crowd of people regarding their objections to his wife’s email.
And I don’t think they should lose their jobs.
I thought the university memo advising some caution about the choice of costumes was reasonable and I thought Erika Christakis’ email rejoinder was equally reasonable.
(I also was glad to see the Mizzou Communication Dept person, Ms. Click, relieved of her duties in that department for communicating her desire to call in the muscle on a journalist, an Asian American no less, and for killing the last vestige of irony.)
However, I’d have to see what costumes we’re talking about. If white kids are showing up dressed as “pickaninnies” carrying watermelons, then at the very least they need a dope slap from the nearest black kid and a kick in the pants from the University kick on the pants sensitivity ombudsman.
On the other hand, if the kids want to get really exercised, why don’t they look into William F. Buckley’s continued influence on campus as a Yale alum, given his standing athwart history for so many years and leading the charge against integration and Civil Rights.
Further, universities swim in the same waters all of us do. So, blacks and other minorities on campus, besides the local depredations, have had to listen to goddamed Presidential candidates and elected reps find ever new and creative ways of wedging Lee Atwater’s “N” word into the national political rhetoric.
They listen to Trump.
They watched Obama get harassed by Tea Party types carrying signs of him looking like an African witch doctor.
They use Twitter. They see too often the expression of racial animus and humiliation by certain types, and not just the “peckerwoods”. Usually a State republican rep or some other well-placed individual.
They watch unarmed blacks shot dead routinely by law enforcement on the TV.
So, yeah, they are a little jumpy.
And, natch, now at Mizzou, now they have to put up with threats of violence by idiots.
And these aren’t liberal idiots, do ya think?
MCTX and I agreed the other day that weapons on campus are a stupid idea. Doubly so as we watch tempers flare.
And the coup de grace, to my mind, is these students now watch Ben Carson look down his nose and lecture them and all of us on “political correctness”, whatever that is.
Here’s his latest grifting outrage:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/ben-carson-business-partner-felony-fraud
Good role model, don’t ya think? And he whines that he’s not being “coddled” by the media.
As he’s being judged as an individual, who says one thing, usually of an oddly false nature, and yet does another in his life.
By the way, the crooked dentist who steals from his patients and the government, which Carson has pivoted from thinking types like him should be dealt with in the “Saudi Arabian manner” to testifying there ain’t nothing to see here, lives about a mile from my mother in Pittsburgh.
We haven’t seen Carson depicted as a witch doctor, have we, though I’m pretty sure a Trump operative or two has suggested it.
Do you know why? I know why.
Because liberals are politically correct (except for me), whatever that is, and everyone ought to get down on their knees and thank us for that.
Couple of other opinions:
I was going to post the link “yama” provided. I thought Christakis at Yale was a brave man offering himself up alone for discussion with a big crowd of people regarding their objections to his wife’s email.
And I don’t think they should lose their jobs.
I thought the university memo advising some caution about the choice of costumes was reasonable and I thought Erika Christakis’ email rejoinder was equally reasonable.
(I also was glad to see the Mizzou Communication Dept person, Ms. Click, relieved of her duties in that department for communicating her desire to call in the muscle on a journalist, an Asian American no less, and for killing the last vestige of irony.)
However, I’d have to see what costumes we’re talking about. If white kids are showing up dressed as “pickaninnies” carrying watermelons, then at the very least they need a dope slap from the nearest black kid and a kick in the pants from the University kick on the pants sensitivity ombudsman.
On the other hand, if the kids want to get really exercised, why don’t they look into William F. Buckley’s continued influence on campus as a Yale alum, given his standing athwart history for so many years and leading the charge against integration and Civil Rights.
Further, universities swim in the same waters all of us do. So, blacks and other minorities on campus, besides the local depredations, have had to listen to goddamed Presidential candidates and elected reps find ever new and creative ways of wedging Lee Atwater’s “N” word into the national political rhetoric.
They listen to Trump.
They watched Obama get harassed by Tea Party types carrying signs of him looking like an African witch doctor.
They use Twitter. They see too often the expression of racial animus and humiliation by certain types, and not just the “peckerwoods”. Usually a State republican rep or some other well-placed individual.
They watch unarmed blacks shot dead routinely by law enforcement on the TV.
So, yeah, they are a little jumpy.
And, natch, now at Mizzou, now they have to put up with threats of violence by idiots.
And these aren’t liberal idiots, do ya think?
MCTX and I agreed the other day that weapons on campus are a stupid idea. Doubly so as we watch tempers flare.
And the coup de grace, to my mind, is these students now watch Ben Carson look down his nose and lecture them and all of us on “political correctness”, whatever that is.
Here’s his latest grifting outrage:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/ben-carson-business-partner-felony-fraud
Good role model, don’t ya think? And he whines that he’s not being “coddled” by the media.
As he’s being judged as an individual, who says one thing, usually of an oddly false nature, and yet does another in his life.
By the way, the crooked dentist who steals from his patients and the government, which Carson has pivoted from thinking types like him should be dealt with in the “Saudi Arabian manner” to testifying there ain’t nothing to see here, lives about a mile from my mother in Pittsburgh.
We haven’t seen Carson depicted as a witch doctor, have we, though I’m pretty sure a Trump operative or two has suggested it.
Do you know why? I know why.
Because liberals are politically correct (except for me), whatever that is, and everyone ought to get down on their knees and thank us for that.
Let’s be specific about whose children these are:
One of the threats at Mizzou:
“Some of you are alright. Don’t go to campus tomorrow”
His Dad, Donald Trump: “They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”
Coddle the Rooster, spoil the chick.
“I’m going to stand my ground tomorrow and shoot every black person I see,”
His Mom, the once-thought barren Ann Coulter. She gets around with multiple fathers: James Earle Ray, Wayne LaPierre, Ted Nugent, any number of Oath Keepers and the THEIR sugar daddies, the hard-core Freedom Caucus on Capital Hill.
The hole does not fall far from the a*s.
I’m willing to undergo DNA paternity tests to prove I had nothing to do with bringing these ilk into the world.
Let’s be specific about whose children these are:
One of the threats at Mizzou:
“Some of you are alright. Don’t go to campus tomorrow”
His Dad, Donald Trump: “They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”
Coddle the Rooster, spoil the chick.
“I’m going to stand my ground tomorrow and shoot every black person I see,”
His Mom, the once-thought barren Ann Coulter. She gets around with multiple fathers: James Earle Ray, Wayne LaPierre, Ted Nugent, any number of Oath Keepers and the THEIR sugar daddies, the hard-core Freedom Caucus on Capital Hill.
The hole does not fall far from the a*s.
I’m willing to undergo DNA paternity tests to prove I had nothing to do with bringing these ilk into the world.
Let’s be specific about whose children these are:
One of the threats at Mizzou:
“Some of you are alright. Don’t go to campus tomorrow”
His Dad, Donald Trump: “They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”
Coddle the Rooster, spoil the chick.
“I’m going to stand my ground tomorrow and shoot every black person I see,”
His Mom, the once-thought barren Ann Coulter. She gets around with multiple fathers: James Earle Ray, Wayne LaPierre, Ted Nugent, any number of Oath Keepers and the THEIR sugar daddies, the hard-core Freedom Caucus on Capital Hill.
The hole does not fall far from the a*s.
I’m willing to undergo DNA paternity tests to prove I had nothing to do with bringing these ilk into the world.
John,
Let me break down my response into several parts. Let’s start with the notion of a required course for students, not faculty, staff, etc.
Clearly, the university can make courses mandatory. Should the course described be required? Well, I don’t think so, but others may reasonably disagree. There are lots of things I think students should learn to be considered educated, so there are constraints. I’d be more comfortable with something like “Racism in the Contemporary US,” to give it a name, being an option in some “choose one” area.
More important, to me, is the notion of the class being “controlled,” “vetted,” etc. by the board described. Sorry. That’s not the way college courses work, nor should they. They are designed and taught by presumably knowledgeable faculty, who select topics and materials and classroom activities. That could include presentations or written materials from minority members of the community. But that shouldn’t be the entire substance of the class. There is a lot of material to choose from. I’d leave it up to the teacher to make the selection. No board looking over the shoulder. Besides, I really wouldn’t expect a good teacher to accept such supervision.
This assumes that expression is an issue here. That seems to me to embody two assumptions: that every issue has two sides, and that everyone must be free at all times to express their “side”. If, conversely, we look at this as a matter of solving a problem, the problem being how a diverse group of people can coexist in a university, state and country scarred by racism, I don’t consider it utterly inappropriate to ask students and workers alike to sit and listen to the perspectives of people most hurt by this history.
I don’t agree that claiming freedom of expression is an issue embodies those assumptions. It’s not a question of “two sides” and batting them back and forth like TV blatherers. Racism questions have many aspects and there can easily be differences of opinion worth exploring. For example, what are the sources of and remedies for racism? Surely hearing different ideas on that is worthwhile. Yes, we need to listen to the perspectives you mention. But we need more. Those insights are valuable, but they do not cover the world. It’s a class, not an indoctrination. If we are indeed trying to solve a problem then it would help to spend some energy understanding it.
Then there is the question of university employees of various sorts. If what we are talking about is a one-time training session then OK, if that’s helpful. But the demand is for a “curriculum,” which to me implies an actual course of some length. That’s going way too far. Besides, if I were a university employee I would be angry about having to attend such a class, and likely unreceptive to its message.
No doubt staff strongly affect the experience of the students. Which is why they need to understand that they must treat students fairly. Making the staff aware that they need to be careful about unconscious bias affecting their behavior is fine. But if staff behave badly toward African American students, or any other students, without good reason, they need to be fired, not sent to hear lectures.
John,
Let me break down my response into several parts. Let’s start with the notion of a required course for students, not faculty, staff, etc.
Clearly, the university can make courses mandatory. Should the course described be required? Well, I don’t think so, but others may reasonably disagree. There are lots of things I think students should learn to be considered educated, so there are constraints. I’d be more comfortable with something like “Racism in the Contemporary US,” to give it a name, being an option in some “choose one” area.
More important, to me, is the notion of the class being “controlled,” “vetted,” etc. by the board described. Sorry. That’s not the way college courses work, nor should they. They are designed and taught by presumably knowledgeable faculty, who select topics and materials and classroom activities. That could include presentations or written materials from minority members of the community. But that shouldn’t be the entire substance of the class. There is a lot of material to choose from. I’d leave it up to the teacher to make the selection. No board looking over the shoulder. Besides, I really wouldn’t expect a good teacher to accept such supervision.
This assumes that expression is an issue here. That seems to me to embody two assumptions: that every issue has two sides, and that everyone must be free at all times to express their “side”. If, conversely, we look at this as a matter of solving a problem, the problem being how a diverse group of people can coexist in a university, state and country scarred by racism, I don’t consider it utterly inappropriate to ask students and workers alike to sit and listen to the perspectives of people most hurt by this history.
I don’t agree that claiming freedom of expression is an issue embodies those assumptions. It’s not a question of “two sides” and batting them back and forth like TV blatherers. Racism questions have many aspects and there can easily be differences of opinion worth exploring. For example, what are the sources of and remedies for racism? Surely hearing different ideas on that is worthwhile. Yes, we need to listen to the perspectives you mention. But we need more. Those insights are valuable, but they do not cover the world. It’s a class, not an indoctrination. If we are indeed trying to solve a problem then it would help to spend some energy understanding it.
Then there is the question of university employees of various sorts. If what we are talking about is a one-time training session then OK, if that’s helpful. But the demand is for a “curriculum,” which to me implies an actual course of some length. That’s going way too far. Besides, if I were a university employee I would be angry about having to attend such a class, and likely unreceptive to its message.
No doubt staff strongly affect the experience of the students. Which is why they need to understand that they must treat students fairly. Making the staff aware that they need to be careful about unconscious bias affecting their behavior is fine. But if staff behave badly toward African American students, or any other students, without good reason, they need to be fired, not sent to hear lectures.
John,
Let me break down my response into several parts. Let’s start with the notion of a required course for students, not faculty, staff, etc.
Clearly, the university can make courses mandatory. Should the course described be required? Well, I don’t think so, but others may reasonably disagree. There are lots of things I think students should learn to be considered educated, so there are constraints. I’d be more comfortable with something like “Racism in the Contemporary US,” to give it a name, being an option in some “choose one” area.
More important, to me, is the notion of the class being “controlled,” “vetted,” etc. by the board described. Sorry. That’s not the way college courses work, nor should they. They are designed and taught by presumably knowledgeable faculty, who select topics and materials and classroom activities. That could include presentations or written materials from minority members of the community. But that shouldn’t be the entire substance of the class. There is a lot of material to choose from. I’d leave it up to the teacher to make the selection. No board looking over the shoulder. Besides, I really wouldn’t expect a good teacher to accept such supervision.
This assumes that expression is an issue here. That seems to me to embody two assumptions: that every issue has two sides, and that everyone must be free at all times to express their “side”. If, conversely, we look at this as a matter of solving a problem, the problem being how a diverse group of people can coexist in a university, state and country scarred by racism, I don’t consider it utterly inappropriate to ask students and workers alike to sit and listen to the perspectives of people most hurt by this history.
I don’t agree that claiming freedom of expression is an issue embodies those assumptions. It’s not a question of “two sides” and batting them back and forth like TV blatherers. Racism questions have many aspects and there can easily be differences of opinion worth exploring. For example, what are the sources of and remedies for racism? Surely hearing different ideas on that is worthwhile. Yes, we need to listen to the perspectives you mention. But we need more. Those insights are valuable, but they do not cover the world. It’s a class, not an indoctrination. If we are indeed trying to solve a problem then it would help to spend some energy understanding it.
Then there is the question of university employees of various sorts. If what we are talking about is a one-time training session then OK, if that’s helpful. But the demand is for a “curriculum,” which to me implies an actual course of some length. That’s going way too far. Besides, if I were a university employee I would be angry about having to attend such a class, and likely unreceptive to its message.
No doubt staff strongly affect the experience of the students. Which is why they need to understand that they must treat students fairly. Making the staff aware that they need to be careful about unconscious bias affecting their behavior is fine. But if staff behave badly toward African American students, or any other students, without good reason, they need to be fired, not sent to hear lectures.
One thought on university employees**, students, and bias. Consider the university as a business. The students are its customers. (OK, maybe it’s more precise to say that the students’ parents are the customers. But as a first approximation….)
Now in any business, you don’t want your employees insulting your customers. And it doesn’t really matter if it’s the sales guy on the floor or the dude on the back of the truck making the delivery. You just don’t want your employees insulting your customers.
So you attempt (perhaps not particularly adeptly or successfully) to train them not to do that. And, if they don’t get the message, you send them off in search of other employment.
What we have here seems to be a classic case of an instance where running a government entity like a business actually makes sense.
** Non-academic employees? No probably ought to include the academics as well. Considerations of tenure notwithstanding.
One thought on university employees**, students, and bias. Consider the university as a business. The students are its customers. (OK, maybe it’s more precise to say that the students’ parents are the customers. But as a first approximation….)
Now in any business, you don’t want your employees insulting your customers. And it doesn’t really matter if it’s the sales guy on the floor or the dude on the back of the truck making the delivery. You just don’t want your employees insulting your customers.
So you attempt (perhaps not particularly adeptly or successfully) to train them not to do that. And, if they don’t get the message, you send them off in search of other employment.
What we have here seems to be a classic case of an instance where running a government entity like a business actually makes sense.
** Non-academic employees? No probably ought to include the academics as well. Considerations of tenure notwithstanding.
One thought on university employees**, students, and bias. Consider the university as a business. The students are its customers. (OK, maybe it’s more precise to say that the students’ parents are the customers. But as a first approximation….)
Now in any business, you don’t want your employees insulting your customers. And it doesn’t really matter if it’s the sales guy on the floor or the dude on the back of the truck making the delivery. You just don’t want your employees insulting your customers.
So you attempt (perhaps not particularly adeptly or successfully) to train them not to do that. And, if they don’t get the message, you send them off in search of other employment.
What we have here seems to be a classic case of an instance where running a government entity like a business actually makes sense.
** Non-academic employees? No probably ought to include the academics as well. Considerations of tenure notwithstanding.
wj,
Now in any business, you don’t want your employees insulting your customers. And it doesn’t really matter if it’s the sales guy on the floor or the dude on the back of the truck making the delivery. You just don’t want your employees insulting your customers.
So you attempt (perhaps not particularly adeptly or successfully) to train them not to do that. And, if they don’t get the message, you send them off in search of other employment.
I have no real disagreement with this. It’s not what the demand sounded like to me.
wj,
Now in any business, you don’t want your employees insulting your customers. And it doesn’t really matter if it’s the sales guy on the floor or the dude on the back of the truck making the delivery. You just don’t want your employees insulting your customers.
So you attempt (perhaps not particularly adeptly or successfully) to train them not to do that. And, if they don’t get the message, you send them off in search of other employment.
I have no real disagreement with this. It’s not what the demand sounded like to me.
wj,
Now in any business, you don’t want your employees insulting your customers. And it doesn’t really matter if it’s the sales guy on the floor or the dude on the back of the truck making the delivery. You just don’t want your employees insulting your customers.
So you attempt (perhaps not particularly adeptly or successfully) to train them not to do that. And, if they don’t get the message, you send them off in search of other employment.
I have no real disagreement with this. It’s not what the demand sounded like to me.
Here’s a plan:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/10/21/ben-carson-dept-of-education-should-police-extreme-political-bias-in-colleges.html
Here’s a plan:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/10/21/ben-carson-dept-of-education-should-police-extreme-political-bias-in-colleges.html
Here’s a plan:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/10/21/ben-carson-dept-of-education-should-police-extreme-political-bias-in-colleges.html
Why don’t the kids shut up and get back to their studies?
Because their studies might be illegal:
http://www.balloon-juice.com/2015/11/12/blind-science-trials/
If next Halloween, students somewhere dress up as a horse’s rear end, will that legislator’s feelings be hurt?
Why don’t the kids shut up and get back to their studies?
Because their studies might be illegal:
http://www.balloon-juice.com/2015/11/12/blind-science-trials/
If next Halloween, students somewhere dress up as a horse’s rear end, will that legislator’s feelings be hurt?
Why don’t the kids shut up and get back to their studies?
Because their studies might be illegal:
http://www.balloon-juice.com/2015/11/12/blind-science-trials/
If next Halloween, students somewhere dress up as a horse’s rear end, will that legislator’s feelings be hurt?
byomtov, to the extent that students are ‘required’ to take something, it should be more more in line with things like ‘mandatory lab safety training’, which also has the dual function of “keep everyone safe” and “CYA for Admins”.
And, exactly like “mandatory lab safety training” it can be boiled down to “don’t do something stupid”, and yet still people have to be verbally abused into chaining up the godd*mn gas bottles. Sheesh.
There’s no way it’s appropriate semester-long courses or sets of courses, and it’s absolutely insane to say “in all departments”, because (surprise) most departments have subject matter that is not in that area, and that whole business of clearing the class with some PC commissar, while all fun-n-gamez, rides roughshod over academic freedom.
I take the demands about as seriously as I take the cries to return to a gold standard.
byomtov, to the extent that students are ‘required’ to take something, it should be more more in line with things like ‘mandatory lab safety training’, which also has the dual function of “keep everyone safe” and “CYA for Admins”.
And, exactly like “mandatory lab safety training” it can be boiled down to “don’t do something stupid”, and yet still people have to be verbally abused into chaining up the godd*mn gas bottles. Sheesh.
There’s no way it’s appropriate semester-long courses or sets of courses, and it’s absolutely insane to say “in all departments”, because (surprise) most departments have subject matter that is not in that area, and that whole business of clearing the class with some PC commissar, while all fun-n-gamez, rides roughshod over academic freedom.
I take the demands about as seriously as I take the cries to return to a gold standard.
byomtov, to the extent that students are ‘required’ to take something, it should be more more in line with things like ‘mandatory lab safety training’, which also has the dual function of “keep everyone safe” and “CYA for Admins”.
And, exactly like “mandatory lab safety training” it can be boiled down to “don’t do something stupid”, and yet still people have to be verbally abused into chaining up the godd*mn gas bottles. Sheesh.
There’s no way it’s appropriate semester-long courses or sets of courses, and it’s absolutely insane to say “in all departments”, because (surprise) most departments have subject matter that is not in that area, and that whole business of clearing the class with some PC commissar, while all fun-n-gamez, rides roughshod over academic freedom.
I take the demands about as seriously as I take the cries to return to a gold standard.
When I read the demand, I didn’t see it as wanting to have all parties attend multi-session courses. Students? Yes. I assumed they wanted something added to gen-ed requirements, and hence discussions of “across the curriculum”. But employees and faculty? That would frankly be ridiculous, and I interpreted it to mean the standard sort of mostly innocuous “quarterly/annual training” courses which are routine in large organizations throughout the US. My assumption, which is mine, is that the demand was asking for two classes of classes, and didn’t bother to make that clear by using the more involved and academic terminology to refer to the content of both… which is hardly surprising coming from Liberal Arts students/faculty.
When I read the demand, I didn’t see it as wanting to have all parties attend multi-session courses. Students? Yes. I assumed they wanted something added to gen-ed requirements, and hence discussions of “across the curriculum”. But employees and faculty? That would frankly be ridiculous, and I interpreted it to mean the standard sort of mostly innocuous “quarterly/annual training” courses which are routine in large organizations throughout the US. My assumption, which is mine, is that the demand was asking for two classes of classes, and didn’t bother to make that clear by using the more involved and academic terminology to refer to the content of both… which is hardly surprising coming from Liberal Arts students/faculty.
When I read the demand, I didn’t see it as wanting to have all parties attend multi-session courses. Students? Yes. I assumed they wanted something added to gen-ed requirements, and hence discussions of “across the curriculum”. But employees and faculty? That would frankly be ridiculous, and I interpreted it to mean the standard sort of mostly innocuous “quarterly/annual training” courses which are routine in large organizations throughout the US. My assumption, which is mine, is that the demand was asking for two classes of classes, and didn’t bother to make that clear by using the more involved and academic terminology to refer to the content of both… which is hardly surprising coming from Liberal Arts students/faculty.
IV. We demand that the University of Missouri creates and enforces comprehensive racial awareness and inclusion curriculum throughout all campus departments and units, mandatory for all students, faculty, staff, and administration. This curriculum must be vetted, maintained, and overseen by a board comprised of students, staff, and faculty of color.
I just put this back up because it seems we aren’t discussing “this”. Comprehensive racial awareness curriculum across all campus departments is a far cry from a two hour diversity training class. As dumb as the second one is, wj’s right that lots of dumb things are required.
IV. We demand that the University of Missouri creates and enforces comprehensive racial awareness and inclusion curriculum throughout all campus departments and units, mandatory for all students, faculty, staff, and administration. This curriculum must be vetted, maintained, and overseen by a board comprised of students, staff, and faculty of color.
I just put this back up because it seems we aren’t discussing “this”. Comprehensive racial awareness curriculum across all campus departments is a far cry from a two hour diversity training class. As dumb as the second one is, wj’s right that lots of dumb things are required.
IV. We demand that the University of Missouri creates and enforces comprehensive racial awareness and inclusion curriculum throughout all campus departments and units, mandatory for all students, faculty, staff, and administration. This curriculum must be vetted, maintained, and overseen by a board comprised of students, staff, and faculty of color.
I just put this back up because it seems we aren’t discussing “this”. Comprehensive racial awareness curriculum across all campus departments is a far cry from a two hour diversity training class. As dumb as the second one is, wj’s right that lots of dumb things are required.
nevermind
nevermind
nevermind
Comprehensive racial awareness curriculum across all campus departments is…
a horribly ambiguous specification.
but if they’re saying all faculty needs training, well then that’s not much of a stretch. as NV says, that’s routine in big institutions and companies, these days.
This curriculum must be vetted, maintained, and overseen by a board comprised of students, staff, and faculty of color.
and this part is kindof silly. any such board should definitely include people ‘of color’, even of the white color.
IMO, what we’ve got here is a reasonable demand that was written under the influence of a lot of emotion, and so isn’t quite as thought out and tightly-specified as it should be.
it’s like the people who wrote this don’t have a lot of experience in writing legislation. shocking!
Comprehensive racial awareness curriculum across all campus departments is…
a horribly ambiguous specification.
but if they’re saying all faculty needs training, well then that’s not much of a stretch. as NV says, that’s routine in big institutions and companies, these days.
This curriculum must be vetted, maintained, and overseen by a board comprised of students, staff, and faculty of color.
and this part is kindof silly. any such board should definitely include people ‘of color’, even of the white color.
IMO, what we’ve got here is a reasonable demand that was written under the influence of a lot of emotion, and so isn’t quite as thought out and tightly-specified as it should be.
it’s like the people who wrote this don’t have a lot of experience in writing legislation. shocking!
Comprehensive racial awareness curriculum across all campus departments is…
a horribly ambiguous specification.
but if they’re saying all faculty needs training, well then that’s not much of a stretch. as NV says, that’s routine in big institutions and companies, these days.
This curriculum must be vetted, maintained, and overseen by a board comprised of students, staff, and faculty of color.
and this part is kindof silly. any such board should definitely include people ‘of color’, even of the white color.
IMO, what we’ve got here is a reasonable demand that was written under the influence of a lot of emotion, and so isn’t quite as thought out and tightly-specified as it should be.
it’s like the people who wrote this don’t have a lot of experience in writing legislation. shocking!
Considering what gets written into law by people who do have a lot of experience writing legislation (it being their, you know, job), the fact that students wrote something mushy is not surprising at all.
Considering what gets written into law by people who do have a lot of experience writing legislation (it being their, you know, job), the fact that students wrote something mushy is not surprising at all.
Considering what gets written into law by people who do have a lot of experience writing legislation (it being their, you know, job), the fact that students wrote something mushy is not surprising at all.
Snarki,
.. to the extent that students are ‘required’ to take something, it should be more more in line with things like ‘mandatory lab safety training’, which also has the dual function of “keep everyone safe” and “CYA for Admins”.
Yes. But that’s not what it says. A “curriculum” is not a one-shot training session.
nv,
When I read the demand, I didn’t see it as wanting to have all parties attend multi-session courses.
I did. And of course I agree with you that such a thing would be ridiculous.
Snarki,
.. to the extent that students are ‘required’ to take something, it should be more more in line with things like ‘mandatory lab safety training’, which also has the dual function of “keep everyone safe” and “CYA for Admins”.
Yes. But that’s not what it says. A “curriculum” is not a one-shot training session.
nv,
When I read the demand, I didn’t see it as wanting to have all parties attend multi-session courses.
I did. And of course I agree with you that such a thing would be ridiculous.
Snarki,
.. to the extent that students are ‘required’ to take something, it should be more more in line with things like ‘mandatory lab safety training’, which also has the dual function of “keep everyone safe” and “CYA for Admins”.
Yes. But that’s not what it says. A “curriculum” is not a one-shot training session.
nv,
When I read the demand, I didn’t see it as wanting to have all parties attend multi-session courses.
I did. And of course I agree with you that such a thing would be ridiculous.
IMO, what we’ve got here is a reasonable demand that was written under the influence of a lot of emotion, and so isn’t quite as thought out and tightly-specified as it should be.
Not arguing with the above so much as expanding on it:
At least it’s a demand that can be satisfied in spirit with something reasonable, even if the demand, itself, isn’t all that reasonable. What it also is, in the end, is an unenforceable demand, which is the equivalent of a suggestion.
It’s only rhetoric, really. And it isn’t even the kind of hateful and threatening rhetoric that would be comparable to what the Yip Yap guy wrote. It’s rhetoric about making people take classes. (The horror!)
Part of the problem with how this discussion got started was the overblown response to a somewhat silly, or a least sillily (my word) worded, unenforceable demand. You can disagree with it in a “well, this is kind of silly” way, rather than making it out to be the end of democracy and free thought in America. That sort of reaction is at least as overblown and silly as the demand was in the first place.
The same goes for the no-press zone. I think it was stupid. But it only lasted a day, no one got hurt, and the First Amendment remains in force. So, stupid? Yes. Super big deal? No.
When people respond to you with something along the lines of “I don’t know why this bothers you so much,” it’s not the same thing as “Well, I think it’s a great idea and everything about this protest is absolutely perfect.”
IMO, what we’ve got here is a reasonable demand that was written under the influence of a lot of emotion, and so isn’t quite as thought out and tightly-specified as it should be.
Not arguing with the above so much as expanding on it:
At least it’s a demand that can be satisfied in spirit with something reasonable, even if the demand, itself, isn’t all that reasonable. What it also is, in the end, is an unenforceable demand, which is the equivalent of a suggestion.
It’s only rhetoric, really. And it isn’t even the kind of hateful and threatening rhetoric that would be comparable to what the Yip Yap guy wrote. It’s rhetoric about making people take classes. (The horror!)
Part of the problem with how this discussion got started was the overblown response to a somewhat silly, or a least sillily (my word) worded, unenforceable demand. You can disagree with it in a “well, this is kind of silly” way, rather than making it out to be the end of democracy and free thought in America. That sort of reaction is at least as overblown and silly as the demand was in the first place.
The same goes for the no-press zone. I think it was stupid. But it only lasted a day, no one got hurt, and the First Amendment remains in force. So, stupid? Yes. Super big deal? No.
When people respond to you with something along the lines of “I don’t know why this bothers you so much,” it’s not the same thing as “Well, I think it’s a great idea and everything about this protest is absolutely perfect.”
IMO, what we’ve got here is a reasonable demand that was written under the influence of a lot of emotion, and so isn’t quite as thought out and tightly-specified as it should be.
Not arguing with the above so much as expanding on it:
At least it’s a demand that can be satisfied in spirit with something reasonable, even if the demand, itself, isn’t all that reasonable. What it also is, in the end, is an unenforceable demand, which is the equivalent of a suggestion.
It’s only rhetoric, really. And it isn’t even the kind of hateful and threatening rhetoric that would be comparable to what the Yip Yap guy wrote. It’s rhetoric about making people take classes. (The horror!)
Part of the problem with how this discussion got started was the overblown response to a somewhat silly, or a least sillily (my word) worded, unenforceable demand. You can disagree with it in a “well, this is kind of silly” way, rather than making it out to be the end of democracy and free thought in America. That sort of reaction is at least as overblown and silly as the demand was in the first place.
The same goes for the no-press zone. I think it was stupid. But it only lasted a day, no one got hurt, and the First Amendment remains in force. So, stupid? Yes. Super big deal? No.
When people respond to you with something along the lines of “I don’t know why this bothers you so much,” it’s not the same thing as “Well, I think it’s a great idea and everything about this protest is absolutely perfect.”
We’ve gone from “it’s the children of the left suppressing dissent just like Hitler!” to “that curriculum they are demanding seems overblown and problematic”.
Smells like victory to me.
We’ve gone from “it’s the children of the left suppressing dissent just like Hitler!” to “that curriculum they are demanding seems overblown and problematic”.
Smells like victory to me.
We’ve gone from “it’s the children of the left suppressing dissent just like Hitler!” to “that curriculum they are demanding seems overblown and problematic”.
Smells like victory to me.
A “curriculum” is not a one-shot training session.
i’m not sure that text stands up to strict parsing.
it sounds to me like they’re saying they want a set of courses that cover the needs of all of the different departments, faculty, students, etc.. so, it’s not one course, it’s many different courses, all teaching the same basic ideas but tailored to the needs of the different groups that make up a university.
and, yes, once the curriculum is established, they can all be one-off training sessions. they’re not saying everyone has to take 4 credit hours in diversity.
A “curriculum” is not a one-shot training session.
i’m not sure that text stands up to strict parsing.
it sounds to me like they’re saying they want a set of courses that cover the needs of all of the different departments, faculty, students, etc.. so, it’s not one course, it’s many different courses, all teaching the same basic ideas but tailored to the needs of the different groups that make up a university.
and, yes, once the curriculum is established, they can all be one-off training sessions. they’re not saying everyone has to take 4 credit hours in diversity.
A “curriculum” is not a one-shot training session.
i’m not sure that text stands up to strict parsing.
it sounds to me like they’re saying they want a set of courses that cover the needs of all of the different departments, faculty, students, etc.. so, it’s not one course, it’s many different courses, all teaching the same basic ideas but tailored to the needs of the different groups that make up a university.
and, yes, once the curriculum is established, they can all be one-off training sessions. they’re not saying everyone has to take 4 credit hours in diversity.
…this was one of the reasons I expressed reluctance to weigh in on this point upthread. IV. is not worded clearly enough for me to gauge how much outrage I’m required to feel about its demands.
…this was one of the reasons I expressed reluctance to weigh in on this point upthread. IV. is not worded clearly enough for me to gauge how much outrage I’m required to feel about its demands.
…this was one of the reasons I expressed reluctance to weigh in on this point upthread. IV. is not worded clearly enough for me to gauge how much outrage I’m required to feel about its demands.
Considering that the discussion is about required courses and lack of clarity maybe it’s time to bring up the question of English Composition.
Considering that the discussion is about required courses and lack of clarity maybe it’s time to bring up the question of English Composition.
Considering that the discussion is about required courses and lack of clarity maybe it’s time to bring up the question of English Composition.
Cleek wrote:
I kind of get that. My first post in this discussion was a discussion of the multiple oppressions that students in Missouri face in the larger context of the state and of the United States. I focused on the situation in St. Louis county and the way politicians have chosen to finance an unsustainable municipal structure by abusing the justice system to loot the poor.
That’s just one county. One form of depredation. Other journalists, Ta-Nehisi Coates foremost, have documented multitudes of others.
The posted reaction to the information and links I provided was to call me “Comrade” (I think the poster intended it as an insult), and to argue that no real white supremacist would draw the holy swastica in feces. If anyone thinks they can refute the actual information I have posted, I would welcome that. Believe me, nothing would make me happier than to hear that African Americans indeed have equal opportunities. The news that the long nightmare of “white” supremacy has come to an end would fill me with joy. But to convince me, to convince any rational and unbiased person, will take evidence and rational argument.
Cleek wrote:
I kind of get that. My first post in this discussion was a discussion of the multiple oppressions that students in Missouri face in the larger context of the state and of the United States. I focused on the situation in St. Louis county and the way politicians have chosen to finance an unsustainable municipal structure by abusing the justice system to loot the poor.
That’s just one county. One form of depredation. Other journalists, Ta-Nehisi Coates foremost, have documented multitudes of others.
The posted reaction to the information and links I provided was to call me “Comrade” (I think the poster intended it as an insult), and to argue that no real white supremacist would draw the holy swastica in feces. If anyone thinks they can refute the actual information I have posted, I would welcome that. Believe me, nothing would make me happier than to hear that African Americans indeed have equal opportunities. The news that the long nightmare of “white” supremacy has come to an end would fill me with joy. But to convince me, to convince any rational and unbiased person, will take evidence and rational argument.
Cleek wrote:
I kind of get that. My first post in this discussion was a discussion of the multiple oppressions that students in Missouri face in the larger context of the state and of the United States. I focused on the situation in St. Louis county and the way politicians have chosen to finance an unsustainable municipal structure by abusing the justice system to loot the poor.
That’s just one county. One form of depredation. Other journalists, Ta-Nehisi Coates foremost, have documented multitudes of others.
The posted reaction to the information and links I provided was to call me “Comrade” (I think the poster intended it as an insult), and to argue that no real white supremacist would draw the holy swastica in feces. If anyone thinks they can refute the actual information I have posted, I would welcome that. Believe me, nothing would make me happier than to hear that African Americans indeed have equal opportunities. The news that the long nightmare of “white” supremacy has come to an end would fill me with joy. But to convince me, to convince any rational and unbiased person, will take evidence and rational argument.
byomtov wrote:
This aspect of the student’s demand can be construed in a way that makes it appear either reasonable or grossly excessive. If you construe it as a demand for all aspects of the schools’ offerings on racism and the African American experience to be (a) compulsory and (b) vetted by a board of persons of colour, I can see that would appear excessive. I view it as a call for introductory training, similar to the in service classes firms offer on diversity and harassment issues, or the non-credit courses universities offer on navigating the university computer network.
In some circumstances, yes, there are differences of opinion worth exploring. But, and here is the point I made that has nothing to do with the actual content of the protesters’ demands, there can be some value in sitting quietly and listening to what the world looks like to someone else who has had a very different experience of life.
Again, we don’t know what the protesters who drew up this demand want the outcome to look like in practise. If you want to, you can construe this demand as highly disruptive. Alternatively, you can construe this as a demand for something more than a short web presentation for new hires.
byomtov wrote:
This aspect of the student’s demand can be construed in a way that makes it appear either reasonable or grossly excessive. If you construe it as a demand for all aspects of the schools’ offerings on racism and the African American experience to be (a) compulsory and (b) vetted by a board of persons of colour, I can see that would appear excessive. I view it as a call for introductory training, similar to the in service classes firms offer on diversity and harassment issues, or the non-credit courses universities offer on navigating the university computer network.
In some circumstances, yes, there are differences of opinion worth exploring. But, and here is the point I made that has nothing to do with the actual content of the protesters’ demands, there can be some value in sitting quietly and listening to what the world looks like to someone else who has had a very different experience of life.
Again, we don’t know what the protesters who drew up this demand want the outcome to look like in practise. If you want to, you can construe this demand as highly disruptive. Alternatively, you can construe this as a demand for something more than a short web presentation for new hires.
byomtov wrote:
This aspect of the student’s demand can be construed in a way that makes it appear either reasonable or grossly excessive. If you construe it as a demand for all aspects of the schools’ offerings on racism and the African American experience to be (a) compulsory and (b) vetted by a board of persons of colour, I can see that would appear excessive. I view it as a call for introductory training, similar to the in service classes firms offer on diversity and harassment issues, or the non-credit courses universities offer on navigating the university computer network.
In some circumstances, yes, there are differences of opinion worth exploring. But, and here is the point I made that has nothing to do with the actual content of the protesters’ demands, there can be some value in sitting quietly and listening to what the world looks like to someone else who has had a very different experience of life.
Again, we don’t know what the protesters who drew up this demand want the outcome to look like in practise. If you want to, you can construe this demand as highly disruptive. Alternatively, you can construe this as a demand for something more than a short web presentation for new hires.
John Spragge wrote: “My first post in this discussion was a discussion of the multiple oppressions that students in Missouri face in the larger context of the state and of the United States. I focused on the situation in St. Louis county and the way politicians have chosen to finance an unsustainable municipal structure by abusing the justice system to loot the poor.”
This is spot on. I, for example, have no idea what it’s like to live in such a community and have this be the day-in-day-out regime.
And your man hoki-poki has no standing. An American bohunk would in fact draw a swastika in feces, number one, because that is the medium they work in, and number two they only play at fascism and have no idea what Nazism was about.
That they aspire to know gives me no comfort.
If they aren’t smearing their feces about, they address anyone to the left of Richard Nixon as “comrade”, because somewhere along the line they confused taxpayer-provided roads with the Gulag.
These are people who confuse PTA members with Joseph Stalin and hate all government except ones that use St.Louis County as a starting point for a role model of civil government.
A government that expands healthcare is akin to the slavery, but police forces that rule by the truncheon, the taser, military-grade weaponry, and extracting bail and fines from the destitute, and do it on the cheap — that actually look like something you would find in pre-Glasnost Eastern Europe — is, to these ilk, something handed down by the Founders.
John Spragge wrote: “My first post in this discussion was a discussion of the multiple oppressions that students in Missouri face in the larger context of the state and of the United States. I focused on the situation in St. Louis county and the way politicians have chosen to finance an unsustainable municipal structure by abusing the justice system to loot the poor.”
This is spot on. I, for example, have no idea what it’s like to live in such a community and have this be the day-in-day-out regime.
And your man hoki-poki has no standing. An American bohunk would in fact draw a swastika in feces, number one, because that is the medium they work in, and number two they only play at fascism and have no idea what Nazism was about.
That they aspire to know gives me no comfort.
If they aren’t smearing their feces about, they address anyone to the left of Richard Nixon as “comrade”, because somewhere along the line they confused taxpayer-provided roads with the Gulag.
These are people who confuse PTA members with Joseph Stalin and hate all government except ones that use St.Louis County as a starting point for a role model of civil government.
A government that expands healthcare is akin to the slavery, but police forces that rule by the truncheon, the taser, military-grade weaponry, and extracting bail and fines from the destitute, and do it on the cheap — that actually look like something you would find in pre-Glasnost Eastern Europe — is, to these ilk, something handed down by the Founders.
John Spragge wrote: “My first post in this discussion was a discussion of the multiple oppressions that students in Missouri face in the larger context of the state and of the United States. I focused on the situation in St. Louis county and the way politicians have chosen to finance an unsustainable municipal structure by abusing the justice system to loot the poor.”
This is spot on. I, for example, have no idea what it’s like to live in such a community and have this be the day-in-day-out regime.
And your man hoki-poki has no standing. An American bohunk would in fact draw a swastika in feces, number one, because that is the medium they work in, and number two they only play at fascism and have no idea what Nazism was about.
That they aspire to know gives me no comfort.
If they aren’t smearing their feces about, they address anyone to the left of Richard Nixon as “comrade”, because somewhere along the line they confused taxpayer-provided roads with the Gulag.
These are people who confuse PTA members with Joseph Stalin and hate all government except ones that use St.Louis County as a starting point for a role model of civil government.
A government that expands healthcare is akin to the slavery, but police forces that rule by the truncheon, the taser, military-grade weaponry, and extracting bail and fines from the destitute, and do it on the cheap — that actually look like something you would find in pre-Glasnost Eastern Europe — is, to these ilk, something handed down by the Founders.
John Spragge wrote: “My first post in this discussion was a discussion of the multiple oppressions that students in Missouri face in the larger context of the state and of the United States. I focused on the situation in St. Louis county and the way politicians have chosen to finance an unsustainable municipal structure by abusing the justice system to loot the poor.”
This is spot on. I, for example, have no idea what it’s like to live in such a community and have this be the day-in-day-out regime.
And your man hoki-poki has no standing. An American bohunk would in fact draw a swastika in feces, number one, because that is the medium they work in, and number two they only play at fascism and have no idea what Nazism was about.
That they aspire to know gives me no comfort.
If they aren’t smearing their feces about, they address anyone to the left of Richard Nixon as “comrade”, because somewhere along the line they confused taxpayer-provided roads with the Gulag.
These are people who confuse PTA members with Joseph Stalin and hate all government except ones that use St.Louis County as a starting point for a role model of civil government.
A government that expands healthcare is akin to the slavery, but police forces that rule by the truncheon, the taser, military-grade weaponry, and extracting bail and fines from the destitute, and do it on the cheap — that actually look like something you would find in pre-Glasnost Eastern Europe — is, to these ilk, something handed down by the Founders.
John Spragge wrote: “My first post in this discussion was a discussion of the multiple oppressions that students in Missouri face in the larger context of the state and of the United States. I focused on the situation in St. Louis county and the way politicians have chosen to finance an unsustainable municipal structure by abusing the justice system to loot the poor.”
This is spot on. I, for example, have no idea what it’s like to live in such a community and have this be the day-in-day-out regime.
And your man hoki-poki has no standing. An American bohunk would in fact draw a swastika in feces, number one, because that is the medium they work in, and number two they only play at fascism and have no idea what Nazism was about.
That they aspire to know gives me no comfort.
If they aren’t smearing their feces about, they address anyone to the left of Richard Nixon as “comrade”, because somewhere along the line they confused taxpayer-provided roads with the Gulag.
These are people who confuse PTA members with Joseph Stalin and hate all government except ones that use St.Louis County as a starting point for a role model of civil government.
A government that expands healthcare is akin to the slavery, but police forces that rule by the truncheon, the taser, military-grade weaponry, and extracting bail and fines from the destitute, and do it on the cheap — that actually look like something you would find in pre-Glasnost Eastern Europe — is, to these ilk, something handed down by the Founders.
John Spragge wrote: “My first post in this discussion was a discussion of the multiple oppressions that students in Missouri face in the larger context of the state and of the United States. I focused on the situation in St. Louis county and the way politicians have chosen to finance an unsustainable municipal structure by abusing the justice system to loot the poor.”
This is spot on. I, for example, have no idea what it’s like to live in such a community and have this be the day-in-day-out regime.
And your man hoki-poki has no standing. An American bohunk would in fact draw a swastika in feces, number one, because that is the medium they work in, and number two they only play at fascism and have no idea what Nazism was about.
That they aspire to know gives me no comfort.
If they aren’t smearing their feces about, they address anyone to the left of Richard Nixon as “comrade”, because somewhere along the line they confused taxpayer-provided roads with the Gulag.
These are people who confuse PTA members with Joseph Stalin and hate all government except ones that use St.Louis County as a starting point for a role model of civil government.
A government that expands healthcare is akin to the slavery, but police forces that rule by the truncheon, the taser, military-grade weaponry, and extracting bail and fines from the destitute, and do it on the cheap — that actually look like something you would find in pre-Glasnost Eastern Europe — is, to these ilk, something handed down by the Founders.
second verse, same as the first
second verse, same as the first
second verse, same as the first
second verse, same as the first
second verse, same as the first
second verse, same as the first
%-/
%-/
%-/
there can be some value in sitting quietly and listening to what the world looks like to someone else who has had a very different experience of life.
Only an idiot would disagree with this.
But.
First, it applies to everyone. There is no such thing as “My experience is important, yours is bupkes.”
Second, there is value in having one’s interpretation of that experience made open to challenge.
there can be some value in sitting quietly and listening to what the world looks like to someone else who has had a very different experience of life.
Only an idiot would disagree with this.
But.
First, it applies to everyone. There is no such thing as “My experience is important, yours is bupkes.”
Second, there is value in having one’s interpretation of that experience made open to challenge.
there can be some value in sitting quietly and listening to what the world looks like to someone else who has had a very different experience of life.
Only an idiot would disagree with this.
But.
First, it applies to everyone. There is no such thing as “My experience is important, yours is bupkes.”
Second, there is value in having one’s interpretation of that experience made open to challenge.
This aspect of the student’s demand can be construed in a way that makes it appear either reasonable or grossly excessive.
My opinion is that people should be held accountable for what they say. If they didn’t mean it, or it came out wrong, then I’m perfectly happy to let them revise their remarks. Otherwise, they stand. It is not my job to translate silliness into sensible ideas.
If someone doesn’t want to clarify, I take them literally. I think the world would be a much better place if everyone did that. I’m not just talking about UM students. I think it’s important to do that with politicians as well – more important really.
We excuse too much, IMO, on the theory that “they don’t really mean that.”
This aspect of the student’s demand can be construed in a way that makes it appear either reasonable or grossly excessive.
My opinion is that people should be held accountable for what they say. If they didn’t mean it, or it came out wrong, then I’m perfectly happy to let them revise their remarks. Otherwise, they stand. It is not my job to translate silliness into sensible ideas.
If someone doesn’t want to clarify, I take them literally. I think the world would be a much better place if everyone did that. I’m not just talking about UM students. I think it’s important to do that with politicians as well – more important really.
We excuse too much, IMO, on the theory that “they don’t really mean that.”
This aspect of the student’s demand can be construed in a way that makes it appear either reasonable or grossly excessive.
My opinion is that people should be held accountable for what they say. If they didn’t mean it, or it came out wrong, then I’m perfectly happy to let them revise their remarks. Otherwise, they stand. It is not my job to translate silliness into sensible ideas.
If someone doesn’t want to clarify, I take them literally. I think the world would be a much better place if everyone did that. I’m not just talking about UM students. I think it’s important to do that with politicians as well – more important really.
We excuse too much, IMO, on the theory that “they don’t really mean that.”
This aspect of the student’s demand can be construed in a way that makes it appear either reasonable or grossly excessive.
My opinion is that people should be held accountable for what they say. If they didn’t mean it, or it came out wrong, then I’m perfectly happy to let them revise their remarks. Otherwise, they stand. It is not my job to translate silliness into sensible ideas.
If someone doesn’t want to clarify, I take them literally. I think the world would be a much better place if everyone did that. I’m not just talking about UM students. I think it’s important to do that with politicians as well – more important really.
We excuse too much, IMO, on the theory that “they don’t really mean that.”
This aspect of the student’s demand can be construed in a way that makes it appear either reasonable or grossly excessive.
My opinion is that people should be held accountable for what they say. If they didn’t mean it, or it came out wrong, then I’m perfectly happy to let them revise their remarks. Otherwise, they stand. It is not my job to translate silliness into sensible ideas.
If someone doesn’t want to clarify, I take them literally. I think the world would be a much better place if everyone did that. I’m not just talking about UM students. I think it’s important to do that with politicians as well – more important really.
We excuse too much, IMO, on the theory that “they don’t really mean that.”
This aspect of the student’s demand can be construed in a way that makes it appear either reasonable or grossly excessive.
My opinion is that people should be held accountable for what they say. If they didn’t mean it, or it came out wrong, then I’m perfectly happy to let them revise their remarks. Otherwise, they stand. It is not my job to translate silliness into sensible ideas.
If someone doesn’t want to clarify, I take them literally. I think the world would be a much better place if everyone did that. I’m not just talking about UM students. I think it’s important to do that with politicians as well – more important really.
We excuse too much, IMO, on the theory that “they don’t really mean that.”
First, it applies to everyone. There is no such thing as “My experience is important, yours is bupkes.”
Second, there is value in having one’s interpretation of that experience made open to challenge.
The reluctance or outright inability to acknowledge these points are among the worst aspects of identity politics, although I’d add to it the notion that every single person belonging to a particular identity has relevant experiences about everything relating to that identity’s experiences, or certainly more relevant than a non-member of said identity, is also highly problematic. Basically, the tendency to want to simultaneously hold out that each person has a unique perspective that cannot be fully understood w/o having experienced their individual life… yet that there is a common experience and insight shared by all members of said identity that non-members simply cannot acquire.
It’s something between laughable and enough to make you want to cry.
First, it applies to everyone. There is no such thing as “My experience is important, yours is bupkes.”
Second, there is value in having one’s interpretation of that experience made open to challenge.
The reluctance or outright inability to acknowledge these points are among the worst aspects of identity politics, although I’d add to it the notion that every single person belonging to a particular identity has relevant experiences about everything relating to that identity’s experiences, or certainly more relevant than a non-member of said identity, is also highly problematic. Basically, the tendency to want to simultaneously hold out that each person has a unique perspective that cannot be fully understood w/o having experienced their individual life… yet that there is a common experience and insight shared by all members of said identity that non-members simply cannot acquire.
It’s something between laughable and enough to make you want to cry.
First, it applies to everyone. There is no such thing as “My experience is important, yours is bupkes.”
Second, there is value in having one’s interpretation of that experience made open to challenge.
The reluctance or outright inability to acknowledge these points are among the worst aspects of identity politics, although I’d add to it the notion that every single person belonging to a particular identity has relevant experiences about everything relating to that identity’s experiences, or certainly more relevant than a non-member of said identity, is also highly problematic. Basically, the tendency to want to simultaneously hold out that each person has a unique perspective that cannot be fully understood w/o having experienced their individual life… yet that there is a common experience and insight shared by all members of said identity that non-members simply cannot acquire.
It’s something between laughable and enough to make you want to cry.
byomtov: Fist, let me say I tend to find your comments very insightful. But…..
First, it applies to everyone. There is no such thing as “My experience is important, yours is bupkes.”
Well, historically, and yes, currently there is such a thing. I hear it from fellow white people daily…”black people are simply lazy whiners.”
This goes back to the point I keep making. There is an accepted narrative. Black people are not the narrators. This is a form of social power…”force” as it were.
Why just today, I heard the ho, ho, ever so funny joke about how the rioting blacks in Baltimore tore up a shoe store and took everything except the work shoes.
Pretty fucking funny, right?
Sometimes people just need to slapped up the side of the head.
Second, there is value in having one’s interpretation of that experience made open to challenge.
You don’t say. I would posit there is an acute shortage of white people sitting down quietly and having their interpretation of their experience “made open to challenge.”
Now I would agree with you there may well be ways of doing this that are not wise from a public policy standpoint. But I would argue that is a very minor detail in a much larger picture.
Thanks.
Forrest…trees.
byomtov: Fist, let me say I tend to find your comments very insightful. But…..
First, it applies to everyone. There is no such thing as “My experience is important, yours is bupkes.”
Well, historically, and yes, currently there is such a thing. I hear it from fellow white people daily…”black people are simply lazy whiners.”
This goes back to the point I keep making. There is an accepted narrative. Black people are not the narrators. This is a form of social power…”force” as it were.
Why just today, I heard the ho, ho, ever so funny joke about how the rioting blacks in Baltimore tore up a shoe store and took everything except the work shoes.
Pretty fucking funny, right?
Sometimes people just need to slapped up the side of the head.
Second, there is value in having one’s interpretation of that experience made open to challenge.
You don’t say. I would posit there is an acute shortage of white people sitting down quietly and having their interpretation of their experience “made open to challenge.”
Now I would agree with you there may well be ways of doing this that are not wise from a public policy standpoint. But I would argue that is a very minor detail in a much larger picture.
Thanks.
Forrest…trees.
byomtov: Fist, let me say I tend to find your comments very insightful. But…..
First, it applies to everyone. There is no such thing as “My experience is important, yours is bupkes.”
Well, historically, and yes, currently there is such a thing. I hear it from fellow white people daily…”black people are simply lazy whiners.”
This goes back to the point I keep making. There is an accepted narrative. Black people are not the narrators. This is a form of social power…”force” as it were.
Why just today, I heard the ho, ho, ever so funny joke about how the rioting blacks in Baltimore tore up a shoe store and took everything except the work shoes.
Pretty fucking funny, right?
Sometimes people just need to slapped up the side of the head.
Second, there is value in having one’s interpretation of that experience made open to challenge.
You don’t say. I would posit there is an acute shortage of white people sitting down quietly and having their interpretation of their experience “made open to challenge.”
Now I would agree with you there may well be ways of doing this that are not wise from a public policy standpoint. But I would argue that is a very minor detail in a much larger picture.
Thanks.
Forrest…trees.
because somewhere along the line they confused taxpayer-provided roads with the Gulag.
You forgot to capitalize the “T” in “The Gulag”, komrade. Don’t let it happen again.
signed, a small group of excitable young people who have managed to offend Jonathan Chait.
because somewhere along the line they confused taxpayer-provided roads with the Gulag.
You forgot to capitalize the “T” in “The Gulag”, komrade. Don’t let it happen again.
signed, a small group of excitable young people who have managed to offend Jonathan Chait.
because somewhere along the line they confused taxpayer-provided roads with the Gulag.
You forgot to capitalize the “T” in “The Gulag”, komrade. Don’t let it happen again.
signed, a small group of excitable young people who have managed to offend Jonathan Chait.
First, it applies to everyone. There is no such thing as “My experience is important, yours is bupkes.”
I’m repeating what bobbyp said, apologies, but I would observe that currently, the white experience is pretty much baked into the cake, but other experiences, not so much. It is certainly better than it was before, but one of the underlying foundations of diversity training is the initial acknowledgement that the majority may not have any idea about what life is like. Or worse, may assume that what they see in the media, filtered through a lens, represents the actual case.
An example, from a while ago. When someone in the Guardian reported about Michael Jackson’s funeral, they spent a lot of time ridiculing the fact that the casket was front and center with people addressing it, singing to it, etc. What the writer was totally oblivious to was that this is a relatively common experience in African American churches, a carry over from Africa societies. The writer made fun of what he assumed was the overwrought expressions of grief, yet African American funerals often have a ‘keening’, a tradition that is shared by Irish and Gaelic cultures. In his eagerness to ridicule, he really exposed his own lack of experience.
What is interesting to me is that diversity training is specifically attempting to address a pretty gaping hole in the knowledge of the majority, and is really saying ‘gee, you don’t know this, maybe it would help you if you learned it’. Yet McT thought that this was game set and match, given the way he kept trying to wave it like McCarthy’s list of known communists.
First, it applies to everyone. There is no such thing as “My experience is important, yours is bupkes.”
I’m repeating what bobbyp said, apologies, but I would observe that currently, the white experience is pretty much baked into the cake, but other experiences, not so much. It is certainly better than it was before, but one of the underlying foundations of diversity training is the initial acknowledgement that the majority may not have any idea about what life is like. Or worse, may assume that what they see in the media, filtered through a lens, represents the actual case.
An example, from a while ago. When someone in the Guardian reported about Michael Jackson’s funeral, they spent a lot of time ridiculing the fact that the casket was front and center with people addressing it, singing to it, etc. What the writer was totally oblivious to was that this is a relatively common experience in African American churches, a carry over from Africa societies. The writer made fun of what he assumed was the overwrought expressions of grief, yet African American funerals often have a ‘keening’, a tradition that is shared by Irish and Gaelic cultures. In his eagerness to ridicule, he really exposed his own lack of experience.
What is interesting to me is that diversity training is specifically attempting to address a pretty gaping hole in the knowledge of the majority, and is really saying ‘gee, you don’t know this, maybe it would help you if you learned it’. Yet McT thought that this was game set and match, given the way he kept trying to wave it like McCarthy’s list of known communists.
First, it applies to everyone. There is no such thing as “My experience is important, yours is bupkes.”
I’m repeating what bobbyp said, apologies, but I would observe that currently, the white experience is pretty much baked into the cake, but other experiences, not so much. It is certainly better than it was before, but one of the underlying foundations of diversity training is the initial acknowledgement that the majority may not have any idea about what life is like. Or worse, may assume that what they see in the media, filtered through a lens, represents the actual case.
An example, from a while ago. When someone in the Guardian reported about Michael Jackson’s funeral, they spent a lot of time ridiculing the fact that the casket was front and center with people addressing it, singing to it, etc. What the writer was totally oblivious to was that this is a relatively common experience in African American churches, a carry over from Africa societies. The writer made fun of what he assumed was the overwrought expressions of grief, yet African American funerals often have a ‘keening’, a tradition that is shared by Irish and Gaelic cultures. In his eagerness to ridicule, he really exposed his own lack of experience.
What is interesting to me is that diversity training is specifically attempting to address a pretty gaping hole in the knowledge of the majority, and is really saying ‘gee, you don’t know this, maybe it would help you if you learned it’. Yet McT thought that this was game set and match, given the way he kept trying to wave it like McCarthy’s list of known communists.
byomtov wrote:
Fair enough, but there’s also a time and a place. There’s a difference between my calling your experience “bupkes” and saying that you do not have to have your experience validated 24/7. You can take a little time out and listen to the experience and perspective of someone else.
Maybe, but again, maybe not every minute of every day. And the issue of “challenge” is worth unpacking in this context: the original complaint about the demand for anti-racist education involved the claim that the sessions would not be a place for free expression. It is hard to seriously challenge someone who refuses to hear you out or leaps to the defence of their entrenched world view, and in many cases, “freedom of expression” in these circumstances merely amounts to the right to “challenge” someone’s story without hearing it.
byomtov wrote:
Fair enough, but there’s also a time and a place. There’s a difference between my calling your experience “bupkes” and saying that you do not have to have your experience validated 24/7. You can take a little time out and listen to the experience and perspective of someone else.
Maybe, but again, maybe not every minute of every day. And the issue of “challenge” is worth unpacking in this context: the original complaint about the demand for anti-racist education involved the claim that the sessions would not be a place for free expression. It is hard to seriously challenge someone who refuses to hear you out or leaps to the defence of their entrenched world view, and in many cases, “freedom of expression” in these circumstances merely amounts to the right to “challenge” someone’s story without hearing it.
byomtov wrote:
Fair enough, but there’s also a time and a place. There’s a difference between my calling your experience “bupkes” and saying that you do not have to have your experience validated 24/7. You can take a little time out and listen to the experience and perspective of someone else.
Maybe, but again, maybe not every minute of every day. And the issue of “challenge” is worth unpacking in this context: the original complaint about the demand for anti-racist education involved the claim that the sessions would not be a place for free expression. It is hard to seriously challenge someone who refuses to hear you out or leaps to the defence of their entrenched world view, and in many cases, “freedom of expression” in these circumstances merely amounts to the right to “challenge” someone’s story without hearing it.
byomtov:
I don’t consider that approach very useful in this context. We have one statement, intended to begin a conversation or a negotiation. As with any initial position adopted before negotiations, it leaves a lot of the practical details out. It makes sense to hope that when the time comes to fill in these details, the students and the administration will take a reasonable approach and make a serious effort to both improve conditions at the school, and counteract the negative effects of the social conditions around them.
byomtov:
I don’t consider that approach very useful in this context. We have one statement, intended to begin a conversation or a negotiation. As with any initial position adopted before negotiations, it leaves a lot of the practical details out. It makes sense to hope that when the time comes to fill in these details, the students and the administration will take a reasonable approach and make a serious effort to both improve conditions at the school, and counteract the negative effects of the social conditions around them.
byomtov:
I don’t consider that approach very useful in this context. We have one statement, intended to begin a conversation or a negotiation. As with any initial position adopted before negotiations, it leaves a lot of the practical details out. It makes sense to hope that when the time comes to fill in these details, the students and the administration will take a reasonable approach and make a serious effort to both improve conditions at the school, and counteract the negative effects of the social conditions around them.
When discussing attitudes to recent events, it’s instructive to note that the practice of paying college football coaches multiples of the incomes of professors has been going on for a century in the US:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/10/the-shame-of-college-sports/308643/?single_page=true
(Very long, but fascinating article by Taylor Branch)
The cultural attitudes are so deeply ingrained that it’s perhaps unreasonable to expect an entirely reasoned discussion ?
When discussing attitudes to recent events, it’s instructive to note that the practice of paying college football coaches multiples of the incomes of professors has been going on for a century in the US:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/10/the-shame-of-college-sports/308643/?single_page=true
(Very long, but fascinating article by Taylor Branch)
The cultural attitudes are so deeply ingrained that it’s perhaps unreasonable to expect an entirely reasoned discussion ?
When discussing attitudes to recent events, it’s instructive to note that the practice of paying college football coaches multiples of the incomes of professors has been going on for a century in the US:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/10/the-shame-of-college-sports/308643/?single_page=true
(Very long, but fascinating article by Taylor Branch)
The cultural attitudes are so deeply ingrained that it’s perhaps unreasonable to expect an entirely reasoned discussion ?
I’d be curious to know the difference between students imposing speech and behavior codes within universities and Exxon imposing speech codes on their employee scientists regarding global warming.
I’d be curious to know the difference between students imposing speech and behavior codes within universities and Exxon imposing speech codes on their employee scientists regarding global warming.
I’d be curious to know the difference between students imposing speech and behavior codes within universities and Exxon imposing speech codes on their employee scientists regarding global warming.
” I hear it from fellow white people daily…”black people are simply lazy whiners.”
As great as this is for your narrative, unless you are looking for racists on the internet, I bet this is not true.
I currently live in one of the more racists enclaves in the country (Massachusetts) and no one would EVER say that out loud.
” I hear it from fellow white people daily…”black people are simply lazy whiners.”
As great as this is for your narrative, unless you are looking for racists on the internet, I bet this is not true.
I currently live in one of the more racists enclaves in the country (Massachusetts) and no one would EVER say that out loud.
” I hear it from fellow white people daily…”black people are simply lazy whiners.”
As great as this is for your narrative, unless you are looking for racists on the internet, I bet this is not true.
I currently live in one of the more racists enclaves in the country (Massachusetts) and no one would EVER say that out loud.
Several of us here live in Massachusetts, but I only speak for myself of course.
Marty’s double-reverse bank shot at MA is a work of art: the state is more racist than most, says Marty, but none of the white racists in it would “EVER say that out loud”. So we’re not just racists, we are secret racists, or repressed racists, or something.
As a matter of actual fact, I have heard plenty of racist jokes and comments from white Massachusettsians over the years. I have personally seen local cops hassle black people over things they’d let white people slide on. So I resent Marty’s implication that our racists are too repressed — or too smart, for that matter — to talk or act like racists.
–TP
Several of us here live in Massachusetts, but I only speak for myself of course.
Marty’s double-reverse bank shot at MA is a work of art: the state is more racist than most, says Marty, but none of the white racists in it would “EVER say that out loud”. So we’re not just racists, we are secret racists, or repressed racists, or something.
As a matter of actual fact, I have heard plenty of racist jokes and comments from white Massachusettsians over the years. I have personally seen local cops hassle black people over things they’d let white people slide on. So I resent Marty’s implication that our racists are too repressed — or too smart, for that matter — to talk or act like racists.
–TP
Several of us here live in Massachusetts, but I only speak for myself of course.
Marty’s double-reverse bank shot at MA is a work of art: the state is more racist than most, says Marty, but none of the white racists in it would “EVER say that out loud”. So we’re not just racists, we are secret racists, or repressed racists, or something.
As a matter of actual fact, I have heard plenty of racist jokes and comments from white Massachusettsians over the years. I have personally seen local cops hassle black people over things they’d let white people slide on. So I resent Marty’s implication that our racists are too repressed — or too smart, for that matter — to talk or act like racists.
–TP
I don’t disagree with this, but this, too, cuts both ways. Identity politics has a nasty tendency to be expressed as a desire to invert hierarchies, not abolish them, and a troubling amount of adherents thereto use the above principles as raw tools for social powergrabbing.
One should also note that there’s a difference between expressing experiences as seen through the eyes of a minority and interpreting experiences through the lens of a sociological theory.
I don’t disagree with this, but this, too, cuts both ways. Identity politics has a nasty tendency to be expressed as a desire to invert hierarchies, not abolish them, and a troubling amount of adherents thereto use the above principles as raw tools for social powergrabbing.
One should also note that there’s a difference between expressing experiences as seen through the eyes of a minority and interpreting experiences through the lens of a sociological theory.
I don’t disagree with this, but this, too, cuts both ways. Identity politics has a nasty tendency to be expressed as a desire to invert hierarchies, not abolish them, and a troubling amount of adherents thereto use the above principles as raw tools for social powergrabbing.
One should also note that there’s a difference between expressing experiences as seen through the eyes of a minority and interpreting experiences through the lens of a sociological theory.
So I resent Marty’s implication that our racists are too repressed — or too smart, for that matter — to talk or act like racists.
TP,
I really didn’t mean to imply anything, I thought I just said it pretty clearly. Sorry for any confusion. While there are some pretty unrepressed racists in MA, it is quite unusual to hear “…”black people are simply lazy whiners.” out loud, in person.
So I resent Marty’s implication that our racists are too repressed — or too smart, for that matter — to talk or act like racists.
TP,
I really didn’t mean to imply anything, I thought I just said it pretty clearly. Sorry for any confusion. While there are some pretty unrepressed racists in MA, it is quite unusual to hear “…”black people are simply lazy whiners.” out loud, in person.
So I resent Marty’s implication that our racists are too repressed — or too smart, for that matter — to talk or act like racists.
TP,
I really didn’t mean to imply anything, I thought I just said it pretty clearly. Sorry for any confusion. While there are some pretty unrepressed racists in MA, it is quite unusual to hear “…”black people are simply lazy whiners.” out loud, in person.
“As great as this is for your narrative, unless you are looking for racists on the internet, I bet this is not true.
I currently live in one of the more racists enclaves in the country (Massachusetts) and no one would EVER say that out loud.”
Well, only because the latter don’t move their lips while they are being racists on the internet.
Probably also complaining on the internet that they WOULD say it out loud in public but that politically correct Marty guy would tell them to get some manners and stow it.
I was going to link to the comment section of a recent Fiscal Times internet article that was critical of Obamacare and which was a sewer of racist and classist invective, but since it doesn’t count, the hell with it.
I would also link to numerous white politicians from Reagan until last week who generalize out loud from the particular about lazy blacks on food stamps and welfare, but never mind, because they would never.
What they would really never do is generalize from the particular about their fellow whites on food stamps and welfare.
In my experience, I don’t hear as much of this stuff about lazy, whining blacks said out loud any more (got enough of it during the first half of my life), but it still happens. If you’d like to hear the stories, let me know.
I could start off with my brother who is on SS disability and Medicaid, and food assistance (justifiably — his health is shot to hell), but who, still, on occasion can come out with a delicious bon mot regarding the shiftless blahs on the dole, when he isn’t making ridiculous remarks about the Jews.
How can I get the tacit Massachusetts gag rules transferred to Pennsylvania?
I do notice lately that he has gotten wind somehow through his thick head that Obama is trying his best to let him keep his healthcare arrangement, while his fellow white Republicans are threatening to take it away, and so he recently seems to think that’s mighty white of Obama, and is changing his tune a bit.
He still makes no connection however between his contempt for paying taxes and the taxpayers’ outlay of over a million dollars and counting to keep him alive, this after his former employer removed my brother from the company group healthcare plan because of the expense of his medical needs, even though his massive heart attack and resulting broken neck vertabrae (the latter now all better) occurred at the top of a ladder (which was at the top of a flight of stairs) on the job, all of which gave my brother no alternative but to quit that job and set up his current arrangement, even though he tried to continue after many months of rehab, else he would be dead today.
He helps care for my mother because that’s where he lives.
He’s a handful. He’s mad as a hatter.
“As great as this is for your narrative, unless you are looking for racists on the internet, I bet this is not true.
I currently live in one of the more racists enclaves in the country (Massachusetts) and no one would EVER say that out loud.”
Well, only because the latter don’t move their lips while they are being racists on the internet.
Probably also complaining on the internet that they WOULD say it out loud in public but that politically correct Marty guy would tell them to get some manners and stow it.
I was going to link to the comment section of a recent Fiscal Times internet article that was critical of Obamacare and which was a sewer of racist and classist invective, but since it doesn’t count, the hell with it.
I would also link to numerous white politicians from Reagan until last week who generalize out loud from the particular about lazy blacks on food stamps and welfare, but never mind, because they would never.
What they would really never do is generalize from the particular about their fellow whites on food stamps and welfare.
In my experience, I don’t hear as much of this stuff about lazy, whining blacks said out loud any more (got enough of it during the first half of my life), but it still happens. If you’d like to hear the stories, let me know.
I could start off with my brother who is on SS disability and Medicaid, and food assistance (justifiably — his health is shot to hell), but who, still, on occasion can come out with a delicious bon mot regarding the shiftless blahs on the dole, when he isn’t making ridiculous remarks about the Jews.
How can I get the tacit Massachusetts gag rules transferred to Pennsylvania?
I do notice lately that he has gotten wind somehow through his thick head that Obama is trying his best to let him keep his healthcare arrangement, while his fellow white Republicans are threatening to take it away, and so he recently seems to think that’s mighty white of Obama, and is changing his tune a bit.
He still makes no connection however between his contempt for paying taxes and the taxpayers’ outlay of over a million dollars and counting to keep him alive, this after his former employer removed my brother from the company group healthcare plan because of the expense of his medical needs, even though his massive heart attack and resulting broken neck vertabrae (the latter now all better) occurred at the top of a ladder (which was at the top of a flight of stairs) on the job, all of which gave my brother no alternative but to quit that job and set up his current arrangement, even though he tried to continue after many months of rehab, else he would be dead today.
He helps care for my mother because that’s where he lives.
He’s a handful. He’s mad as a hatter.
“As great as this is for your narrative, unless you are looking for racists on the internet, I bet this is not true.
I currently live in one of the more racists enclaves in the country (Massachusetts) and no one would EVER say that out loud.”
Well, only because the latter don’t move their lips while they are being racists on the internet.
Probably also complaining on the internet that they WOULD say it out loud in public but that politically correct Marty guy would tell them to get some manners and stow it.
I was going to link to the comment section of a recent Fiscal Times internet article that was critical of Obamacare and which was a sewer of racist and classist invective, but since it doesn’t count, the hell with it.
I would also link to numerous white politicians from Reagan until last week who generalize out loud from the particular about lazy blacks on food stamps and welfare, but never mind, because they would never.
What they would really never do is generalize from the particular about their fellow whites on food stamps and welfare.
In my experience, I don’t hear as much of this stuff about lazy, whining blacks said out loud any more (got enough of it during the first half of my life), but it still happens. If you’d like to hear the stories, let me know.
I could start off with my brother who is on SS disability and Medicaid, and food assistance (justifiably — his health is shot to hell), but who, still, on occasion can come out with a delicious bon mot regarding the shiftless blahs on the dole, when he isn’t making ridiculous remarks about the Jews.
How can I get the tacit Massachusetts gag rules transferred to Pennsylvania?
I do notice lately that he has gotten wind somehow through his thick head that Obama is trying his best to let him keep his healthcare arrangement, while his fellow white Republicans are threatening to take it away, and so he recently seems to think that’s mighty white of Obama, and is changing his tune a bit.
He still makes no connection however between his contempt for paying taxes and the taxpayers’ outlay of over a million dollars and counting to keep him alive, this after his former employer removed my brother from the company group healthcare plan because of the expense of his medical needs, even though his massive heart attack and resulting broken neck vertabrae (the latter now all better) occurred at the top of a ladder (which was at the top of a flight of stairs) on the job, all of which gave my brother no alternative but to quit that job and set up his current arrangement, even though he tried to continue after many months of rehab, else he would be dead today.
He helps care for my mother because that’s where he lives.
He’s a handful. He’s mad as a hatter.
Much of the reason we don’t hear this stuff out loud much any longer is because American society over the 50 to 70 years has undergone and imposed a “comprehensive racial awareness and inclusion curriculum throughout” all of its segments, “mandatory” for all, and “vetted, maintained, and overseen by their” fellow Americans who would have burned the place down if the behavior had persisted.
Which is to say, much progress from what once was.
It may have been Maoist reeducation; it may have been overweening sensitivity; it may have been politically correct.
Enlightenment by any other name.
Much of the reason we don’t hear this stuff out loud much any longer is because American society over the 50 to 70 years has undergone and imposed a “comprehensive racial awareness and inclusion curriculum throughout” all of its segments, “mandatory” for all, and “vetted, maintained, and overseen by their” fellow Americans who would have burned the place down if the behavior had persisted.
Which is to say, much progress from what once was.
It may have been Maoist reeducation; it may have been overweening sensitivity; it may have been politically correct.
Enlightenment by any other name.
Much of the reason we don’t hear this stuff out loud much any longer is because American society over the 50 to 70 years has undergone and imposed a “comprehensive racial awareness and inclusion curriculum throughout” all of its segments, “mandatory” for all, and “vetted, maintained, and overseen by their” fellow Americans who would have burned the place down if the behavior had persisted.
Which is to say, much progress from what once was.
It may have been Maoist reeducation; it may have been overweening sensitivity; it may have been politically correct.
Enlightenment by any other name.
“currently live in one of the more racists enclaves in the country”
Well, the Irish, of all people, should know better. What with all of that red hair they walk around in.
%~}
“currently live in one of the more racists enclaves in the country”
Well, the Irish, of all people, should know better. What with all of that red hair they walk around in.
%~}
“currently live in one of the more racists enclaves in the country”
Well, the Irish, of all people, should know better. What with all of that red hair they walk around in.
%~}
Ben Carson and Marco Rubio today demanded the Republican National Committee institute a “comprehensive racial awareness and inclusion curriculum throughout” all of its segments, “mandatory” for all candidates, and “vetted, maintained, and overseen” by their campaign staffs:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/donald-trump-ben-carson-pathological-child-molester
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/12/politics/donald-trump-undocumented-immigrants-do-not-pay-taxes/
I think Carson and Rubio are engaging in hypersensitive overkill.
Why subject everyone to this program?
It would be more efficient the next time Trump lets loose with this stuff on the debate stage for Carson and/or Rubio to approach him and knock him out cold with a roundhouse punch to his glass jaw.
Let him lay there for the duration of the debate and have the stage managers mark his face with politically correct sloganeering and give him a buzz cut during commercial breaks.
Think how much these guys hate EACH OTHER. And then think once they choose the lead hater amongst them for the election, how much they are going to hate most of the rest of us.
It could lead a guy to propose ban-able solutions to this fascist problem we’re encountering.
Ben Carson and Marco Rubio today demanded the Republican National Committee institute a “comprehensive racial awareness and inclusion curriculum throughout” all of its segments, “mandatory” for all candidates, and “vetted, maintained, and overseen” by their campaign staffs:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/donald-trump-ben-carson-pathological-child-molester
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/12/politics/donald-trump-undocumented-immigrants-do-not-pay-taxes/
I think Carson and Rubio are engaging in hypersensitive overkill.
Why subject everyone to this program?
It would be more efficient the next time Trump lets loose with this stuff on the debate stage for Carson and/or Rubio to approach him and knock him out cold with a roundhouse punch to his glass jaw.
Let him lay there for the duration of the debate and have the stage managers mark his face with politically correct sloganeering and give him a buzz cut during commercial breaks.
Think how much these guys hate EACH OTHER. And then think once they choose the lead hater amongst them for the election, how much they are going to hate most of the rest of us.
It could lead a guy to propose ban-able solutions to this fascist problem we’re encountering.
Ben Carson and Marco Rubio today demanded the Republican National Committee institute a “comprehensive racial awareness and inclusion curriculum throughout” all of its segments, “mandatory” for all candidates, and “vetted, maintained, and overseen” by their campaign staffs:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/donald-trump-ben-carson-pathological-child-molester
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/12/politics/donald-trump-undocumented-immigrants-do-not-pay-taxes/
I think Carson and Rubio are engaging in hypersensitive overkill.
Why subject everyone to this program?
It would be more efficient the next time Trump lets loose with this stuff on the debate stage for Carson and/or Rubio to approach him and knock him out cold with a roundhouse punch to his glass jaw.
Let him lay there for the duration of the debate and have the stage managers mark his face with politically correct sloganeering and give him a buzz cut during commercial breaks.
Think how much these guys hate EACH OTHER. And then think once they choose the lead hater amongst them for the election, how much they are going to hate most of the rest of us.
It could lead a guy to propose ban-able solutions to this fascist problem we’re encountering.
Look at what the multiracial and multidenominational conservatives on the Supreme Court heve done to us. I can’t think what peculiar trait it is that binds the five together, can you?
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/a-sketchy-trump-super-pac-disappears%E2%80%94with–300-000-in-donor-funds-161944728.html
Why isn’t Lois Lerner looking into this?
Lois?
Are you there?
Look at what the multiracial and multidenominational conservatives on the Supreme Court heve done to us. I can’t think what peculiar trait it is that binds the five together, can you?
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/a-sketchy-trump-super-pac-disappears%E2%80%94with–300-000-in-donor-funds-161944728.html
Why isn’t Lois Lerner looking into this?
Lois?
Are you there?
Look at what the multiracial and multidenominational conservatives on the Supreme Court heve done to us. I can’t think what peculiar trait it is that binds the five together, can you?
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/a-sketchy-trump-super-pac-disappears%E2%80%94with–300-000-in-donor-funds-161944728.html
Why isn’t Lois Lerner looking into this?
Lois?
Are you there?
While there are some pretty unrepressed racists in MA, it is quite unusual to hear “…”black people are simply lazy whiners.” out loud, in person.
Marty, you need to get out more.
While there are some pretty unrepressed racists in MA, it is quite unusual to hear “…”black people are simply lazy whiners.” out loud, in person.
Marty, you need to get out more.
While there are some pretty unrepressed racists in MA, it is quite unusual to hear “…”black people are simply lazy whiners.” out loud, in person.
Marty, you need to get out more.
Countme-In — “I’d be curious to know the difference between students imposing speech and behavior codes within universities and Exxon imposing speech codes on their employee scientists regarding global warming.”
The biggest difference I can think of is that no students have ever imposed a speech code. Speech codes are imposed by the University. Students sometimes initiate the process and have some input, but it’s the Regents that oversee the process and decide what speech is protected and what is not.
There really is no difference between speech codes at a university and speech codes at a corporation like Exxon once you locate the actual policy makers, but that center of power is not located within either the faculty or the student body.
Once a speech code is adopted, however, the tenured faculty *may* have more wiggle room depending on how robustly the faculty is willing to defend their academic freedom. Students and contingent faculty, however, have more cause to worry.
Countme-In — “I’d be curious to know the difference between students imposing speech and behavior codes within universities and Exxon imposing speech codes on their employee scientists regarding global warming.”
The biggest difference I can think of is that no students have ever imposed a speech code. Speech codes are imposed by the University. Students sometimes initiate the process and have some input, but it’s the Regents that oversee the process and decide what speech is protected and what is not.
There really is no difference between speech codes at a university and speech codes at a corporation like Exxon once you locate the actual policy makers, but that center of power is not located within either the faculty or the student body.
Once a speech code is adopted, however, the tenured faculty *may* have more wiggle room depending on how robustly the faculty is willing to defend their academic freedom. Students and contingent faculty, however, have more cause to worry.
Countme-In — “I’d be curious to know the difference between students imposing speech and behavior codes within universities and Exxon imposing speech codes on their employee scientists regarding global warming.”
The biggest difference I can think of is that no students have ever imposed a speech code. Speech codes are imposed by the University. Students sometimes initiate the process and have some input, but it’s the Regents that oversee the process and decide what speech is protected and what is not.
There really is no difference between speech codes at a university and speech codes at a corporation like Exxon once you locate the actual policy makers, but that center of power is not located within either the faculty or the student body.
Once a speech code is adopted, however, the tenured faculty *may* have more wiggle room depending on how robustly the faculty is willing to defend their academic freedom. Students and contingent faculty, however, have more cause to worry.
Well, not whiny and lazy, but I’d say this fits:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ann-coulter-ethnic-groups-crimes
She said in a normal voice but directly into a microphone.
Well, not whiny and lazy, but I’d say this fits:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ann-coulter-ethnic-groups-crimes
She said in a normal voice but directly into a microphone.
Well, not whiny and lazy, but I’d say this fits:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ann-coulter-ethnic-groups-crimes
She said in a normal voice but directly into a microphone.
@Nous: “…no students have ever imposed a speech code. Speech codes are imposed by the University.”
Schools that run on the basis of a strong “Honor Code” could indeed have a speech code, imposed on the students by their own representatives.
It wouldn’t apply to employees, and there would have to be some sort of “if the student judicial process determines that a*hole X be expelled, they get officially expelled”.
Honor code systems can be considerably harsher than “normal” college rules, for example stuff like expulsion and a lifetime ban after ONE incidence of cheating.
Conclusion: there is a huge variation in higher-ed, generalizations are of limited value.
@Nous: “…no students have ever imposed a speech code. Speech codes are imposed by the University.”
Schools that run on the basis of a strong “Honor Code” could indeed have a speech code, imposed on the students by their own representatives.
It wouldn’t apply to employees, and there would have to be some sort of “if the student judicial process determines that a*hole X be expelled, they get officially expelled”.
Honor code systems can be considerably harsher than “normal” college rules, for example stuff like expulsion and a lifetime ban after ONE incidence of cheating.
Conclusion: there is a huge variation in higher-ed, generalizations are of limited value.
@Nous: “…no students have ever imposed a speech code. Speech codes are imposed by the University.”
Schools that run on the basis of a strong “Honor Code” could indeed have a speech code, imposed on the students by their own representatives.
It wouldn’t apply to employees, and there would have to be some sort of “if the student judicial process determines that a*hole X be expelled, they get officially expelled”.
Honor code systems can be considerably harsher than “normal” college rules, for example stuff like expulsion and a lifetime ban after ONE incidence of cheating.
Conclusion: there is a huge variation in higher-ed, generalizations are of limited value.
I suppose I’ll have to read Coulter’s book to learn how she breaks down the types of crimes white Americans and descendants of first world countries commit in this country.
Being a white American male with the usual predilections of my ethnic group, as a younger man I committed mass murder in various venues like movie theaters, elementary schools, black churches, and government buildings.
I once shot a kid between the eyes for ringing the wrong door bell …. mine.
As I matured and got over that rash behavior, I moved on to crimes in which at least there was a monetary payoff. I committed mortgage fraud, bank fraud, insider trading, fleeced my investment clients of their life savings, sold underwater investment property to retirees, and, along with my white male compatriots, I nearly brought down the entire world’s financial system with malice aforethought.
Worst of all, to my mind, was that middle of the night TV gig I had in which I mail-ordered callers of my 800 number bottles of raw sewage labeled as marinara sauce.
Now THAT, I felt bad about.
There was also slavery, the Holocaust, and wiping out Native Americans, but I ask you, when does a predilection cross the fine line between duty to God, Country, and Mammon into outright genocide.
You’ll find, as a white person in these particular instances and while you are in the midst of the genocide, that it’s tough for a well-meaning person to discern the line.
I know these crimes are no reflection on any of you, nor on Ann Coulter, but one must be wise to predilections in the fair race.
I suppose I’ll have to read Coulter’s book to learn how she breaks down the types of crimes white Americans and descendants of first world countries commit in this country.
Being a white American male with the usual predilections of my ethnic group, as a younger man I committed mass murder in various venues like movie theaters, elementary schools, black churches, and government buildings.
I once shot a kid between the eyes for ringing the wrong door bell …. mine.
As I matured and got over that rash behavior, I moved on to crimes in which at least there was a monetary payoff. I committed mortgage fraud, bank fraud, insider trading, fleeced my investment clients of their life savings, sold underwater investment property to retirees, and, along with my white male compatriots, I nearly brought down the entire world’s financial system with malice aforethought.
Worst of all, to my mind, was that middle of the night TV gig I had in which I mail-ordered callers of my 800 number bottles of raw sewage labeled as marinara sauce.
Now THAT, I felt bad about.
There was also slavery, the Holocaust, and wiping out Native Americans, but I ask you, when does a predilection cross the fine line between duty to God, Country, and Mammon into outright genocide.
You’ll find, as a white person in these particular instances and while you are in the midst of the genocide, that it’s tough for a well-meaning person to discern the line.
I know these crimes are no reflection on any of you, nor on Ann Coulter, but one must be wise to predilections in the fair race.
I suppose I’ll have to read Coulter’s book to learn how she breaks down the types of crimes white Americans and descendants of first world countries commit in this country.
Being a white American male with the usual predilections of my ethnic group, as a younger man I committed mass murder in various venues like movie theaters, elementary schools, black churches, and government buildings.
I once shot a kid between the eyes for ringing the wrong door bell …. mine.
As I matured and got over that rash behavior, I moved on to crimes in which at least there was a monetary payoff. I committed mortgage fraud, bank fraud, insider trading, fleeced my investment clients of their life savings, sold underwater investment property to retirees, and, along with my white male compatriots, I nearly brought down the entire world’s financial system with malice aforethought.
Worst of all, to my mind, was that middle of the night TV gig I had in which I mail-ordered callers of my 800 number bottles of raw sewage labeled as marinara sauce.
Now THAT, I felt bad about.
There was also slavery, the Holocaust, and wiping out Native Americans, but I ask you, when does a predilection cross the fine line between duty to God, Country, and Mammon into outright genocide.
You’ll find, as a white person in these particular instances and while you are in the midst of the genocide, that it’s tough for a well-meaning person to discern the line.
I know these crimes are no reflection on any of you, nor on Ann Coulter, but one must be wise to predilections in the fair race.
Count, once you’ve read Coulter’s book (a nasty task that I happily leave to others), by all means let us all know what kinds of criminal activity she thins each of us have a predilection for.
I’m particularly interested to know what predilections my wife’s ethnic group might have. After all, there ought to be an opportunity for some synergies in a mixed marriage….
Count, once you’ve read Coulter’s book (a nasty task that I happily leave to others), by all means let us all know what kinds of criminal activity she thins each of us have a predilection for.
I’m particularly interested to know what predilections my wife’s ethnic group might have. After all, there ought to be an opportunity for some synergies in a mixed marriage….
Count, once you’ve read Coulter’s book (a nasty task that I happily leave to others), by all means let us all know what kinds of criminal activity she thins each of us have a predilection for.
I’m particularly interested to know what predilections my wife’s ethnic group might have. After all, there ought to be an opportunity for some synergies in a mixed marriage….
Donald Trump is disturbed by Hillary Clinton’s hair.
Irony is dead. If you didn’t believe me when I said it upthread, believe me now.
Off topic, I know, but whatever. I just don’t know when these guys are serious and when they’re pranking us all anymore.
Donald Trump is disturbed by Hillary Clinton’s hair.
Irony is dead. If you didn’t believe me when I said it upthread, believe me now.
Off topic, I know, but whatever. I just don’t know when these guys are serious and when they’re pranking us all anymore.
Donald Trump is disturbed by Hillary Clinton’s hair.
Irony is dead. If you didn’t believe me when I said it upthread, believe me now.
Off topic, I know, but whatever. I just don’t know when these guys are serious and when they’re pranking us all anymore.
For irony, you really need a sense of humor. And I’m not seeing a lot of this among these guys.
Cry for the poor folks, over the next 4 years, who have to go to the White House Correspondents’ Dinner if one of them wins! By tradition, the President gets up and tells a few jokes poking fun at himself. Can you picture any of these guys doing that? Me neither.
For irony, you really need a sense of humor. And I’m not seeing a lot of this among these guys.
Cry for the poor folks, over the next 4 years, who have to go to the White House Correspondents’ Dinner if one of them wins! By tradition, the President gets up and tells a few jokes poking fun at himself. Can you picture any of these guys doing that? Me neither.
For irony, you really need a sense of humor. And I’m not seeing a lot of this among these guys.
Cry for the poor folks, over the next 4 years, who have to go to the White House Correspondents’ Dinner if one of them wins! By tradition, the President gets up and tells a few jokes poking fun at himself. Can you picture any of these guys doing that? Me neither.
bobbyp,
Thanks for the kind words. The opinion is reciprocal.
historically, and yes, currently there is such a thing.
Your point is correct, though I intended to express what I think is the correct standard, not the one in use. I also agree that those in positions of power benefit from having their perceptions challenged as well.
John Spragge,
As with any initial position adopted before negotiations, it leaves a lot of the practical details out. It makes sense to hope that when the time comes to fill in these details, the students and the administration will take a reasonable approach and make a serious effort to both improve conditions at the school, and counteract the negative effects of the social conditions around them.
As I said, I am open to having people clarify or revise their statements. Since you are discussing things in terms of negotiations let me say that, while taking a strong initial position is a reasonable tactic, it is important not to take one so extreme that your counterparty concludes you are simply unreasonable, and no sensible deal can be struck.
bobbyp,
Thanks for the kind words. The opinion is reciprocal.
historically, and yes, currently there is such a thing.
Your point is correct, though I intended to express what I think is the correct standard, not the one in use. I also agree that those in positions of power benefit from having their perceptions challenged as well.
John Spragge,
As with any initial position adopted before negotiations, it leaves a lot of the practical details out. It makes sense to hope that when the time comes to fill in these details, the students and the administration will take a reasonable approach and make a serious effort to both improve conditions at the school, and counteract the negative effects of the social conditions around them.
As I said, I am open to having people clarify or revise their statements. Since you are discussing things in terms of negotiations let me say that, while taking a strong initial position is a reasonable tactic, it is important not to take one so extreme that your counterparty concludes you are simply unreasonable, and no sensible deal can be struck.
bobbyp,
Thanks for the kind words. The opinion is reciprocal.
historically, and yes, currently there is such a thing.
Your point is correct, though I intended to express what I think is the correct standard, not the one in use. I also agree that those in positions of power benefit from having their perceptions challenged as well.
John Spragge,
As with any initial position adopted before negotiations, it leaves a lot of the practical details out. It makes sense to hope that when the time comes to fill in these details, the students and the administration will take a reasonable approach and make a serious effort to both improve conditions at the school, and counteract the negative effects of the social conditions around them.
As I said, I am open to having people clarify or revise their statements. Since you are discussing things in terms of negotiations let me say that, while taking a strong initial position is a reasonable tactic, it is important not to take one so extreme that your counterparty concludes you are simply unreasonable, and no sensible deal can be struck.
Yeah , hardly anyone makes blatantly racist comments anymore. That’s why Donald Trump’s campaign shriveled up and died when he said some bad things about Mexicans.
Yeah , hardly anyone makes blatantly racist comments anymore. That’s why Donald Trump’s campaign shriveled up and died when he said some bad things about Mexicans.
Yeah , hardly anyone makes blatantly racist comments anymore. That’s why Donald Trump’s campaign shriveled up and died when he said some bad things about Mexicans.
At the risk of whipping up another whinge at how the notion of white privilege oppresses, I will say I felt this article was quite good.
https://newrepublic.com/article/123431/student-activism-serious-business
At the risk of whipping up another whinge at how the notion of white privilege oppresses, I will say I felt this article was quite good.
https://newrepublic.com/article/123431/student-activism-serious-business
At the risk of whipping up another whinge at how the notion of white privilege oppresses, I will say I felt this article was quite good.
https://newrepublic.com/article/123431/student-activism-serious-business
Also, I’m out to a place that last year didn’t have internet, so please save impassioned pleas of ‘do you stand by this’ to my Sunday nite, which is most of your sunday morning.
Also, I’m out to a place that last year didn’t have internet, so please save impassioned pleas of ‘do you stand by this’ to my Sunday nite, which is most of your sunday morning.
Also, I’m out to a place that last year didn’t have internet, so please save impassioned pleas of ‘do you stand by this’ to my Sunday nite, which is most of your sunday morning.
Donald,
Trump, who I don’t like, didn’t say anything about Mexicans. He said something about Mexican criminals who come here illegally. I suspect without researching it that they constitute a reasonably small subset of Mexicans. A smaller subset probably meet Ann Coulters child molester profile.
Donald,
Trump, who I don’t like, didn’t say anything about Mexicans. He said something about Mexican criminals who come here illegally. I suspect without researching it that they constitute a reasonably small subset of Mexicans. A smaller subset probably meet Ann Coulters child molester profile.
Donald,
Trump, who I don’t like, didn’t say anything about Mexicans. He said something about Mexican criminals who come here illegally. I suspect without researching it that they constitute a reasonably small subset of Mexicans. A smaller subset probably meet Ann Coulters child molester profile.
Marty, you may have taken that from Trump’s comments. But most of us seem to have seen it as a statement that most Mexican (or other Latin American) immigrants are criminals. With the non-criminals so tiny a fraction as to be barely worth an afterthought.
It is possible that his intended meaning was as you say. But it sure didn’t come out that way. And I have to say I don’t think it was intended to be taken that way by Trumps target audience.
Marty, you may have taken that from Trump’s comments. But most of us seem to have seen it as a statement that most Mexican (or other Latin American) immigrants are criminals. With the non-criminals so tiny a fraction as to be barely worth an afterthought.
It is possible that his intended meaning was as you say. But it sure didn’t come out that way. And I have to say I don’t think it was intended to be taken that way by Trumps target audience.
Marty, you may have taken that from Trump’s comments. But most of us seem to have seen it as a statement that most Mexican (or other Latin American) immigrants are criminals. With the non-criminals so tiny a fraction as to be barely worth an afterthought.
It is possible that his intended meaning was as you say. But it sure didn’t come out that way. And I have to say I don’t think it was intended to be taken that way by Trumps target audience.
See what you did there wj. Trump never said anything about Mexican immigrants, he only referenced illegal aliens. That’s the power of media.
See what you did there wj. Trump never said anything about Mexican immigrants, he only referenced illegal aliens. That’s the power of media.
See what you did there wj. Trump never said anything about Mexican immigrants, he only referenced illegal aliens. That’s the power of media.
Trump, who I don’t like, didn’t say anything about Mexicans. He said something about Mexican criminals who come here illegally.
Trump never said anything about Mexican immigrants, he only referenced illegal aliens.
See what Marty did there, wj?
From Trump’s announcement speech:
Search the whole speech. The word “illegal” appears only once, and he isn’t using it to qualify which Mexicans he’s talking about.
Trump, who I don’t like, didn’t say anything about Mexicans. He said something about Mexican criminals who come here illegally.
Trump never said anything about Mexican immigrants, he only referenced illegal aliens.
See what Marty did there, wj?
From Trump’s announcement speech:
Search the whole speech. The word “illegal” appears only once, and he isn’t using it to qualify which Mexicans he’s talking about.
Trump, who I don’t like, didn’t say anything about Mexicans. He said something about Mexican criminals who come here illegally.
Trump never said anything about Mexican immigrants, he only referenced illegal aliens.
See what Marty did there, wj?
From Trump’s announcement speech:
Search the whole speech. The word “illegal” appears only once, and he isn’t using it to qualify which Mexicans he’s talking about.
Trump never said anything about Mexican immigrants, he only referenced illegal aliens. That’s the power of media.
You’re quite right. Trump never said anything about legal Mexican immigrants. Because he didn’t have to. His target audience simply doesn’t have that category in its mindsety — as far as they are concerned, all Mexican immigrants are here illegally. (Well, perhaps not the anchor babies. But that’s a different discussion.)
This is what they term “dog whistles”. Stuff that a politician (left or right) can say that is not, taken literally, objectionable. But which he knows, without any doubt, will be taken the (objectionable) way he intends it by the folks that he is trying to reach. Gets the message across, while allowing him to complain about “the media” when his intended meaning is pointed out.
Trump never said anything about Mexican immigrants, he only referenced illegal aliens. That’s the power of media.
You’re quite right. Trump never said anything about legal Mexican immigrants. Because he didn’t have to. His target audience simply doesn’t have that category in its mindsety — as far as they are concerned, all Mexican immigrants are here illegally. (Well, perhaps not the anchor babies. But that’s a different discussion.)
This is what they term “dog whistles”. Stuff that a politician (left or right) can say that is not, taken literally, objectionable. But which he knows, without any doubt, will be taken the (objectionable) way he intends it by the folks that he is trying to reach. Gets the message across, while allowing him to complain about “the media” when his intended meaning is pointed out.
Trump never said anything about Mexican immigrants, he only referenced illegal aliens. That’s the power of media.
You’re quite right. Trump never said anything about legal Mexican immigrants. Because he didn’t have to. His target audience simply doesn’t have that category in its mindsety — as far as they are concerned, all Mexican immigrants are here illegally. (Well, perhaps not the anchor babies. But that’s a different discussion.)
This is what they term “dog whistles”. Stuff that a politician (left or right) can say that is not, taken literally, objectionable. But which he knows, without any doubt, will be taken the (objectionable) way he intends it by the folks that he is trying to reach. Gets the message across, while allowing him to complain about “the media” when his intended meaning is pointed out.
Marty: Trump never said anything about Mexican immigrants …
wj: This is what they term “dog whistles”.
Marty is evidently not a dog on the internet.
–TP
Marty: Trump never said anything about Mexican immigrants …
wj: This is what they term “dog whistles”.
Marty is evidently not a dog on the internet.
–TP
Marty: Trump never said anything about Mexican immigrants …
wj: This is what they term “dog whistles”.
Marty is evidently not a dog on the internet.
–TP
I hate the concept of dog whistles. It allows the opposition to frame everything you say however they want. He said what he said, which without a lot of interpretive gymnastics insulted no one but criminals from Latin America and the Middle East that came here illegally.
I hate the concept of dog whistles. It allows the opposition to frame everything you say however they want. He said what he said, which without a lot of interpretive gymnastics insulted no one but criminals from Latin America and the Middle East that came here illegally.
I hate the concept of dog whistles. It allows the opposition to frame everything you say however they want. He said what he said, which without a lot of interpretive gymnastics insulted no one but criminals from Latin America and the Middle East that came here illegally.
Donald Trump is Marty’s Anger Translator — Luther.
Donald Trump is Marty’s Anger Translator — Luther.
Donald Trump is Marty’s Anger Translator — Luther.
I hate the concept of dog whistles. It allows the opposition to frame everything you say however they want.
I hate the fact of dog whistles. It allows the speaker to reframe everything they say differently for different listeners.
Which is to say, it’s nice that you hate the idea of connotation. Language would be so much clearer if only denotation was used in speech. Also, it would be nice if I had a pony.
I hate the concept of dog whistles. It allows the opposition to frame everything you say however they want.
I hate the fact of dog whistles. It allows the speaker to reframe everything they say differently for different listeners.
Which is to say, it’s nice that you hate the idea of connotation. Language would be so much clearer if only denotation was used in speech. Also, it would be nice if I had a pony.
I hate the concept of dog whistles. It allows the opposition to frame everything you say however they want.
I hate the fact of dog whistles. It allows the speaker to reframe everything they say differently for different listeners.
Which is to say, it’s nice that you hate the idea of connotation. Language would be so much clearer if only denotation was used in speech. Also, it would be nice if I had a pony.
I find the whole “they’re sending us” thing to be problematic, personally.
I’d be willing to say it was a figure of speech, but apparently we are required to consider only the most literal sense of what was said.
I find the whole “they’re sending us” thing to be problematic, personally.
I’d be willing to say it was a figure of speech, but apparently we are required to consider only the most literal sense of what was said.
I find the whole “they’re sending us” thing to be problematic, personally.
I’d be willing to say it was a figure of speech, but apparently we are required to consider only the most literal sense of what was said.
I think Trump is talking about illegal immigrants or whatever term one wishes to use–he is tarring the entire class of people who crossed the Rio Grande as drug pushers and rapists and criminals, while generously allowing that ” some” might be good people, And while you can say that crossing the border is itself an legal act and makes you a criminal, this is clearly a dog whistle–he is talking as though their life of crime isn’t limited to the fact of their being here, but includes a whole host of other crimes. And only “some” are innocent.
On the campus protests, what I’ve noticed from the rightwingers I read semi-regularly these days–Rod Dreher–is an eagerness to be as shrill as possible in his condemnations. From what I can tell, some of the protestors have said stupid things and are extremely self-righteous, but I also think some of their complaints are or might be justified, yet to Rod it is the very fate of Western civilization which is at stake. There is no time for nuance, not when some 20 year old kid might have said something idiotic. There is hardly any room left to ramp up the rhetoric after the Paris massacres.
I think Trump is talking about illegal immigrants or whatever term one wishes to use–he is tarring the entire class of people who crossed the Rio Grande as drug pushers and rapists and criminals, while generously allowing that ” some” might be good people, And while you can say that crossing the border is itself an legal act and makes you a criminal, this is clearly a dog whistle–he is talking as though their life of crime isn’t limited to the fact of their being here, but includes a whole host of other crimes. And only “some” are innocent.
On the campus protests, what I’ve noticed from the rightwingers I read semi-regularly these days–Rod Dreher–is an eagerness to be as shrill as possible in his condemnations. From what I can tell, some of the protestors have said stupid things and are extremely self-righteous, but I also think some of their complaints are or might be justified, yet to Rod it is the very fate of Western civilization which is at stake. There is no time for nuance, not when some 20 year old kid might have said something idiotic. There is hardly any room left to ramp up the rhetoric after the Paris massacres.
I think Trump is talking about illegal immigrants or whatever term one wishes to use–he is tarring the entire class of people who crossed the Rio Grande as drug pushers and rapists and criminals, while generously allowing that ” some” might be good people, And while you can say that crossing the border is itself an legal act and makes you a criminal, this is clearly a dog whistle–he is talking as though their life of crime isn’t limited to the fact of their being here, but includes a whole host of other crimes. And only “some” are innocent.
On the campus protests, what I’ve noticed from the rightwingers I read semi-regularly these days–Rod Dreher–is an eagerness to be as shrill as possible in his condemnations. From what I can tell, some of the protestors have said stupid things and are extremely self-righteous, but I also think some of their complaints are or might be justified, yet to Rod it is the very fate of Western civilization which is at stake. There is no time for nuance, not when some 20 year old kid might have said something idiotic. There is hardly any room left to ramp up the rhetoric after the Paris massacres.
The reaction to Paris was of course purely Pawlovian: blame Obama, gun control and sympathy with Syrian refugees.
The reaction to Paris was of course purely Pawlovian: blame Obama, gun control and sympathy with Syrian refugees.
The reaction to Paris was of course purely Pawlovian: blame Obama, gun control and sympathy with Syrian refugees.
What probably took a few seconds extra thought though, was to come up with Paris as a tool to bash the Missouri students with also.
What probably took a few seconds extra thought though, was to come up with Paris as a tool to bash the Missouri students with also.
What probably took a few seconds extra thought though, was to come up with Paris as a tool to bash the Missouri students with also.
The reaction to Paris was of course purely Pawlovian: blame Obama, gun control and sympathy with Syrian refugees.
The one that drives me the most crazy is the idea that abandoning the refugees is a way to combat ISIS, as opposed to creating more disaffected and desperate people who will become ripe for recruitment.
I don’t know what to do about ISIS, but there are some things I’m pretty confident we shouldn’t do, because they’ll only make things worse.
The reaction to Paris was of course purely Pawlovian: blame Obama, gun control and sympathy with Syrian refugees.
The one that drives me the most crazy is the idea that abandoning the refugees is a way to combat ISIS, as opposed to creating more disaffected and desperate people who will become ripe for recruitment.
I don’t know what to do about ISIS, but there are some things I’m pretty confident we shouldn’t do, because they’ll only make things worse.
The reaction to Paris was of course purely Pawlovian: blame Obama, gun control and sympathy with Syrian refugees.
The one that drives me the most crazy is the idea that abandoning the refugees is a way to combat ISIS, as opposed to creating more disaffected and desperate people who will become ripe for recruitment.
I don’t know what to do about ISIS, but there are some things I’m pretty confident we shouldn’t do, because they’ll only make things worse.
#insert
ONE side of the political debate gets blamed for dogwhistling, because ONE side has made a high art of the practice.
If your actual political positions are acceptable in the larger community, you don’t need to dogwhistle. Thus, Dixiecrats were openly racist pre-1960s, current GOP opposition to business regulation is open.
Want people to stop looking for dogwhistling? Stop doing it. But that would require kicking the racists out of the GOP, which is unpossible, because 1. there aren’t any, B. don’t they deserve representation also too, and Thirdly, there aren’t any.
#insert
ONE side of the political debate gets blamed for dogwhistling, because ONE side has made a high art of the practice.
If your actual political positions are acceptable in the larger community, you don’t need to dogwhistle. Thus, Dixiecrats were openly racist pre-1960s, current GOP opposition to business regulation is open.
Want people to stop looking for dogwhistling? Stop doing it. But that would require kicking the racists out of the GOP, which is unpossible, because 1. there aren’t any, B. don’t they deserve representation also too, and Thirdly, there aren’t any.
#insert
ONE side of the political debate gets blamed for dogwhistling, because ONE side has made a high art of the practice.
If your actual political positions are acceptable in the larger community, you don’t need to dogwhistle. Thus, Dixiecrats were openly racist pre-1960s, current GOP opposition to business regulation is open.
Want people to stop looking for dogwhistling? Stop doing it. But that would require kicking the racists out of the GOP, which is unpossible, because 1. there aren’t any, B. don’t they deserve representation also too, and Thirdly, there aren’t any.
damn html..
#insert <LeeAtwaterN*ggerN*ggerQuote.h>
damn html..
#insert <LeeAtwaterN*ggerN*ggerQuote.h>
damn html..
#insert <LeeAtwaterN*ggerN*ggerQuote.h>
Besides that sensible observation, a meme that I see repeated over and over is that the refugees include “too many” (or “consist mostly of”) “military age males”, and that they’re thus largely terrorists, or at absolute best useless, shiftless cowards. Because if you were a Real Man you’d stay and die in vain defending a repressive regime from a repressive insurgency, even if doing so meant sending your family off overseas by themselves and very possibly never seeing them again. Only terrorists and cowards would think otherwise, and lemme tell you what, the Free World doesn’t need any more of those when we have our home-grown liberal fifth columns! Or something like that. Et cetera, ad nasueam.
It’s breathtaking how little empathy – or even just perspective, or comprehension of the brutality of war – that vast swathes of Americans evince.
Besides that sensible observation, a meme that I see repeated over and over is that the refugees include “too many” (or “consist mostly of”) “military age males”, and that they’re thus largely terrorists, or at absolute best useless, shiftless cowards. Because if you were a Real Man you’d stay and die in vain defending a repressive regime from a repressive insurgency, even if doing so meant sending your family off overseas by themselves and very possibly never seeing them again. Only terrorists and cowards would think otherwise, and lemme tell you what, the Free World doesn’t need any more of those when we have our home-grown liberal fifth columns! Or something like that. Et cetera, ad nasueam.
It’s breathtaking how little empathy – or even just perspective, or comprehension of the brutality of war – that vast swathes of Americans evince.
Besides that sensible observation, a meme that I see repeated over and over is that the refugees include “too many” (or “consist mostly of”) “military age males”, and that they’re thus largely terrorists, or at absolute best useless, shiftless cowards. Because if you were a Real Man you’d stay and die in vain defending a repressive regime from a repressive insurgency, even if doing so meant sending your family off overseas by themselves and very possibly never seeing them again. Only terrorists and cowards would think otherwise, and lemme tell you what, the Free World doesn’t need any more of those when we have our home-grown liberal fifth columns! Or something like that. Et cetera, ad nasueam.
It’s breathtaking how little empathy – or even just perspective, or comprehension of the brutality of war – that vast swathes of Americans evince.
“That sensible observation” = hsh’s 10:53.
“That sensible observation” = hsh’s 10:53.
“That sensible observation” = hsh’s 10:53.
NV, do you suppose the lack of empathy and ignorance of the brutality of war come from seeing lots of movies where everything is entirely black and white? Just good guys and bad guys, and nobody inbetween. Also way too many battle scenes in movies where the heroes always triumph — generally without even getting much dirt of their faces.
It’s like the fight scenes which take a couple of minutes. Where the bad guys get beaten to a pulp, but the good guys barely get some scrapes on their knuckles. As opposed to the reality, which is that (assuming either participant has a clue) a fight takes just a few seconds. And results in someone on the ground unable to move — a good kick to the side of the knee will do that to you.
NV, do you suppose the lack of empathy and ignorance of the brutality of war come from seeing lots of movies where everything is entirely black and white? Just good guys and bad guys, and nobody inbetween. Also way too many battle scenes in movies where the heroes always triumph — generally without even getting much dirt of their faces.
It’s like the fight scenes which take a couple of minutes. Where the bad guys get beaten to a pulp, but the good guys barely get some scrapes on their knuckles. As opposed to the reality, which is that (assuming either participant has a clue) a fight takes just a few seconds. And results in someone on the ground unable to move — a good kick to the side of the knee will do that to you.
NV, do you suppose the lack of empathy and ignorance of the brutality of war come from seeing lots of movies where everything is entirely black and white? Just good guys and bad guys, and nobody inbetween. Also way too many battle scenes in movies where the heroes always triumph — generally without even getting much dirt of their faces.
It’s like the fight scenes which take a couple of minutes. Where the bad guys get beaten to a pulp, but the good guys barely get some scrapes on their knuckles. As opposed to the reality, which is that (assuming either participant has a clue) a fight takes just a few seconds. And results in someone on the ground unable to move — a good kick to the side of the knee will do that to you.
I think it’s fair to say there’s some connection there. It’s the Green Lantern theory of foreign policy all over again – if you have right intent and willpower, you will prevail no matter what, so an unwillingness to try means you lack one or both of those things. Which is just as dumb when talking about unorganized refugees standing up to military and paramilitary forces as it is when talking about the US engaging in unsophisticated and simplistic brute-force occupation strategies instead of stooping to engage in the messy business of COIN. But there you go.
I think it’s fair to say there’s some connection there. It’s the Green Lantern theory of foreign policy all over again – if you have right intent and willpower, you will prevail no matter what, so an unwillingness to try means you lack one or both of those things. Which is just as dumb when talking about unorganized refugees standing up to military and paramilitary forces as it is when talking about the US engaging in unsophisticated and simplistic brute-force occupation strategies instead of stooping to engage in the messy business of COIN. But there you go.
I think it’s fair to say there’s some connection there. It’s the Green Lantern theory of foreign policy all over again – if you have right intent and willpower, you will prevail no matter what, so an unwillingness to try means you lack one or both of those things. Which is just as dumb when talking about unorganized refugees standing up to military and paramilitary forces as it is when talking about the US engaging in unsophisticated and simplistic brute-force occupation strategies instead of stooping to engage in the messy business of COIN. But there you go.
Anyone care to comment on the disparate treatment/reaction accorded the clear murder of Laquan McDonald and the clear not-murder of Michael Brown? The relative lack of interest by, for example, a certain President and his Attorney General? Because I haven’t seen a lot of outrage there or, for that matter, here at ObWi over L McDonald (as opposed to M Brown and the Planned Parenthood shooting). None in fact. I’m waiting to hear from Ta Nehesi Coates too. Laquan was shot 2 months after Michael Brown. It’s almost as if some shootings are more heinous than others.
I’m thinking of a couple of new protest groups:
#SomeBlackLivesMatterMoreThanOthers
#BlackLivesThatFitTheNarrativeMatter
Catchy, yes?
Anyone care to comment on the disparate treatment/reaction accorded the clear murder of Laquan McDonald and the clear not-murder of Michael Brown? The relative lack of interest by, for example, a certain President and his Attorney General? Because I haven’t seen a lot of outrage there or, for that matter, here at ObWi over L McDonald (as opposed to M Brown and the Planned Parenthood shooting). None in fact. I’m waiting to hear from Ta Nehesi Coates too. Laquan was shot 2 months after Michael Brown. It’s almost as if some shootings are more heinous than others.
I’m thinking of a couple of new protest groups:
#SomeBlackLivesMatterMoreThanOthers
#BlackLivesThatFitTheNarrativeMatter
Catchy, yes?
Anyone care to comment on the disparate treatment/reaction accorded the clear murder of Laquan McDonald and the clear not-murder of Michael Brown? The relative lack of interest by, for example, a certain President and his Attorney General? Because I haven’t seen a lot of outrage there or, for that matter, here at ObWi over L McDonald (as opposed to M Brown and the Planned Parenthood shooting). None in fact. I’m waiting to hear from Ta Nehesi Coates too. Laquan was shot 2 months after Michael Brown. It’s almost as if some shootings are more heinous than others.
I’m thinking of a couple of new protest groups:
#SomeBlackLivesMatterMoreThanOthers
#BlackLivesThatFitTheNarrativeMatter
Catchy, yes?
you mad, bro?
you mad, bro?
you mad, bro?
you mad, bro?
Nope, just disgusted.
you mad, bro?
Nope, just disgusted.
you mad, bro?
Nope, just disgusted.
you’re disgusted that people weren’t mad about something you probably would have dismissed with your usual hand-wave ?
you’re disgusted that people weren’t mad about something you probably would have dismissed with your usual hand-wave ?
you’re disgusted that people weren’t mad about something you probably would have dismissed with your usual hand-wave ?
Anyone care to comment on the disparate treatment/reaction accorded the clear murder of Laquan McDonald and the clear not-murder of Michael Brown?
The videotape was only released recently? There’s nothing new about CPD brutality, killing and torture? (links via…) Maybe everyone is just tired?
And in what way does Laquan not fit the narrative?
Anyone care to comment on the disparate treatment/reaction accorded the clear murder of Laquan McDonald and the clear not-murder of Michael Brown?
The videotape was only released recently? There’s nothing new about CPD brutality, killing and torture? (links via…) Maybe everyone is just tired?
And in what way does Laquan not fit the narrative?
Anyone care to comment on the disparate treatment/reaction accorded the clear murder of Laquan McDonald and the clear not-murder of Michael Brown?
The videotape was only released recently? There’s nothing new about CPD brutality, killing and torture? (links via…) Maybe everyone is just tired?
And in what way does Laquan not fit the narrative?
More on the CPD here.
More on the CPD here.
More on the CPD here.
And in what way does Laquan not fit the narrative?
It happened on Rahm Emanuel’s shift and Obama/Holder were mute. Gross hypocrisy.
And in what way does Laquan not fit the narrative?
It happened on Rahm Emanuel’s shift and Obama/Holder were mute. Gross hypocrisy.
And in what way does Laquan not fit the narrative?
It happened on Rahm Emanuel’s shift and Obama/Holder were mute. Gross hypocrisy.
The CPD is the product of Democratic governance from time immemorial. Emanuel, almost certainly with Obama’s knowledge, covered this up until the election was over. Our president remains fully a part of the Chicago machine from which he came. The incredible hypocrisy of Obama carrying on ad nauseum over Michael Brown (and Trayvon Martin for that matter) and being completely silent until the news broke and then having only a single, generic comment is really astounding.
As is the reaction here.
The CPD is the product of Democratic governance from time immemorial. Emanuel, almost certainly with Obama’s knowledge, covered this up until the election was over. Our president remains fully a part of the Chicago machine from which he came. The incredible hypocrisy of Obama carrying on ad nauseum over Michael Brown (and Trayvon Martin for that matter) and being completely silent until the news broke and then having only a single, generic comment is really astounding.
As is the reaction here.
The CPD is the product of Democratic governance from time immemorial. Emanuel, almost certainly with Obama’s knowledge, covered this up until the election was over. Our president remains fully a part of the Chicago machine from which he came. The incredible hypocrisy of Obama carrying on ad nauseum over Michael Brown (and Trayvon Martin for that matter) and being completely silent until the news broke and then having only a single, generic comment is really astounding.
As is the reaction here.
what’s truly astounding is the richness of detail in the wingnut mythology. it’s almost unsurprising that people mistake it for reality.
what’s truly astounding is the richness of detail in the wingnut mythology. it’s almost unsurprising that people mistake it for reality.
what’s truly astounding is the richness of detail in the wingnut mythology. it’s almost unsurprising that people mistake it for reality.
you’re disgusted that people weren’t mad about something you probably would have dismissed with your usual hand-wave ?
Classic: it isn’t progressive hypocrisy, it’s conservative bad faith.
you’re disgusted that people weren’t mad about something you probably would have dismissed with your usual hand-wave ?
Classic: it isn’t progressive hypocrisy, it’s conservative bad faith.
you’re disgusted that people weren’t mad about something you probably would have dismissed with your usual hand-wave ?
Classic: it isn’t progressive hypocrisy, it’s conservative bad faith.
what’s truly astounding is the richness of detail in the wingnut mythology. it’s almost unsurprising that people mistake it for reality.
Same song, second verse: name calling, ridicule, refuse to engage on the merits. Duly noted.
what’s truly astounding is the richness of detail in the wingnut mythology. it’s almost unsurprising that people mistake it for reality.
Same song, second verse: name calling, ridicule, refuse to engage on the merits. Duly noted.
what’s truly astounding is the richness of detail in the wingnut mythology. it’s almost unsurprising that people mistake it for reality.
Same song, second verse: name calling, ridicule, refuse to engage on the merits. Duly noted.
As far as national officeholders go, my guess is that they aren’t leading the charge on what gets a public reaction. Rather, they respond to the public reaction.
The dynamics of what does or does not get a big public reaction and lots of press are complex, so I can’t really say why this story didn’t go over like the earlier ones. Besides being tired, maybe we’re into the primaries and ISIS is taking up a lot of the available air.
I’m not really sure what you’re getting at, though, as far as BLM and what people here discuss. Are you suggesting that we and BLM are going soft on CPD for Obama’s (or, even more bizarrely, Rahm Emanuel’s) sake? WTF did you smoke for breakfast?
As far as national officeholders go, my guess is that they aren’t leading the charge on what gets a public reaction. Rather, they respond to the public reaction.
The dynamics of what does or does not get a big public reaction and lots of press are complex, so I can’t really say why this story didn’t go over like the earlier ones. Besides being tired, maybe we’re into the primaries and ISIS is taking up a lot of the available air.
I’m not really sure what you’re getting at, though, as far as BLM and what people here discuss. Are you suggesting that we and BLM are going soft on CPD for Obama’s (or, even more bizarrely, Rahm Emanuel’s) sake? WTF did you smoke for breakfast?
As far as national officeholders go, my guess is that they aren’t leading the charge on what gets a public reaction. Rather, they respond to the public reaction.
The dynamics of what does or does not get a big public reaction and lots of press are complex, so I can’t really say why this story didn’t go over like the earlier ones. Besides being tired, maybe we’re into the primaries and ISIS is taking up a lot of the available air.
I’m not really sure what you’re getting at, though, as far as BLM and what people here discuss. Are you suggesting that we and BLM are going soft on CPD for Obama’s (or, even more bizarrely, Rahm Emanuel’s) sake? WTF did you smoke for breakfast?
Is Mother Jones sufficiently part of “the left” to have met the outrage quota you have set for us?
Is Mother Jones sufficiently part of “the left” to have met the outrage quota you have set for us?
Is Mother Jones sufficiently part of “the left” to have met the outrage quota you have set for us?
Rahm is a piece of work and deserves to go down along with everyone else involved in the coverup.
Obama…too close to the principals and has feet of clay -he’s not going to make it personal. At least he is moving for general action and keeping the pressure on for reform, whatever his sin of omission in this circumstance. Disappointing, but no more so than many of his other choices.
I have friends who were deeply involved in the Chicago demonstrations (as community organizers, the irony) and witnessed what they were saying about the situation and about Rahm*. I don’t think Emanuel feels particularly overlooked or protected by the Left at the moment, just protected enough by his network that he’s been able to just weather the storm.
*I have other friends who are peace officers who are quite upset at the rhetoric used by the protesters, and I won’t dismiss his concerns out of hand even if I think the other side the more aggrieved.
Rahm is a piece of work and deserves to go down along with everyone else involved in the coverup.
Obama…too close to the principals and has feet of clay -he’s not going to make it personal. At least he is moving for general action and keeping the pressure on for reform, whatever his sin of omission in this circumstance. Disappointing, but no more so than many of his other choices.
I have friends who were deeply involved in the Chicago demonstrations (as community organizers, the irony) and witnessed what they were saying about the situation and about Rahm*. I don’t think Emanuel feels particularly overlooked or protected by the Left at the moment, just protected enough by his network that he’s been able to just weather the storm.
*I have other friends who are peace officers who are quite upset at the rhetoric used by the protesters, and I won’t dismiss his concerns out of hand even if I think the other side the more aggrieved.
Rahm is a piece of work and deserves to go down along with everyone else involved in the coverup.
Obama…too close to the principals and has feet of clay -he’s not going to make it personal. At least he is moving for general action and keeping the pressure on for reform, whatever his sin of omission in this circumstance. Disappointing, but no more so than many of his other choices.
I have friends who were deeply involved in the Chicago demonstrations (as community organizers, the irony) and witnessed what they were saying about the situation and about Rahm*. I don’t think Emanuel feels particularly overlooked or protected by the Left at the moment, just protected enough by his network that he’s been able to just weather the storm.
*I have other friends who are peace officers who are quite upset at the rhetoric used by the protesters, and I won’t dismiss his concerns out of hand even if I think the other side the more aggrieved.
HSH–I read that before my first comment. Mother Jones is a great example of the left’s ignoring the elephant in the room: where is and where was our president and our attorney general, who were all over the ambiguous Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin stories but seem to have lock jaw now? And Ta Nehesi, where is his eloquent voice? And, the nation wide teeth gnashing?
No, the limited focus is CPD, not the political party that gave birth to it, that enables it and that covered up a truly clear and compelling murder for over a year.
I can’t wait for the next progressive cause celebre.
HSH–I read that before my first comment. Mother Jones is a great example of the left’s ignoring the elephant in the room: where is and where was our president and our attorney general, who were all over the ambiguous Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin stories but seem to have lock jaw now? And Ta Nehesi, where is his eloquent voice? And, the nation wide teeth gnashing?
No, the limited focus is CPD, not the political party that gave birth to it, that enables it and that covered up a truly clear and compelling murder for over a year.
I can’t wait for the next progressive cause celebre.
HSH–I read that before my first comment. Mother Jones is a great example of the left’s ignoring the elephant in the room: where is and where was our president and our attorney general, who were all over the ambiguous Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin stories but seem to have lock jaw now? And Ta Nehesi, where is his eloquent voice? And, the nation wide teeth gnashing?
No, the limited focus is CPD, not the political party that gave birth to it, that enables it and that covered up a truly clear and compelling murder for over a year.
I can’t wait for the next progressive cause celebre.
Nous–fair comment, even if you go too lightly on Obama–and Holder. It was murder. No one who’s looked at that video can conclude otherwise. And, the shooter is a serial offender, an outlaw who should have been dismissed years ago.
Sorry, but Obama is guilty as hell of playing politics with tragedies that fit his program and looking the other way when he or those close to him are on the wrong side of the story.
It beggars belief that Holder and Obama did not get a head’s up from Emanuel at precisely the time they were grandstanding in the the ambiguity then surrounding the Michael Brown incident. Progressives should be embarrassed if not nauseated by their leadership. At a minimum, they should forego calling anyone on the right a hypocrite for at least three months.
And #BlackLivesMatter is totally without credibility now.
Nous–fair comment, even if you go too lightly on Obama–and Holder. It was murder. No one who’s looked at that video can conclude otherwise. And, the shooter is a serial offender, an outlaw who should have been dismissed years ago.
Sorry, but Obama is guilty as hell of playing politics with tragedies that fit his program and looking the other way when he or those close to him are on the wrong side of the story.
It beggars belief that Holder and Obama did not get a head’s up from Emanuel at precisely the time they were grandstanding in the the ambiguity then surrounding the Michael Brown incident. Progressives should be embarrassed if not nauseated by their leadership. At a minimum, they should forego calling anyone on the right a hypocrite for at least three months.
And #BlackLivesMatter is totally without credibility now.
Nous–fair comment, even if you go too lightly on Obama–and Holder. It was murder. No one who’s looked at that video can conclude otherwise. And, the shooter is a serial offender, an outlaw who should have been dismissed years ago.
Sorry, but Obama is guilty as hell of playing politics with tragedies that fit his program and looking the other way when he or those close to him are on the wrong side of the story.
It beggars belief that Holder and Obama did not get a head’s up from Emanuel at precisely the time they were grandstanding in the the ambiguity then surrounding the Michael Brown incident. Progressives should be embarrassed if not nauseated by their leadership. At a minimum, they should forego calling anyone on the right a hypocrite for at least three months.
And #BlackLivesMatter is totally without credibility now.
It is getting difficult to keep up.
Daily Kos is calling for Emanuel to resign.
Hillary Clinton has called for the Justice Department to investigate the McDonald murder, as has the Illinois AG.
I agree.
There was a mass killing in Savannah, Georgia the same day as the San Bernadino mass killing.
There will be one early next week too. Get your map pins ready.
There will be another police execution of an innocent black citizen within two weeks, regardless of the fact that Michael Brown was a thug, leaving aside the the systematic abuse of police and judicial power in his town.
Yes, the evidence in the Michael Brown case shows that Brown was not an innocent black citizen, which won’t stop the next killing of an innocent black citizen.
When everyone is done killing, which they won’t be for decades at least on account of the stockpiles of bullets that need suing up, we’ll tote up the body count and the relative hypocrisies and hand out the prizes.
Meanwhile, be on the lookout for transgender militias knocking over Planned Parenthood offices, as suggested by an operative in the Texas political machine, not that THAT has anything more to do with McTX than anyone else’s momentary oversight of the McDonald circumstances, all of us being irrelevant to the crazed maelstrom swirling around us.
Also, free the Chicago Seven.
It is getting difficult to keep up.
Daily Kos is calling for Emanuel to resign.
Hillary Clinton has called for the Justice Department to investigate the McDonald murder, as has the Illinois AG.
I agree.
There was a mass killing in Savannah, Georgia the same day as the San Bernadino mass killing.
There will be one early next week too. Get your map pins ready.
There will be another police execution of an innocent black citizen within two weeks, regardless of the fact that Michael Brown was a thug, leaving aside the the systematic abuse of police and judicial power in his town.
Yes, the evidence in the Michael Brown case shows that Brown was not an innocent black citizen, which won’t stop the next killing of an innocent black citizen.
When everyone is done killing, which they won’t be for decades at least on account of the stockpiles of bullets that need suing up, we’ll tote up the body count and the relative hypocrisies and hand out the prizes.
Meanwhile, be on the lookout for transgender militias knocking over Planned Parenthood offices, as suggested by an operative in the Texas political machine, not that THAT has anything more to do with McTX than anyone else’s momentary oversight of the McDonald circumstances, all of us being irrelevant to the crazed maelstrom swirling around us.
Also, free the Chicago Seven.
It is getting difficult to keep up.
Daily Kos is calling for Emanuel to resign.
Hillary Clinton has called for the Justice Department to investigate the McDonald murder, as has the Illinois AG.
I agree.
There was a mass killing in Savannah, Georgia the same day as the San Bernadino mass killing.
There will be one early next week too. Get your map pins ready.
There will be another police execution of an innocent black citizen within two weeks, regardless of the fact that Michael Brown was a thug, leaving aside the the systematic abuse of police and judicial power in his town.
Yes, the evidence in the Michael Brown case shows that Brown was not an innocent black citizen, which won’t stop the next killing of an innocent black citizen.
When everyone is done killing, which they won’t be for decades at least on account of the stockpiles of bullets that need suing up, we’ll tote up the body count and the relative hypocrisies and hand out the prizes.
Meanwhile, be on the lookout for transgender militias knocking over Planned Parenthood offices, as suggested by an operative in the Texas political machine, not that THAT has anything more to do with McTX than anyone else’s momentary oversight of the McDonald circumstances, all of us being irrelevant to the crazed maelstrom swirling around us.
Also, free the Chicago Seven.
using up, not suing up, though I’d be happy to see civil actions as well.
using up, not suing up, though I’d be happy to see civil actions as well.
using up, not suing up, though I’d be happy to see civil actions as well.
refuse to engage on the merits. Duly noted.
oh, you were engaged well above the merits of your statements.
refuse to engage on the merits. Duly noted.
oh, you were engaged well above the merits of your statements.
refuse to engage on the merits. Duly noted.
oh, you were engaged well above the merits of your statements.
I would counsel Black Lives Matter, et al to tear the city of Chicago down to its foundations, so we can be treated to the spectacle of the Democratic Chicago Police Department and the Republican Oaf Keepers et al joining forces to murder the former in the streets, while every Republican candidate for President cheers the proceedings on, as Obama stands by bleating ineffectively.
“But (it) wasn’t nothin compared to what was comin down the pike.”
Cormac McCarthy, “No Country For Old Men”
I would counsel Black Lives Matter, et al to tear the city of Chicago down to its foundations, so we can be treated to the spectacle of the Democratic Chicago Police Department and the Republican Oaf Keepers et al joining forces to murder the former in the streets, while every Republican candidate for President cheers the proceedings on, as Obama stands by bleating ineffectively.
“But (it) wasn’t nothin compared to what was comin down the pike.”
Cormac McCarthy, “No Country For Old Men”
I would counsel Black Lives Matter, et al to tear the city of Chicago down to its foundations, so we can be treated to the spectacle of the Democratic Chicago Police Department and the Republican Oaf Keepers et al joining forces to murder the former in the streets, while every Republican candidate for President cheers the proceedings on, as Obama stands by bleating ineffectively.
“But (it) wasn’t nothin compared to what was comin down the pike.”
Cormac McCarthy, “No Country For Old Men”
And #BlackLivesMatter is totally without credibility now.
oh dear! whatever will they do without the support of those who have never given them an iota of support before? how will they go on having lost the faith of those who continually and stupidly deny that BLM ever had a point to begin with?
And #BlackLivesMatter is totally without credibility now.
oh dear! whatever will they do without the support of those who have never given them an iota of support before? how will they go on having lost the faith of those who continually and stupidly deny that BLM ever had a point to begin with?
And #BlackLivesMatter is totally without credibility now.
oh dear! whatever will they do without the support of those who have never given them an iota of support before? how will they go on having lost the faith of those who continually and stupidly deny that BLM ever had a point to begin with?
Anyone care to comment on the disparate treatment/reaction accorded the clear murder of Laquan McDonald and the clear not-murder of Michael Brown?
I would wager that the ‘disparateness’ is due to the fact that just about everybody, including any sane conservative is seeing this as a cold blooded murder.
So there will be little, if any, pushback from the right, and a trial.
Big, big Differences if you ask me.
Please respond substantively.
As for Emanual: Ask just about any finge lefty that still hews to the DemocratIC Party, and they will be more than happy to bombard you with their dislike for the guy.
Anyone care to comment on the disparate treatment/reaction accorded the clear murder of Laquan McDonald and the clear not-murder of Michael Brown?
I would wager that the ‘disparateness’ is due to the fact that just about everybody, including any sane conservative is seeing this as a cold blooded murder.
So there will be little, if any, pushback from the right, and a trial.
Big, big Differences if you ask me.
Please respond substantively.
As for Emanual: Ask just about any finge lefty that still hews to the DemocratIC Party, and they will be more than happy to bombard you with their dislike for the guy.
Anyone care to comment on the disparate treatment/reaction accorded the clear murder of Laquan McDonald and the clear not-murder of Michael Brown?
I would wager that the ‘disparateness’ is due to the fact that just about everybody, including any sane conservative is seeing this as a cold blooded murder.
So there will be little, if any, pushback from the right, and a trial.
Big, big Differences if you ask me.
Please respond substantively.
As for Emanual: Ask just about any finge lefty that still hews to the DemocratIC Party, and they will be more than happy to bombard you with their dislike for the guy.
how will they go on having lost the faith of those who continually and stupidly deny that BLM ever had a point to begin with?
BLM never had much of point, their meme being built on a palpable lie. Now it has none. You, in similar fashion, all too often, resort to ad hominem in place of substantive discussion. You well know the point being made here and you refuse to engage. See Nous for an example of engagement. You know this is rank hypocrisy and your high dudgeon leaders have been caught out. Your initial response is to summarily dismiss or deride those who call this to your attention, and when that doesn’t work, you attack their intelligence and motives. Call it Maoist-lite.
how will they go on having lost the faith of those who continually and stupidly deny that BLM ever had a point to begin with?
BLM never had much of point, their meme being built on a palpable lie. Now it has none. You, in similar fashion, all too often, resort to ad hominem in place of substantive discussion. You well know the point being made here and you refuse to engage. See Nous for an example of engagement. You know this is rank hypocrisy and your high dudgeon leaders have been caught out. Your initial response is to summarily dismiss or deride those who call this to your attention, and when that doesn’t work, you attack their intelligence and motives. Call it Maoist-lite.
how will they go on having lost the faith of those who continually and stupidly deny that BLM ever had a point to begin with?
BLM never had much of point, their meme being built on a palpable lie. Now it has none. You, in similar fashion, all too often, resort to ad hominem in place of substantive discussion. You well know the point being made here and you refuse to engage. See Nous for an example of engagement. You know this is rank hypocrisy and your high dudgeon leaders have been caught out. Your initial response is to summarily dismiss or deride those who call this to your attention, and when that doesn’t work, you attack their intelligence and motives. Call it Maoist-lite.
Please respond substantively.
Sure: By your logic, the mob justifiably riots and the president justifiably mugs for no good reason. When the facts are known and it’s clearly murder, ho hum, we all stay home.
Reason would dictate the opposite: if M Brown was shot attacking a police officer, no riots, no presidential grandstanding, just a tragedy. If L McDonald was murdered in cold blood, and if that murder is the occasion for a teachable moment led by our national leaders, *that* is the occasion to which they should rise. Where are they? More importantly, where the fuck were they a year ago?
BP, it’s Obama and Holder who are/were MIA in the truly compelling case of police murder right under their noses. Instead, they acquiesced in a cover up.
Please respond substantively.
Sure: By your logic, the mob justifiably riots and the president justifiably mugs for no good reason. When the facts are known and it’s clearly murder, ho hum, we all stay home.
Reason would dictate the opposite: if M Brown was shot attacking a police officer, no riots, no presidential grandstanding, just a tragedy. If L McDonald was murdered in cold blood, and if that murder is the occasion for a teachable moment led by our national leaders, *that* is the occasion to which they should rise. Where are they? More importantly, where the fuck were they a year ago?
BP, it’s Obama and Holder who are/were MIA in the truly compelling case of police murder right under their noses. Instead, they acquiesced in a cover up.
Please respond substantively.
Sure: By your logic, the mob justifiably riots and the president justifiably mugs for no good reason. When the facts are known and it’s clearly murder, ho hum, we all stay home.
Reason would dictate the opposite: if M Brown was shot attacking a police officer, no riots, no presidential grandstanding, just a tragedy. If L McDonald was murdered in cold blood, and if that murder is the occasion for a teachable moment led by our national leaders, *that* is the occasion to which they should rise. Where are they? More importantly, where the fuck were they a year ago?
BP, it’s Obama and Holder who are/were MIA in the truly compelling case of police murder right under their noses. Instead, they acquiesced in a cover up.
Anyone care to comment on the disparate treatment/reaction accorded the clear murder of Laquan McDonald and the clear not-murder of Michael Brown?
First, what we have in the case of Brown is insufficient evidence to bring criminal charges. Just to be clear.
The day after Brown was shot, there were protests which were met with an extraordinarily militarized police presence. Followed by riots and general street violence.
I haven’t seen that in Chicago.
Different situation, different response from the feds.
Emanuel, almost certainly with Obama’s knowledge, covered this up until the election was over.
What the hell does “almost certainly” mean?
As is the reaction here.
What the hell would you like the “reaction here” to be?
Personally I hardly know what to say about young black men getting shot by cops anymore.
It’s pretty clear that the cop that shot Macdonald shouldn’t have been on the force. I don’t exactly what flavor of criminally causing the death of somebody else the guy should be nailed for, but if it’s not first degree murder it’s something close to it.
I frankly with they hadn’t brought first degree murder charges, because it will be hard to prove premeditation. The guy may walk, just like Zimmerman walked because the prosecutor went for too high a bar.
The cop should go to jail. The CPD should be burned to the freaking ground and replaced with a functional police force. The entrenched (D) machine in Chicago should be paved over and replaced with a functional government. Rahm Emmanuel should be given the opportunity to seek some other form of gainful employment.
I’ll go on.
The criminal justice institutions of the US, en large, should probably be dismantled and replaced with something that focuses more on justice and less on punishment.
And last but not least, the people of the US should learn to ignore the color of people’s skin.
That’s what I have to say about Laquan Macdonald’s killing.
The kid was high as a kite, by all appearances he was trying to walk away from the cops, and the guy shot him down like a dog.
The CPD and probably most of the government of the city of Chicago participated in a concerted effort to cover it up.
Throw them all in jail. It’s fine with me.
Anyone care to comment on the disparate treatment/reaction accorded the clear murder of Laquan McDonald and the clear not-murder of Michael Brown?
First, what we have in the case of Brown is insufficient evidence to bring criminal charges. Just to be clear.
The day after Brown was shot, there were protests which were met with an extraordinarily militarized police presence. Followed by riots and general street violence.
I haven’t seen that in Chicago.
Different situation, different response from the feds.
Emanuel, almost certainly with Obama’s knowledge, covered this up until the election was over.
What the hell does “almost certainly” mean?
As is the reaction here.
What the hell would you like the “reaction here” to be?
Personally I hardly know what to say about young black men getting shot by cops anymore.
It’s pretty clear that the cop that shot Macdonald shouldn’t have been on the force. I don’t exactly what flavor of criminally causing the death of somebody else the guy should be nailed for, but if it’s not first degree murder it’s something close to it.
I frankly with they hadn’t brought first degree murder charges, because it will be hard to prove premeditation. The guy may walk, just like Zimmerman walked because the prosecutor went for too high a bar.
The cop should go to jail. The CPD should be burned to the freaking ground and replaced with a functional police force. The entrenched (D) machine in Chicago should be paved over and replaced with a functional government. Rahm Emmanuel should be given the opportunity to seek some other form of gainful employment.
I’ll go on.
The criminal justice institutions of the US, en large, should probably be dismantled and replaced with something that focuses more on justice and less on punishment.
And last but not least, the people of the US should learn to ignore the color of people’s skin.
That’s what I have to say about Laquan Macdonald’s killing.
The kid was high as a kite, by all appearances he was trying to walk away from the cops, and the guy shot him down like a dog.
The CPD and probably most of the government of the city of Chicago participated in a concerted effort to cover it up.
Throw them all in jail. It’s fine with me.
Anyone care to comment on the disparate treatment/reaction accorded the clear murder of Laquan McDonald and the clear not-murder of Michael Brown?
First, what we have in the case of Brown is insufficient evidence to bring criminal charges. Just to be clear.
The day after Brown was shot, there were protests which were met with an extraordinarily militarized police presence. Followed by riots and general street violence.
I haven’t seen that in Chicago.
Different situation, different response from the feds.
Emanuel, almost certainly with Obama’s knowledge, covered this up until the election was over.
What the hell does “almost certainly” mean?
As is the reaction here.
What the hell would you like the “reaction here” to be?
Personally I hardly know what to say about young black men getting shot by cops anymore.
It’s pretty clear that the cop that shot Macdonald shouldn’t have been on the force. I don’t exactly what flavor of criminally causing the death of somebody else the guy should be nailed for, but if it’s not first degree murder it’s something close to it.
I frankly with they hadn’t brought first degree murder charges, because it will be hard to prove premeditation. The guy may walk, just like Zimmerman walked because the prosecutor went for too high a bar.
The cop should go to jail. The CPD should be burned to the freaking ground and replaced with a functional police force. The entrenched (D) machine in Chicago should be paved over and replaced with a functional government. Rahm Emmanuel should be given the opportunity to seek some other form of gainful employment.
I’ll go on.
The criminal justice institutions of the US, en large, should probably be dismantled and replaced with something that focuses more on justice and less on punishment.
And last but not least, the people of the US should learn to ignore the color of people’s skin.
That’s what I have to say about Laquan Macdonald’s killing.
The kid was high as a kite, by all appearances he was trying to walk away from the cops, and the guy shot him down like a dog.
The CPD and probably most of the government of the city of Chicago participated in a concerted effort to cover it up.
Throw them all in jail. It’s fine with me.
And #BlackLivesMatter is totally without credibility now.
I have no idea WTF this statement is about.
And #BlackLivesMatter is totally without credibility now.
I have no idea WTF this statement is about.
And #BlackLivesMatter is totally without credibility now.
I have no idea WTF this statement is about.
Call it Maoist-lite.
Whatever point you may be trying to make is basically buried under crap like this.
You appear to believe that Obama and/or Holder are involved in some conspiracy with Emmanuel and the “Chicago machine” to not comment about Macdonald’s killing.
Further, you assume that the lack of comment about Macdonald’s killing on the part of what you imagine to be some kind of leftist hive mind here is due to our obsequious allegiance to Obama.
First, whether Obama participated in any way shape or form in any effort to downplay the killing of Macdonald is plainly not in evidence. It’s in your imagination.
It’s impossible to engage that point in any substantial way, *because it has no substance*. It is, to say the least, not in evidence.
I guess we could all say “No he didn’t”, but that would be equally pointless, but none of us know one way or the other about it.
It’s just a stupid, pointless thing to argue about.
Second, if my own experience is typical, folks are sick and tired of arguing about black kids getting shot by cops.
If you want to talk about the Macdonald case in any terms other than what you imagine Obama got up to with his buddy Rahm, that’s cool with me.
If you want to actually demonstrate that Obama got up to something with Rahm, that might be of interest.
If you just want to rant about Obama and Democrats and how BLM are full of shit, because Macdonald got shot, have at it, but don’t b*tch at all of us for not wanting to play along.
Call it Maoist-lite.
Whatever point you may be trying to make is basically buried under crap like this.
You appear to believe that Obama and/or Holder are involved in some conspiracy with Emmanuel and the “Chicago machine” to not comment about Macdonald’s killing.
Further, you assume that the lack of comment about Macdonald’s killing on the part of what you imagine to be some kind of leftist hive mind here is due to our obsequious allegiance to Obama.
First, whether Obama participated in any way shape or form in any effort to downplay the killing of Macdonald is plainly not in evidence. It’s in your imagination.
It’s impossible to engage that point in any substantial way, *because it has no substance*. It is, to say the least, not in evidence.
I guess we could all say “No he didn’t”, but that would be equally pointless, but none of us know one way or the other about it.
It’s just a stupid, pointless thing to argue about.
Second, if my own experience is typical, folks are sick and tired of arguing about black kids getting shot by cops.
If you want to talk about the Macdonald case in any terms other than what you imagine Obama got up to with his buddy Rahm, that’s cool with me.
If you want to actually demonstrate that Obama got up to something with Rahm, that might be of interest.
If you just want to rant about Obama and Democrats and how BLM are full of shit, because Macdonald got shot, have at it, but don’t b*tch at all of us for not wanting to play along.
Call it Maoist-lite.
Whatever point you may be trying to make is basically buried under crap like this.
You appear to believe that Obama and/or Holder are involved in some conspiracy with Emmanuel and the “Chicago machine” to not comment about Macdonald’s killing.
Further, you assume that the lack of comment about Macdonald’s killing on the part of what you imagine to be some kind of leftist hive mind here is due to our obsequious allegiance to Obama.
First, whether Obama participated in any way shape or form in any effort to downplay the killing of Macdonald is plainly not in evidence. It’s in your imagination.
It’s impossible to engage that point in any substantial way, *because it has no substance*. It is, to say the least, not in evidence.
I guess we could all say “No he didn’t”, but that would be equally pointless, but none of us know one way or the other about it.
It’s just a stupid, pointless thing to argue about.
Second, if my own experience is typical, folks are sick and tired of arguing about black kids getting shot by cops.
If you want to talk about the Macdonald case in any terms other than what you imagine Obama got up to with his buddy Rahm, that’s cool with me.
If you want to actually demonstrate that Obama got up to something with Rahm, that might be of interest.
If you just want to rant about Obama and Democrats and how BLM are full of shit, because Macdonald got shot, have at it, but don’t b*tch at all of us for not wanting to play along.
Go Google the following phrase:
‘cop shot unarmed black’
And see how many hits you get.
Why didn’t Obama make a major public statement about each and every one of those? Is he involved in some kind of cover-up with the mayor or governor or sheriff of every freaking locality where a black kid was shot by a cop, other than Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin?
Why aren’t you complaining about all of the other cases where a black kid was shot and there was no big public statement from Obama or Holder?
You are making no sense McK.
Go Google the following phrase:
‘cop shot unarmed black’
And see how many hits you get.
Why didn’t Obama make a major public statement about each and every one of those? Is he involved in some kind of cover-up with the mayor or governor or sheriff of every freaking locality where a black kid was shot by a cop, other than Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin?
Why aren’t you complaining about all of the other cases where a black kid was shot and there was no big public statement from Obama or Holder?
You are making no sense McK.
Go Google the following phrase:
‘cop shot unarmed black’
And see how many hits you get.
Why didn’t Obama make a major public statement about each and every one of those? Is he involved in some kind of cover-up with the mayor or governor or sheriff of every freaking locality where a black kid was shot by a cop, other than Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin?
Why aren’t you complaining about all of the other cases where a black kid was shot and there was no big public statement from Obama or Holder?
You are making no sense McK.
If BLM were solely about a purported clear case of the murder of Michael Brown, I guess I would understand. The reaction to this case really says nothing about the validity of BLM other than supporting the overall basis for BLM’s existence and that they’re protesting the McDonald murder.
Protests described. Here’s some hints:
A rally and march were scheduled to begin during rush hour Wednesday involving community and youth leaders from across Chicago, including those who gathered to protest the police-involved shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri.
and
Black Lives Matter protesters marched Wednesday afternoon from the Cook County Criminal Court building, where a protester arrested Tuesday was appearing for bond court, to the site of McDonald’s shooting.
Your argument about BLM is idiotic. Sorry, I don’t know how else to put it.
If BLM were solely about a purported clear case of the murder of Michael Brown, I guess I would understand. The reaction to this case really says nothing about the validity of BLM other than supporting the overall basis for BLM’s existence and that they’re protesting the McDonald murder.
Protests described. Here’s some hints:
A rally and march were scheduled to begin during rush hour Wednesday involving community and youth leaders from across Chicago, including those who gathered to protest the police-involved shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri.
and
Black Lives Matter protesters marched Wednesday afternoon from the Cook County Criminal Court building, where a protester arrested Tuesday was appearing for bond court, to the site of McDonald’s shooting.
Your argument about BLM is idiotic. Sorry, I don’t know how else to put it.
If BLM were solely about a purported clear case of the murder of Michael Brown, I guess I would understand. The reaction to this case really says nothing about the validity of BLM other than supporting the overall basis for BLM’s existence and that they’re protesting the McDonald murder.
Protests described. Here’s some hints:
A rally and march were scheduled to begin during rush hour Wednesday involving community and youth leaders from across Chicago, including those who gathered to protest the police-involved shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri.
and
Black Lives Matter protesters marched Wednesday afternoon from the Cook County Criminal Court building, where a protester arrested Tuesday was appearing for bond court, to the site of McDonald’s shooting.
Your argument about BLM is idiotic. Sorry, I don’t know how else to put it.
BLM never had much of point, their meme being built on a palpable lie.
As far as I can tell, BLM’s meme is that black lives do matter. I don’t see how this is a palpable lie.
Now if you mean that the proximate cause of BLM was not what really happened, that’s a different discussion. But, as you are no doubt aware, “proximate cause” is a very different thing from cause in general. Something can have a proximate cause which is essentially irrelevant, and still be a real reaction to a real problem — the fact that the proximate cause didn’t even involve that problem doesn’t change the reality of the problem.
BLM never had much of point, their meme being built on a palpable lie.
As far as I can tell, BLM’s meme is that black lives do matter. I don’t see how this is a palpable lie.
Now if you mean that the proximate cause of BLM was not what really happened, that’s a different discussion. But, as you are no doubt aware, “proximate cause” is a very different thing from cause in general. Something can have a proximate cause which is essentially irrelevant, and still be a real reaction to a real problem — the fact that the proximate cause didn’t even involve that problem doesn’t change the reality of the problem.
BLM never had much of point, their meme being built on a palpable lie.
As far as I can tell, BLM’s meme is that black lives do matter. I don’t see how this is a palpable lie.
Now if you mean that the proximate cause of BLM was not what really happened, that’s a different discussion. But, as you are no doubt aware, “proximate cause” is a very different thing from cause in general. Something can have a proximate cause which is essentially irrelevant, and still be a real reaction to a real problem — the fact that the proximate cause didn’t even involve that problem doesn’t change the reality of the problem.
“Reason would dictate the opposite”
No. In the one case we have justice denied. In the other we will have a trial.
You have failed to respond substantively, grasshopper.
“Reason would dictate the opposite”
No. In the one case we have justice denied. In the other we will have a trial.
You have failed to respond substantively, grasshopper.
“Reason would dictate the opposite”
No. In the one case we have justice denied. In the other we will have a trial.
You have failed to respond substantively, grasshopper.
Any public statements from the hypocrisy-pristine (hey, I can hardly get even one leg into my pant-legs anymore, so don’t feel bad) about the Republican House and Senate nearly ready to condemn @16 million Americans to early death and financial ruin by eradicating Obamacare and the Medicaid expansion.
Because the clients are too sick and too old to support profit margins.
ISIS better get busy with the beheadings so they can catch up with the domestic murderers.
We can parse out the hypocrisy later at the Not Very OK Corral.
Am I changing the subject?
No.
Murder is murder. Death is Death.
That Republicans leave the heads on is touching.
Any public statements from the hypocrisy-pristine (hey, I can hardly get even one leg into my pant-legs anymore, so don’t feel bad) about the Republican House and Senate nearly ready to condemn @16 million Americans to early death and financial ruin by eradicating Obamacare and the Medicaid expansion.
Because the clients are too sick and too old to support profit margins.
ISIS better get busy with the beheadings so they can catch up with the domestic murderers.
We can parse out the hypocrisy later at the Not Very OK Corral.
Am I changing the subject?
No.
Murder is murder. Death is Death.
That Republicans leave the heads on is touching.
Any public statements from the hypocrisy-pristine (hey, I can hardly get even one leg into my pant-legs anymore, so don’t feel bad) about the Republican House and Senate nearly ready to condemn @16 million Americans to early death and financial ruin by eradicating Obamacare and the Medicaid expansion.
Because the clients are too sick and too old to support profit margins.
ISIS better get busy with the beheadings so they can catch up with the domestic murderers.
We can parse out the hypocrisy later at the Not Very OK Corral.
Am I changing the subject?
No.
Murder is murder. Death is Death.
That Republicans leave the heads on is touching.
I don’t recall any condemnation hereabouts regarding Black Lives Matter disrupting Bernie Sanders speeches.
Nor did Sanders order the thug beatings of the protesters.
Again, that’s got nothing to do with anyone here, except us hypocrites.
I don’t recall any condemnation hereabouts regarding Black Lives Matter disrupting Bernie Sanders speeches.
Nor did Sanders order the thug beatings of the protesters.
Again, that’s got nothing to do with anyone here, except us hypocrites.
I don’t recall any condemnation hereabouts regarding Black Lives Matter disrupting Bernie Sanders speeches.
Nor did Sanders order the thug beatings of the protesters.
Again, that’s got nothing to do with anyone here, except us hypocrites.
I guess the era of beatle/baseball good feeling is over.
I guess the era of beatle/baseball good feeling is over.
I guess the era of beatle/baseball good feeling is over.
Since Trayvon was referenced, by coincidence George Zimmerman shows his non-hypocritical face again.
He’s a consistent bastard. Presidential material in the current state of affairs.
The wrong people always get the bullet.
Since Trayvon was referenced, by coincidence George Zimmerman shows his non-hypocritical face again.
He’s a consistent bastard. Presidential material in the current state of affairs.
The wrong people always get the bullet.
Since Trayvon was referenced, by coincidence George Zimmerman shows his non-hypocritical face again.
He’s a consistent bastard. Presidential material in the current state of affairs.
The wrong people always get the bullet.
Noted conservative hypocrite Charles Pierce throws Rahm under the bus.
Noted conservative hypocrite Charles Pierce throws Rahm under the bus.
Noted conservative hypocrite Charles Pierce throws Rahm under the bus.
You’ll need a cite, I suppose, you pedants:
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a40161/rahm-emanuel-laquan-mcdonald/
You’ll need a cite, I suppose, you pedants:
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a40161/rahm-emanuel-laquan-mcdonald/
You’ll need a cite, I suppose, you pedants:
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a40161/rahm-emanuel-laquan-mcdonald/
Annie, get your Gun:
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-san-bernardino-shooting-main-20151203-story.html
Family friendly, though, so it’s not like they are hypocrites.
Annie, get your Gun:
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-san-bernardino-shooting-main-20151203-story.html
Family friendly, though, so it’s not like they are hypocrites.
Annie, get your Gun:
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-san-bernardino-shooting-main-20151203-story.html
Family friendly, though, so it’s not like they are hypocrites.
We armed all of them in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iran, Sandy Hook, Colorado Springs, South Carolina and Waco to kill us, so it’s not like we’re hypocrites:
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-san-bernardino-shooting-main-20151203-story.html
We are consistent.
We armed all of them in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iran, Sandy Hook, Colorado Springs, South Carolina and Waco to kill us, so it’s not like we’re hypocrites:
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-san-bernardino-shooting-main-20151203-story.html
We are consistent.
We armed all of them in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iran, Sandy Hook, Colorado Springs, South Carolina and Waco to kill us, so it’s not like we’re hypocrites:
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-san-bernardino-shooting-main-20151203-story.html
We are consistent.
The missing Zimmerman link:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/george-zimmerman-suspended-twitter-revenge-porn
The missing Pierce link:
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a40161/rahm-emanuel-laquan-mcdonald/
The missing Zimmerman link:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/george-zimmerman-suspended-twitter-revenge-porn
The missing Pierce link:
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a40161/rahm-emanuel-laquan-mcdonald/
The missing Zimmerman link:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/george-zimmerman-suspended-twitter-revenge-porn
The missing Pierce link:
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a40161/rahm-emanuel-laquan-mcdonald/
McKinneyTexas, goodoleboy bon-vivant, golfer, afficionado of fine liquor, but nevertheless capable of deploying the phrase the ethics of selling off parts of aborted fetuses in the exercise of his current favorite pastime, namely attempting to embarrass “progressives”, can bite me.
Since McKinney feels entitled to tell us what Obama knew and when he knew it, I feel entitled to say that McKinney first heard of the McDonald case at the same time I (a goddam librul, let alone a progressive) first heard of it: one week ago. Where, asks McKinney, is the outrage of people like me?
If he’s really wondering, all I can say is that it has been a moderately busy week of news, chock-full of grounds for librul outrage toward various and sundry shenanigans, including the arms-for-Klansmen/Christianists/Islamists/Shitheads position of the NRA and its pet party in Congress, not to mention the Putin-Erdogan inter-fascist face-off or the perpetual feast that is Republican acquiescence in the sayings of Chairman Donald, and — what with the holiday weekend and all — I haven’t had the time. Also, progressive outrage (unlike conservative outrage) is a finite resource.
Give me time to catch my breath, McKinney, and you’ll get a heaping helping of outrage all right.
–TP
McKinneyTexas, goodoleboy bon-vivant, golfer, afficionado of fine liquor, but nevertheless capable of deploying the phrase the ethics of selling off parts of aborted fetuses in the exercise of his current favorite pastime, namely attempting to embarrass “progressives”, can bite me.
Since McKinney feels entitled to tell us what Obama knew and when he knew it, I feel entitled to say that McKinney first heard of the McDonald case at the same time I (a goddam librul, let alone a progressive) first heard of it: one week ago. Where, asks McKinney, is the outrage of people like me?
If he’s really wondering, all I can say is that it has been a moderately busy week of news, chock-full of grounds for librul outrage toward various and sundry shenanigans, including the arms-for-Klansmen/Christianists/Islamists/Shitheads position of the NRA and its pet party in Congress, not to mention the Putin-Erdogan inter-fascist face-off or the perpetual feast that is Republican acquiescence in the sayings of Chairman Donald, and — what with the holiday weekend and all — I haven’t had the time. Also, progressive outrage (unlike conservative outrage) is a finite resource.
Give me time to catch my breath, McKinney, and you’ll get a heaping helping of outrage all right.
–TP
McKinneyTexas, goodoleboy bon-vivant, golfer, afficionado of fine liquor, but nevertheless capable of deploying the phrase the ethics of selling off parts of aborted fetuses in the exercise of his current favorite pastime, namely attempting to embarrass “progressives”, can bite me.
Since McKinney feels entitled to tell us what Obama knew and when he knew it, I feel entitled to say that McKinney first heard of the McDonald case at the same time I (a goddam librul, let alone a progressive) first heard of it: one week ago. Where, asks McKinney, is the outrage of people like me?
If he’s really wondering, all I can say is that it has been a moderately busy week of news, chock-full of grounds for librul outrage toward various and sundry shenanigans, including the arms-for-Klansmen/Christianists/Islamists/Shitheads position of the NRA and its pet party in Congress, not to mention the Putin-Erdogan inter-fascist face-off or the perpetual feast that is Republican acquiescence in the sayings of Chairman Donald, and — what with the holiday weekend and all — I haven’t had the time. Also, progressive outrage (unlike conservative outrage) is a finite resource.
Give me time to catch my breath, McKinney, and you’ll get a heaping helping of outrage all right.
–TP
via I don’t know, al Qaeda advises Republicans, terrorists, and crazy people about where the firepower can be had:
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2011/06/03/al-qaeda-spokesman-instructs-terrorists-to-stoc/180296
Who knew?
via I don’t know, al Qaeda advises Republicans, terrorists, and crazy people about where the firepower can be had:
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2011/06/03/al-qaeda-spokesman-instructs-terrorists-to-stoc/180296
Who knew?
via I don’t know, al Qaeda advises Republicans, terrorists, and crazy people about where the firepower can be had:
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2011/06/03/al-qaeda-spokesman-instructs-terrorists-to-stoc/180296
Who knew?
Late to this – my wife was in the hospital, our son and his family visited us Thanksgiving week, and I’m rehearsing Messiah (three performances, starting tomorrow – but I thought I’d try to catch up and see if I had anything to contribute.
Then I saw this from McKT:
Your initial response is to summarily dismiss or deride those who call this to your attention, and when that doesn’t work, you attack their intelligence and motives. Call it Maoist-lite.
Because “Maoist-lite” is not in any way dismissive or derisive, right?
McKT, you’re not worth responding to. There are a host of old vulgar phrases for how just little you are worth, but I don’t want to seem dismissive or derisive. That may pass for civilized discourse in Texas, but not among people who are actually civil.
Late to this – my wife was in the hospital, our son and his family visited us Thanksgiving week, and I’m rehearsing Messiah (three performances, starting tomorrow – but I thought I’d try to catch up and see if I had anything to contribute.
Then I saw this from McKT:
Your initial response is to summarily dismiss or deride those who call this to your attention, and when that doesn’t work, you attack their intelligence and motives. Call it Maoist-lite.
Because “Maoist-lite” is not in any way dismissive or derisive, right?
McKT, you’re not worth responding to. There are a host of old vulgar phrases for how just little you are worth, but I don’t want to seem dismissive or derisive. That may pass for civilized discourse in Texas, but not among people who are actually civil.
Late to this – my wife was in the hospital, our son and his family visited us Thanksgiving week, and I’m rehearsing Messiah (three performances, starting tomorrow – but I thought I’d try to catch up and see if I had anything to contribute.
Then I saw this from McKT:
Your initial response is to summarily dismiss or deride those who call this to your attention, and when that doesn’t work, you attack their intelligence and motives. Call it Maoist-lite.
Because “Maoist-lite” is not in any way dismissive or derisive, right?
McKT, you’re not worth responding to. There are a host of old vulgar phrases for how just little you are worth, but I don’t want to seem dismissive or derisive. That may pass for civilized discourse in Texas, but not among people who are actually civil.
I’m waiting to hear from TNC…
Apparently not, since he posted about it two days before your rather snide comment.
http://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2015/12/corruption-beyond-chicago-top-cop/418215/
I’m waiting to hear from TNC…
Apparently not, since he posted about it two days before your rather snide comment.
http://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2015/12/corruption-beyond-chicago-top-cop/418215/
I’m waiting to hear from TNC…
Apparently not, since he posted about it two days before your rather snide comment.
http://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2015/12/corruption-beyond-chicago-top-cop/418215/
BLM never had much of point,
in your eyes.
BLM never had much of point,
in your eyes.
BLM never had much of point,
in your eyes.
You well know the point being made here and you refuse to engage.
you have no point.
you have attempted mind-reading; you have insinuations and insults wrapped in faux-victimhood and boring old “conservative” resentment; you have the ludicrous wingnut mythology; you have laughably hypocritical accusations of bad-faith argument wrapped in insults and accusations; you have the gall to accuse people of not responding the way the caricatures in your head would’ve responded while not even bothering to do the minimum of typing to see how they actually responded in reality.
you’re trolling.
so, fuck that.
You well know the point being made here and you refuse to engage.
you have no point.
you have attempted mind-reading; you have insinuations and insults wrapped in faux-victimhood and boring old “conservative” resentment; you have the ludicrous wingnut mythology; you have laughably hypocritical accusations of bad-faith argument wrapped in insults and accusations; you have the gall to accuse people of not responding the way the caricatures in your head would’ve responded while not even bothering to do the minimum of typing to see how they actually responded in reality.
you’re trolling.
so, fuck that.
You well know the point being made here and you refuse to engage.
you have no point.
you have attempted mind-reading; you have insinuations and insults wrapped in faux-victimhood and boring old “conservative” resentment; you have the ludicrous wingnut mythology; you have laughably hypocritical accusations of bad-faith argument wrapped in insults and accusations; you have the gall to accuse people of not responding the way the caricatures in your head would’ve responded while not even bothering to do the minimum of typing to see how they actually responded in reality.
you’re trolling.
so, fuck that.
No. In the one case we have justice denied. In the other we will have a trial.
You’ve chili dipped twice now and are still miles away from the green.
The Ferguson riots started the day after the shooting and continued for months before the federal investigation results were made known.
The fact of Laquan’s murder was covered up for a year and a month. Only when the facts were made known, did state authorities announce they would prosecute–that was last week.
The missing outrage is the national grandstanding we got from Obama down to ObWi over Michael Brown, *before the facts were known* and the absence of any outrage for Laquan when the facts were plainly known by some.
Now, the reality based community may believe that Rahm didn’t involve the feds early on and that he didn’t give Obama and Holder a head’s up as to what happened. That same fact-based crowd may believe Obama just learned of this outrage last week like the rest of us. If so, that would explain a lot of other left’ish articles of faith.
For others, this is just plain hypocrisy. Sure, the Chicago PD is, in many respects, barely better than the criminals they are supposed to catch. To repeat: CPD is a product of the Democratic machine. A machine that faithfully delivers Illinois to the Democrats every 4 years, a machine whose corruption the national Democratic party routinely not only overlooks but enables and whose votes the national Dems gladly accept.
Lovely.
Oh, and where did Obama get his political chops? And what was Rahm’s role in Obama’s administration?
Ok, no connection there.
Your argument about BLM is idiotic. Sorry, I don’t know how else to put it.
Again, at the risk of offending Dr. Ngo, this is name calling, not substantive engagement. My statements about BLM are in the context of more detailed comments. The point is simply this: BLM isn’t raising hell with Obama or Holder or anyone else who enabled this cover cup. Like Drum, and TNC (thank you Nigel, I missed that), the outrage is focused solely on CPD.
No one is asking the question: what culture, what political party gave rise to CPD?
Where racist, white privileged society was on trial by the left post Ferguson, here the focus is narrowly tailored to ensure that none of the good guys take on any water.
McKinneyTexas, goodoleboy bon-vivant, golfer, afficionado of fine liquor, but nevertheless capable of deploying the phrase the ethics of selling off parts of aborted fetuses in the exercise of his current favorite pastime, namely attempting to embarrass “progressives”, can bite me.
Can’t anyone besides Nous be original around here? I’ve painted the picture, connected the dots from DC to Chicago. It wasn’t that difficult. There were clearly two different reactions: the case of self defense produces national and international outrage with our President leading the charge, the case of murder produces 13 months of radio silence. No one sees an issue? Good to know.
If you just want to rant about Obama and Democrats and how BLM are full of shit, because Macdonald got shot, have at it, but don’t b*tch at all of us for not wanting to play along.
Really? The collective left’ish commentariat here doesn’t routinely call out conservatives in general on various topics. Didn’t you just do so a day or two ago? And if there is gross hypocrisy by Obama, isn’t it fair to ask lefties here at ObWi to comment on that? If not, just say so. That’s more than enough of an answer.
You are making no sense McK.
Ok, if the connected dots are confusing or elusive, I’ll just move on to selling guns out of the back of my car to recently arrived Syrian refugees, like most conservatives do when not planning to shoot up a Planned Parenthood facility.
No. In the one case we have justice denied. In the other we will have a trial.
You’ve chili dipped twice now and are still miles away from the green.
The Ferguson riots started the day after the shooting and continued for months before the federal investigation results were made known.
The fact of Laquan’s murder was covered up for a year and a month. Only when the facts were made known, did state authorities announce they would prosecute–that was last week.
The missing outrage is the national grandstanding we got from Obama down to ObWi over Michael Brown, *before the facts were known* and the absence of any outrage for Laquan when the facts were plainly known by some.
Now, the reality based community may believe that Rahm didn’t involve the feds early on and that he didn’t give Obama and Holder a head’s up as to what happened. That same fact-based crowd may believe Obama just learned of this outrage last week like the rest of us. If so, that would explain a lot of other left’ish articles of faith.
For others, this is just plain hypocrisy. Sure, the Chicago PD is, in many respects, barely better than the criminals they are supposed to catch. To repeat: CPD is a product of the Democratic machine. A machine that faithfully delivers Illinois to the Democrats every 4 years, a machine whose corruption the national Democratic party routinely not only overlooks but enables and whose votes the national Dems gladly accept.
Lovely.
Oh, and where did Obama get his political chops? And what was Rahm’s role in Obama’s administration?
Ok, no connection there.
Your argument about BLM is idiotic. Sorry, I don’t know how else to put it.
Again, at the risk of offending Dr. Ngo, this is name calling, not substantive engagement. My statements about BLM are in the context of more detailed comments. The point is simply this: BLM isn’t raising hell with Obama or Holder or anyone else who enabled this cover cup. Like Drum, and TNC (thank you Nigel, I missed that), the outrage is focused solely on CPD.
No one is asking the question: what culture, what political party gave rise to CPD?
Where racist, white privileged society was on trial by the left post Ferguson, here the focus is narrowly tailored to ensure that none of the good guys take on any water.
McKinneyTexas, goodoleboy bon-vivant, golfer, afficionado of fine liquor, but nevertheless capable of deploying the phrase the ethics of selling off parts of aborted fetuses in the exercise of his current favorite pastime, namely attempting to embarrass “progressives”, can bite me.
Can’t anyone besides Nous be original around here? I’ve painted the picture, connected the dots from DC to Chicago. It wasn’t that difficult. There were clearly two different reactions: the case of self defense produces national and international outrage with our President leading the charge, the case of murder produces 13 months of radio silence. No one sees an issue? Good to know.
If you just want to rant about Obama and Democrats and how BLM are full of shit, because Macdonald got shot, have at it, but don’t b*tch at all of us for not wanting to play along.
Really? The collective left’ish commentariat here doesn’t routinely call out conservatives in general on various topics. Didn’t you just do so a day or two ago? And if there is gross hypocrisy by Obama, isn’t it fair to ask lefties here at ObWi to comment on that? If not, just say so. That’s more than enough of an answer.
You are making no sense McK.
Ok, if the connected dots are confusing or elusive, I’ll just move on to selling guns out of the back of my car to recently arrived Syrian refugees, like most conservatives do when not planning to shoot up a Planned Parenthood facility.
No. In the one case we have justice denied. In the other we will have a trial.
You’ve chili dipped twice now and are still miles away from the green.
The Ferguson riots started the day after the shooting and continued for months before the federal investigation results were made known.
The fact of Laquan’s murder was covered up for a year and a month. Only when the facts were made known, did state authorities announce they would prosecute–that was last week.
The missing outrage is the national grandstanding we got from Obama down to ObWi over Michael Brown, *before the facts were known* and the absence of any outrage for Laquan when the facts were plainly known by some.
Now, the reality based community may believe that Rahm didn’t involve the feds early on and that he didn’t give Obama and Holder a head’s up as to what happened. That same fact-based crowd may believe Obama just learned of this outrage last week like the rest of us. If so, that would explain a lot of other left’ish articles of faith.
For others, this is just plain hypocrisy. Sure, the Chicago PD is, in many respects, barely better than the criminals they are supposed to catch. To repeat: CPD is a product of the Democratic machine. A machine that faithfully delivers Illinois to the Democrats every 4 years, a machine whose corruption the national Democratic party routinely not only overlooks but enables and whose votes the national Dems gladly accept.
Lovely.
Oh, and where did Obama get his political chops? And what was Rahm’s role in Obama’s administration?
Ok, no connection there.
Your argument about BLM is idiotic. Sorry, I don’t know how else to put it.
Again, at the risk of offending Dr. Ngo, this is name calling, not substantive engagement. My statements about BLM are in the context of more detailed comments. The point is simply this: BLM isn’t raising hell with Obama or Holder or anyone else who enabled this cover cup. Like Drum, and TNC (thank you Nigel, I missed that), the outrage is focused solely on CPD.
No one is asking the question: what culture, what political party gave rise to CPD?
Where racist, white privileged society was on trial by the left post Ferguson, here the focus is narrowly tailored to ensure that none of the good guys take on any water.
McKinneyTexas, goodoleboy bon-vivant, golfer, afficionado of fine liquor, but nevertheless capable of deploying the phrase the ethics of selling off parts of aborted fetuses in the exercise of his current favorite pastime, namely attempting to embarrass “progressives”, can bite me.
Can’t anyone besides Nous be original around here? I’ve painted the picture, connected the dots from DC to Chicago. It wasn’t that difficult. There were clearly two different reactions: the case of self defense produces national and international outrage with our President leading the charge, the case of murder produces 13 months of radio silence. No one sees an issue? Good to know.
If you just want to rant about Obama and Democrats and how BLM are full of shit, because Macdonald got shot, have at it, but don’t b*tch at all of us for not wanting to play along.
Really? The collective left’ish commentariat here doesn’t routinely call out conservatives in general on various topics. Didn’t you just do so a day or two ago? And if there is gross hypocrisy by Obama, isn’t it fair to ask lefties here at ObWi to comment on that? If not, just say so. That’s more than enough of an answer.
You are making no sense McK.
Ok, if the connected dots are confusing or elusive, I’ll just move on to selling guns out of the back of my car to recently arrived Syrian refugees, like most conservatives do when not planning to shoot up a Planned Parenthood facility.
I don’t get how you can criticize BLM and TNC for being mute on the subject without bothering to do about a minute’s worth of googling.
If you’re commenting on a blog, you’re already on the internet!
I don’t get how you can criticize BLM and TNC for being mute on the subject without bothering to do about a minute’s worth of googling.
If you’re commenting on a blog, you’re already on the internet!
I don’t get how you can criticize BLM and TNC for being mute on the subject without bothering to do about a minute’s worth of googling.
If you’re commenting on a blog, you’re already on the internet!
The point is simply this: BLM isn’t raising hell with Obama or Holder or anyone else who enabled this cover cup. Like Drum, and TNC (thank you Nigel, I missed that), the outrage is focused solely on CPD.
First, you’re assuming Obama and Holder enabled a cover-up and, if you’re criticizing BLM, Drum and TNC for not raising hell with them over it, you’re assuming they know about the enabling you’re assuming.
First it’s that everyone is mute on the subject. Now it’s that, yes, they’re all saying stuff, but it’s only focused on CPD (you know, the department the murderer worked in).
You seem to have very specific requirements for what people have to say to avoid being criticized for not saying it. You’re creating controversy wherever you can’t find it, and it’s a moving target. It’s hard to understand the motivation.
The point is simply this: BLM isn’t raising hell with Obama or Holder or anyone else who enabled this cover cup. Like Drum, and TNC (thank you Nigel, I missed that), the outrage is focused solely on CPD.
First, you’re assuming Obama and Holder enabled a cover-up and, if you’re criticizing BLM, Drum and TNC for not raising hell with them over it, you’re assuming they know about the enabling you’re assuming.
First it’s that everyone is mute on the subject. Now it’s that, yes, they’re all saying stuff, but it’s only focused on CPD (you know, the department the murderer worked in).
You seem to have very specific requirements for what people have to say to avoid being criticized for not saying it. You’re creating controversy wherever you can’t find it, and it’s a moving target. It’s hard to understand the motivation.
The point is simply this: BLM isn’t raising hell with Obama or Holder or anyone else who enabled this cover cup. Like Drum, and TNC (thank you Nigel, I missed that), the outrage is focused solely on CPD.
First, you’re assuming Obama and Holder enabled a cover-up and, if you’re criticizing BLM, Drum and TNC for not raising hell with them over it, you’re assuming they know about the enabling you’re assuming.
First it’s that everyone is mute on the subject. Now it’s that, yes, they’re all saying stuff, but it’s only focused on CPD (you know, the department the murderer worked in).
You seem to have very specific requirements for what people have to say to avoid being criticized for not saying it. You’re creating controversy wherever you can’t find it, and it’s a moving target. It’s hard to understand the motivation.
Obama is a hypocrite. Pass the smelling salts. For me, this news was old way back in the 2008 campaign.
I’m happy to see Obama get raked over the coals over why his Administration hasn’t investigated the CPD. But you know, it really hasn’t been the best week for this story to come out, given two mass killings one after the other.
I’m actually sorta burned out on moral outrage anymore. The Republican Party–your guys, McKT–are so freaking insane and crazy it’s hard to find words for it. I don’t even bother most of the time. It’s like bashing the KKK. As I recently told sapient, one reason I hate the Republican Party so much is that it forces me to support people I despise. Lesser of two evils is all we have in America.
So how is it that the moderate responsible Republicans allowed your party to become the party of pure insanity? Answer that one. I am perfectly willing to grant that the center-left is hypocritical (so is the far-left, in other ways), but you seem to be itching for some way to portray American liberals as being as bad as the Republicans. Um, no. Not even remotely close.
Obama is a hypocrite. Pass the smelling salts. For me, this news was old way back in the 2008 campaign.
I’m happy to see Obama get raked over the coals over why his Administration hasn’t investigated the CPD. But you know, it really hasn’t been the best week for this story to come out, given two mass killings one after the other.
I’m actually sorta burned out on moral outrage anymore. The Republican Party–your guys, McKT–are so freaking insane and crazy it’s hard to find words for it. I don’t even bother most of the time. It’s like bashing the KKK. As I recently told sapient, one reason I hate the Republican Party so much is that it forces me to support people I despise. Lesser of two evils is all we have in America.
So how is it that the moderate responsible Republicans allowed your party to become the party of pure insanity? Answer that one. I am perfectly willing to grant that the center-left is hypocritical (so is the far-left, in other ways), but you seem to be itching for some way to portray American liberals as being as bad as the Republicans. Um, no. Not even remotely close.
Obama is a hypocrite. Pass the smelling salts. For me, this news was old way back in the 2008 campaign.
I’m happy to see Obama get raked over the coals over why his Administration hasn’t investigated the CPD. But you know, it really hasn’t been the best week for this story to come out, given two mass killings one after the other.
I’m actually sorta burned out on moral outrage anymore. The Republican Party–your guys, McKT–are so freaking insane and crazy it’s hard to find words for it. I don’t even bother most of the time. It’s like bashing the KKK. As I recently told sapient, one reason I hate the Republican Party so much is that it forces me to support people I despise. Lesser of two evils is all we have in America.
So how is it that the moderate responsible Republicans allowed your party to become the party of pure insanity? Answer that one. I am perfectly willing to grant that the center-left is hypocritical (so is the far-left, in other ways), but you seem to be itching for some way to portray American liberals as being as bad as the Republicans. Um, no. Not even remotely close.
You know, DJ, I always thought the only reason to criticize the GOP was out of obeisance to the Democrats – and especially Obama. Otherwise, what’s not to like?
There are some peculiar rules about criticizing Democrats. It’s okay to criticize President Obama, for instance, if it’s over the use of drones. But cover-ups involving the “Chicago machine” are off limits. The point being, that we on “the left” can still be said to be hypocritical out of complete and utter deference to Obama despite our strong criticism of him because we’ve all agreed ahead of time on the those special cases where we can fault him without losing our liberal creds.
The secret’s out. We should probably hold a special meeting.
You know, DJ, I always thought the only reason to criticize the GOP was out of obeisance to the Democrats – and especially Obama. Otherwise, what’s not to like?
There are some peculiar rules about criticizing Democrats. It’s okay to criticize President Obama, for instance, if it’s over the use of drones. But cover-ups involving the “Chicago machine” are off limits. The point being, that we on “the left” can still be said to be hypocritical out of complete and utter deference to Obama despite our strong criticism of him because we’ve all agreed ahead of time on the those special cases where we can fault him without losing our liberal creds.
The secret’s out. We should probably hold a special meeting.
You know, DJ, I always thought the only reason to criticize the GOP was out of obeisance to the Democrats – and especially Obama. Otherwise, what’s not to like?
There are some peculiar rules about criticizing Democrats. It’s okay to criticize President Obama, for instance, if it’s over the use of drones. But cover-ups involving the “Chicago machine” are off limits. The point being, that we on “the left” can still be said to be hypocritical out of complete and utter deference to Obama despite our strong criticism of him because we’ve all agreed ahead of time on the those special cases where we can fault him without losing our liberal creds.
The secret’s out. We should probably hold a special meeting.
McTx sounds like someone who is just now peaking after a weeklong Breitbart bender, and has wandered into the nearest bar he can find, itching for a fight.
“connect the dots”
fer fucks sake. it’s like looking into the night sky and discovered that you can spell out “OBAMA SUXXX!” if you try hard enough.
confirmation bias is a hell of a drug.
McTx sounds like someone who is just now peaking after a weeklong Breitbart bender, and has wandered into the nearest bar he can find, itching for a fight.
“connect the dots”
fer fucks sake. it’s like looking into the night sky and discovered that you can spell out “OBAMA SUXXX!” if you try hard enough.
confirmation bias is a hell of a drug.
McTx sounds like someone who is just now peaking after a weeklong Breitbart bender, and has wandered into the nearest bar he can find, itching for a fight.
“connect the dots”
fer fucks sake. it’s like looking into the night sky and discovered that you can spell out “OBAMA SUXXX!” if you try hard enough.
confirmation bias is a hell of a drug.
Now, the reality based community may believe that Rahm didn’t involve the feds early on and that he didn’t give Obama and Holder a head’s up as to what happened.
The “reality based community” doesn’t have an opinion about whether Rahm gave Obama a heads-up, or not.
Because the information to say that he did, or did not, is not available.
You assume he did. That assumption exists in your head, not mine.
For others, this is just plain hypocrisy.
So be it.
At the risk of repeating myself:
It’s impossible to make a substantive reply to your theory, *because I have no idea what Rahm and Obama talk about, or if they talk at all*.
Neither do you.
You have a theory, which is interesting, but it’s impossible for me to have an opinion about whether it’s true or not, because no information about whether it’s true or not is available on the public record.
I don’t really have a problem with you having your theory, but it’s annoying to be called out for not engaging your post “on the substance”, because there is no substance to engage.
“Connect the dots” is not a really compelling argument.
To repeat: CPD is a product of the Democratic machine. A machine that faithfully delivers Illinois to the Democrats every 4 years, a machine whose corruption the national Democratic party routinely not only overlooks but enables and whose votes the national Dems gladly accept.
Are you telling us that politics in Chicago are corrupt?
Next you’ll be telling us that single-party (D) rule in MA leads to old-boys-club insider wheeling and dealing.
As a resident of MA, I will be shocked to learn this.
Now, the reality based community may believe that Rahm didn’t involve the feds early on and that he didn’t give Obama and Holder a head’s up as to what happened.
The “reality based community” doesn’t have an opinion about whether Rahm gave Obama a heads-up, or not.
Because the information to say that he did, or did not, is not available.
You assume he did. That assumption exists in your head, not mine.
For others, this is just plain hypocrisy.
So be it.
At the risk of repeating myself:
It’s impossible to make a substantive reply to your theory, *because I have no idea what Rahm and Obama talk about, or if they talk at all*.
Neither do you.
You have a theory, which is interesting, but it’s impossible for me to have an opinion about whether it’s true or not, because no information about whether it’s true or not is available on the public record.
I don’t really have a problem with you having your theory, but it’s annoying to be called out for not engaging your post “on the substance”, because there is no substance to engage.
“Connect the dots” is not a really compelling argument.
To repeat: CPD is a product of the Democratic machine. A machine that faithfully delivers Illinois to the Democrats every 4 years, a machine whose corruption the national Democratic party routinely not only overlooks but enables and whose votes the national Dems gladly accept.
Are you telling us that politics in Chicago are corrupt?
Next you’ll be telling us that single-party (D) rule in MA leads to old-boys-club insider wheeling and dealing.
As a resident of MA, I will be shocked to learn this.
Now, the reality based community may believe that Rahm didn’t involve the feds early on and that he didn’t give Obama and Holder a head’s up as to what happened.
The “reality based community” doesn’t have an opinion about whether Rahm gave Obama a heads-up, or not.
Because the information to say that he did, or did not, is not available.
You assume he did. That assumption exists in your head, not mine.
For others, this is just plain hypocrisy.
So be it.
At the risk of repeating myself:
It’s impossible to make a substantive reply to your theory, *because I have no idea what Rahm and Obama talk about, or if they talk at all*.
Neither do you.
You have a theory, which is interesting, but it’s impossible for me to have an opinion about whether it’s true or not, because no information about whether it’s true or not is available on the public record.
I don’t really have a problem with you having your theory, but it’s annoying to be called out for not engaging your post “on the substance”, because there is no substance to engage.
“Connect the dots” is not a really compelling argument.
To repeat: CPD is a product of the Democratic machine. A machine that faithfully delivers Illinois to the Democrats every 4 years, a machine whose corruption the national Democratic party routinely not only overlooks but enables and whose votes the national Dems gladly accept.
Are you telling us that politics in Chicago are corrupt?
Next you’ll be telling us that single-party (D) rule in MA leads to old-boys-club insider wheeling and dealing.
As a resident of MA, I will be shocked to learn this.
I didn’t see the McDonald murder video until a couple of days after its release, when it looks like Barack Obama and McTX got a hold of it too.
That’s my story.
For the year before that, I was trying to keep the whole thing secret from OBWI at the request of my Syrian back channel contacts to Barack Obama.
I apologize too for the rise of Donald Trump, Ben Carson, Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, and Rand Paul to the Presidential candidate ranks, but as a witness to the phenomenon, I can attest that McTX had nothing to do with it.
I’m a New York Yankee fan too.
But Red Sox outfielder Carl Yastrzemski was one of my favorite ballplayers. I’m booed out of both stadiums for the sheer hypocrisy of it.
See, what I do to get my anti-Obama hit for the week is look up the folks at RedState, who provide some factual objectivity to my puppy love for Obama.
I didn’t see the McDonald murder video until a couple of days after its release, when it looks like Barack Obama and McTX got a hold of it too.
That’s my story.
For the year before that, I was trying to keep the whole thing secret from OBWI at the request of my Syrian back channel contacts to Barack Obama.
I apologize too for the rise of Donald Trump, Ben Carson, Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, and Rand Paul to the Presidential candidate ranks, but as a witness to the phenomenon, I can attest that McTX had nothing to do with it.
I’m a New York Yankee fan too.
But Red Sox outfielder Carl Yastrzemski was one of my favorite ballplayers. I’m booed out of both stadiums for the sheer hypocrisy of it.
See, what I do to get my anti-Obama hit for the week is look up the folks at RedState, who provide some factual objectivity to my puppy love for Obama.
I didn’t see the McDonald murder video until a couple of days after its release, when it looks like Barack Obama and McTX got a hold of it too.
That’s my story.
For the year before that, I was trying to keep the whole thing secret from OBWI at the request of my Syrian back channel contacts to Barack Obama.
I apologize too for the rise of Donald Trump, Ben Carson, Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, and Rand Paul to the Presidential candidate ranks, but as a witness to the phenomenon, I can attest that McTX had nothing to do with it.
I’m a New York Yankee fan too.
But Red Sox outfielder Carl Yastrzemski was one of my favorite ballplayers. I’m booed out of both stadiums for the sheer hypocrisy of it.
See, what I do to get my anti-Obama hit for the week is look up the folks at RedState, who provide some factual objectivity to my puppy love for Obama.
I’d like to know how the names Daley, McDonald, and McKinney intersect.
Something is not right there.
I’d like to know how the names Daley, McDonald, and McKinney intersect.
Something is not right there.
I’d like to know how the names Daley, McDonald, and McKinney intersect.
Something is not right there.
Didn’t you just do so a day or two ago?
Yes, I did. I called out conservatives for not standing up to the irresponsible violent rhetoric that folks in their circles use on a daily basis.
What I didn’t do was then go off on a tear about how everybody else had to make a “substantive reply”.
You think Obama colluded with Emmanuel in a cover-up of the Macdonald shooting. It’s an interesting theory. Who knows, it could even be true. Weirder things, by far, have happened.
However, I have no idea if it is, or not, so I have no opinion about it. I can’t make a comment on the substance of your point of view, because *there is no substance*. It’s an assumption, on your part.
Didn’t you just do so a day or two ago?
Yes, I did. I called out conservatives for not standing up to the irresponsible violent rhetoric that folks in their circles use on a daily basis.
What I didn’t do was then go off on a tear about how everybody else had to make a “substantive reply”.
You think Obama colluded with Emmanuel in a cover-up of the Macdonald shooting. It’s an interesting theory. Who knows, it could even be true. Weirder things, by far, have happened.
However, I have no idea if it is, or not, so I have no opinion about it. I can’t make a comment on the substance of your point of view, because *there is no substance*. It’s an assumption, on your part.
Didn’t you just do so a day or two ago?
Yes, I did. I called out conservatives for not standing up to the irresponsible violent rhetoric that folks in their circles use on a daily basis.
What I didn’t do was then go off on a tear about how everybody else had to make a “substantive reply”.
You think Obama colluded with Emmanuel in a cover-up of the Macdonald shooting. It’s an interesting theory. Who knows, it could even be true. Weirder things, by far, have happened.
However, I have no idea if it is, or not, so I have no opinion about it. I can’t make a comment on the substance of your point of view, because *there is no substance*. It’s an assumption, on your part.
So what you’re saying is that if you ignore police brutality when it doesn’t fit your preferred narrative rather than universally engaging on the subject, or if you do engage insist that it’s just “bad apples” on an individual or local level rather than calling out the administrative and/or political leadership that carries water and gives cover for them, up to and including at the national level, you have no credibility on the subject?
That’s… very big of you to admit, McKinney.
So what you’re saying is that if you ignore police brutality when it doesn’t fit your preferred narrative rather than universally engaging on the subject, or if you do engage insist that it’s just “bad apples” on an individual or local level rather than calling out the administrative and/or political leadership that carries water and gives cover for them, up to and including at the national level, you have no credibility on the subject?
That’s… very big of you to admit, McKinney.
So what you’re saying is that if you ignore police brutality when it doesn’t fit your preferred narrative rather than universally engaging on the subject, or if you do engage insist that it’s just “bad apples” on an individual or local level rather than calling out the administrative and/or political leadership that carries water and gives cover for them, up to and including at the national level, you have no credibility on the subject?
That’s… very big of you to admit, McKinney.
There is some irony in this from Wikipedia on Obama’s time in the Illinois senate, given the current discussion:
I’m just connecting the dots here! Were it not for Obama, the groundwork would never have been laid for the dashcam video of the McDonald murder. Way to go, Barack!
There is some irony in this from Wikipedia on Obama’s time in the Illinois senate, given the current discussion:
I’m just connecting the dots here! Were it not for Obama, the groundwork would never have been laid for the dashcam video of the McDonald murder. Way to go, Barack!
There is some irony in this from Wikipedia on Obama’s time in the Illinois senate, given the current discussion:
I’m just connecting the dots here! Were it not for Obama, the groundwork would never have been laid for the dashcam video of the McDonald murder. Way to go, Barack!
Like Drum, and TNC (thank you Nigel, I missed that), the outrage is focused solely on CPD.
From Coates’s post:
Many people charged with the safety of Chicago’s citizens, from actual officers on the scene up to the mayor, were in position to know that this was murder. That it took a year to reach that determination is evidence of something beyond “one bad cop,” something even beyond “one bad superintendent.”
Like Drum, and TNC (thank you Nigel, I missed that), the outrage is focused solely on CPD.
From Coates’s post:
Many people charged with the safety of Chicago’s citizens, from actual officers on the scene up to the mayor, were in position to know that this was murder. That it took a year to reach that determination is evidence of something beyond “one bad cop,” something even beyond “one bad superintendent.”
Like Drum, and TNC (thank you Nigel, I missed that), the outrage is focused solely on CPD.
From Coates’s post:
Many people charged with the safety of Chicago’s citizens, from actual officers on the scene up to the mayor, were in position to know that this was murder. That it took a year to reach that determination is evidence of something beyond “one bad cop,” something even beyond “one bad superintendent.”
i do admire the attempt to turn the issue of police abuses against black Americans into a condemnation of Obama, Emmanuel, and Democrats in general. it’s a nice deflection!
when life gives you dead black men, make lemonade?
i do admire the attempt to turn the issue of police abuses against black Americans into a condemnation of Obama, Emmanuel, and Democrats in general. it’s a nice deflection!
when life gives you dead black men, make lemonade?
i do admire the attempt to turn the issue of police abuses against black Americans into a condemnation of Obama, Emmanuel, and Democrats in general. it’s a nice deflection!
when life gives you dead black men, make lemonade?
I’d like to know how the names Daley, McDonald, and McKinney intersect.
Something is not right there.
Friggin’ Celts.
I’d like to know how the names Daley, McDonald, and McKinney intersect.
Something is not right there.
Friggin’ Celts.
I’d like to know how the names Daley, McDonald, and McKinney intersect.
Something is not right there.
Friggin’ Celts.
Hypothetically, if Emanuel was forced to resign and all us lefties were crying foul about how unfair it was, maybe I could see where that would be hypocritical and partisan.
As it stands, if he does end up resigning, I know I’m not going to be the least bit upset over it. I know he’s a Democrat and all that, and old buddies with Obama, which I’m sure is supposed to matter a whole lot to me, given the mind-reading we’ve all been subjected to.
The whole thing’s just fncking weird to me. I don’t even know what else to say about it.
Hypothetically, if Emanuel was forced to resign and all us lefties were crying foul about how unfair it was, maybe I could see where that would be hypocritical and partisan.
As it stands, if he does end up resigning, I know I’m not going to be the least bit upset over it. I know he’s a Democrat and all that, and old buddies with Obama, which I’m sure is supposed to matter a whole lot to me, given the mind-reading we’ve all been subjected to.
The whole thing’s just fncking weird to me. I don’t even know what else to say about it.
Hypothetically, if Emanuel was forced to resign and all us lefties were crying foul about how unfair it was, maybe I could see where that would be hypocritical and partisan.
As it stands, if he does end up resigning, I know I’m not going to be the least bit upset over it. I know he’s a Democrat and all that, and old buddies with Obama, which I’m sure is supposed to matter a whole lot to me, given the mind-reading we’ve all been subjected to.
The whole thing’s just fncking weird to me. I don’t even know what else to say about it.
“The whole thing’s just fncking weird to me. I don’t even know what else to say about it.”
Sucks when you just can’t, just not possible, hang a radical right wing racist label on the guys in charge. Then we can read minds just fine.
“The whole thing’s just fncking weird to me. I don’t even know what else to say about it.”
Sucks when you just can’t, just not possible, hang a radical right wing racist label on the guys in charge. Then we can read minds just fine.
“The whole thing’s just fncking weird to me. I don’t even know what else to say about it.”
Sucks when you just can’t, just not possible, hang a radical right wing racist label on the guys in charge. Then we can read minds just fine.
oh how the left loves Emanuel !
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/why-couldnt-the-left-unseat-rahm-emanuel/389354/
oh how the left loves Emanuel !
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/why-couldnt-the-left-unseat-rahm-emanuel/389354/
oh how the left loves Emanuel !
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/why-couldnt-the-left-unseat-rahm-emanuel/389354/
Sucks when you just can’t, just not possible, hang a radical right wing racist label on the guys in charge. Then we can read minds just fine.
Could you put this in more concrete terms? Maybe provide an example where such a label was misapplied or tell us when it would rightly have been applied but wasn’t.
Are you on the “you guys are protecting Obama and Chicago machine with your lack of outrage” bandwagon or something? What are you saying?
Sucks when you just can’t, just not possible, hang a radical right wing racist label on the guys in charge. Then we can read minds just fine.
Could you put this in more concrete terms? Maybe provide an example where such a label was misapplied or tell us when it would rightly have been applied but wasn’t.
Are you on the “you guys are protecting Obama and Chicago machine with your lack of outrage” bandwagon or something? What are you saying?
Sucks when you just can’t, just not possible, hang a radical right wing racist label on the guys in charge. Then we can read minds just fine.
Could you put this in more concrete terms? Maybe provide an example where such a label was misapplied or tell us when it would rightly have been applied but wasn’t.
Are you on the “you guys are protecting Obama and Chicago machine with your lack of outrage” bandwagon or something? What are you saying?
they’re saying “hey, look over here! ignore the dead black guys!”
they’re saying “hey, look over here! ignore the dead black guys!”
they’re saying “hey, look over here! ignore the dead black guys!”
what I’m saying is that every bad cop or politician, when white, is labeled a right wing racist. Even in cases where “right wing” is a meaningless or racist isn’t even certain. It is less convenient to just apply the label and nod your head knowingly in this case. The actual shooting in Ferguson is one where the label didn’t seem to fit at all, however it was applied. In broader terms there seems a racial bias in Ferguson, but that cop didn’t seem to be acting on “roght wing racism”.
what I’m saying is that every bad cop or politician, when white, is labeled a right wing racist. Even in cases where “right wing” is a meaningless or racist isn’t even certain. It is less convenient to just apply the label and nod your head knowingly in this case. The actual shooting in Ferguson is one where the label didn’t seem to fit at all, however it was applied. In broader terms there seems a racial bias in Ferguson, but that cop didn’t seem to be acting on “roght wing racism”.
what I’m saying is that every bad cop or politician, when white, is labeled a right wing racist. Even in cases where “right wing” is a meaningless or racist isn’t even certain. It is less convenient to just apply the label and nod your head knowingly in this case. The actual shooting in Ferguson is one where the label didn’t seem to fit at all, however it was applied. In broader terms there seems a racial bias in Ferguson, but that cop didn’t seem to be acting on “roght wing racism”.
In broader terms there seems a racial bias in Ferguson, but that cop didn’t seem to be acting on “roght wing racism”.
FWIW, I agree with both clauses of this statement.
I think if you consider the protests in Ferguson and the subsequent emergence of the black lives matter movement as purely and exclusively a reaction to Brown’s shooting, you are missing the larger context.
Not saying you, Marty, are doing that, I’m just saying.
In broader terms there seems a racial bias in Ferguson, but that cop didn’t seem to be acting on “roght wing racism”.
FWIW, I agree with both clauses of this statement.
I think if you consider the protests in Ferguson and the subsequent emergence of the black lives matter movement as purely and exclusively a reaction to Brown’s shooting, you are missing the larger context.
Not saying you, Marty, are doing that, I’m just saying.
In broader terms there seems a racial bias in Ferguson, but that cop didn’t seem to be acting on “roght wing racism”.
FWIW, I agree with both clauses of this statement.
I think if you consider the protests in Ferguson and the subsequent emergence of the black lives matter movement as purely and exclusively a reaction to Brown’s shooting, you are missing the larger context.
Not saying you, Marty, are doing that, I’m just saying.
what I’m saying is that every bad cop or politician, when white, is labeled a right wing racist.
While I’m sure that does happen, the passive voice leaves me unclear as to who does it. Are you talking about people on this blog? Are you talking about me specifically?
It is less convenient to just apply the label and nod your head knowingly in this case.
And why do you say that? The cop who did the shooting sounds like a racist based on what I’ve read. I’m not sure about the right-wing part. But you were talking about “guys in charge” in your earlier comment, which I took to mean those in positions of power above the cops involved in whatever shooting/death of either unarmed or not-immediately-threatening blacks. In which cases was it more convenient to consider them (radical!) right-wing racists?
The actual shooting in Ferguson is one where the label didn’t seem to fit at all, however it was applied.
Again, by whom?
what I’m saying is that every bad cop or politician, when white, is labeled a right wing racist.
While I’m sure that does happen, the passive voice leaves me unclear as to who does it. Are you talking about people on this blog? Are you talking about me specifically?
It is less convenient to just apply the label and nod your head knowingly in this case.
And why do you say that? The cop who did the shooting sounds like a racist based on what I’ve read. I’m not sure about the right-wing part. But you were talking about “guys in charge” in your earlier comment, which I took to mean those in positions of power above the cops involved in whatever shooting/death of either unarmed or not-immediately-threatening blacks. In which cases was it more convenient to consider them (radical!) right-wing racists?
The actual shooting in Ferguson is one where the label didn’t seem to fit at all, however it was applied.
Again, by whom?
what I’m saying is that every bad cop or politician, when white, is labeled a right wing racist.
While I’m sure that does happen, the passive voice leaves me unclear as to who does it. Are you talking about people on this blog? Are you talking about me specifically?
It is less convenient to just apply the label and nod your head knowingly in this case.
And why do you say that? The cop who did the shooting sounds like a racist based on what I’ve read. I’m not sure about the right-wing part. But you were talking about “guys in charge” in your earlier comment, which I took to mean those in positions of power above the cops involved in whatever shooting/death of either unarmed or not-immediately-threatening blacks. In which cases was it more convenient to consider them (radical!) right-wing racists?
The actual shooting in Ferguson is one where the label didn’t seem to fit at all, however it was applied.
Again, by whom?
While we are talking about whether or not a cop’s actions are racist, consider this. Suppose a cop shot a white man, who happened to be carrying a gun. Would we hear denounciations of this government infringement on the victim’s 2nd Amendment rights? You bet we would!
But do we hear the same denunciation when the victim is a black man? Or do we hear justifications of the cop’s reaction as a reasonable reaction to a possible threat?
While we are talking about whether or not a cop’s actions are racist, consider this. Suppose a cop shot a white man, who happened to be carrying a gun. Would we hear denounciations of this government infringement on the victim’s 2nd Amendment rights? You bet we would!
But do we hear the same denunciation when the victim is a black man? Or do we hear justifications of the cop’s reaction as a reasonable reaction to a possible threat?
While we are talking about whether or not a cop’s actions are racist, consider this. Suppose a cop shot a white man, who happened to be carrying a gun. Would we hear denounciations of this government infringement on the victim’s 2nd Amendment rights? You bet we would!
But do we hear the same denunciation when the victim is a black man? Or do we hear justifications of the cop’s reaction as a reasonable reaction to a possible threat?
Bah, wj, that’s a reach. If a white man got shot by a cop we wouldn’t hear anything at all.
hsh, none of that was specific to here or anyone here. Lately I have tired of shootings being by right wing extremists when its mostly clear there is no political motive for the shooting, And yes, I was more focused on the chief and mayor etc.
Bah, wj, that’s a reach. If a white man got shot by a cop we wouldn’t hear anything at all.
hsh, none of that was specific to here or anyone here. Lately I have tired of shootings being by right wing extremists when its mostly clear there is no political motive for the shooting, And yes, I was more focused on the chief and mayor etc.
Bah, wj, that’s a reach. If a white man got shot by a cop we wouldn’t hear anything at all.
hsh, none of that was specific to here or anyone here. Lately I have tired of shootings being by right wing extremists when its mostly clear there is no political motive for the shooting, And yes, I was more focused on the chief and mayor etc.
Lately I have tired of shootings being by right wing extremists
yeah, all the rest of us, too.
Lately I have tired of shootings being by right wing extremists
yeah, all the rest of us, too.
Lately I have tired of shootings being by right wing extremists
yeah, all the rest of us, too.
“If a white man got shot by a cop we wouldn’t hear anything at all.”
I would second that, with the possible exception of a white kid being shot by a black cop, that might make national news
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/louisiana-police-shooting-video-arrests-norris-greenhouse-jr-derrick-stafford/
“If a white man got shot by a cop we wouldn’t hear anything at all.”
I would second that, with the possible exception of a white kid being shot by a black cop, that might make national news
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/louisiana-police-shooting-video-arrests-norris-greenhouse-jr-derrick-stafford/
“If a white man got shot by a cop we wouldn’t hear anything at all.”
I would second that, with the possible exception of a white kid being shot by a black cop, that might make national news
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/louisiana-police-shooting-video-arrests-norris-greenhouse-jr-derrick-stafford/
Hypocrisy from the Administration? Sure–
https://theintercept.com/2015/12/04/u-s-first-shields-its-torturers-and-war-criminals-from-prosecution-now-officially-honors-them/
Hypocrisy from the Administration? Sure–
https://theintercept.com/2015/12/04/u-s-first-shields-its-torturers-and-war-criminals-from-prosecution-now-officially-honors-them/
Hypocrisy from the Administration? Sure–
https://theintercept.com/2015/12/04/u-s-first-shields-its-torturers-and-war-criminals-from-prosecution-now-officially-honors-them/
Bah, wj, that’s a reach. If a white man got shot by a cop we wouldn’t hear anything at all.
Bah, yourself. Ruby ridge. Waco.
Bah, wj, that’s a reach. If a white man got shot by a cop we wouldn’t hear anything at all.
Bah, yourself. Ruby ridge. Waco.
Bah, wj, that’s a reach. If a white man got shot by a cop we wouldn’t hear anything at all.
Bah, yourself. Ruby ridge. Waco.
If a white man got shot by a cop we wouldn’t hear anything at all.
you let us know when the statistics show incontrovertibly that the US criminal justice system is, from top to bottom, in every aspect, slanted against white people.
until that happens, the constant faux-victimhood thing just makes you look, honestly, racist. and i don’t say that to be trollish or mean or rude. there is a serious, deep-rooted problem in the US justice system, which manifests itself in higher rates of stops, arrests, charges, convictions, and longer sentences for blacks than for whites. pretending white people are the victims is just … wrong.
If a white man got shot by a cop we wouldn’t hear anything at all.
you let us know when the statistics show incontrovertibly that the US criminal justice system is, from top to bottom, in every aspect, slanted against white people.
until that happens, the constant faux-victimhood thing just makes you look, honestly, racist. and i don’t say that to be trollish or mean or rude. there is a serious, deep-rooted problem in the US justice system, which manifests itself in higher rates of stops, arrests, charges, convictions, and longer sentences for blacks than for whites. pretending white people are the victims is just … wrong.
If a white man got shot by a cop we wouldn’t hear anything at all.
you let us know when the statistics show incontrovertibly that the US criminal justice system is, from top to bottom, in every aspect, slanted against white people.
until that happens, the constant faux-victimhood thing just makes you look, honestly, racist. and i don’t say that to be trollish or mean or rude. there is a serious, deep-rooted problem in the US justice system, which manifests itself in higher rates of stops, arrests, charges, convictions, and longer sentences for blacks than for whites. pretending white people are the victims is just … wrong.
noticed that this thread re-exploded while I was off doing other stuff. I’d just note that the whole Maoist thing was (I think) something that Bernard tossed out, so I don’t think McT introduced it into the conversation. I glossed over it, cause here in Japan, after various large undertakings, we always have a hansei kai, which roughly translates into ‘introspection meeting’, which I always assumed was related to those ‘self-criticism’ (ziwo pipan (自我批判) or jiǎntǎo (检讨) according to Wikipedia) forays of Mao’s China. I also think I see the same thing in memories of my youth of the Baptist revivals that came thru town with everyone coming up to confess their sins and accept Jesus as their personal saviour as well as the whole structure of AA. So I’m not sure that McT glommed on to that because it was in the air, or because he thought it was a convenient rock to throw, though I tend to think it was a little bit of both.
noticed that this thread re-exploded while I was off doing other stuff. I’d just note that the whole Maoist thing was (I think) something that Bernard tossed out, so I don’t think McT introduced it into the conversation. I glossed over it, cause here in Japan, after various large undertakings, we always have a hansei kai, which roughly translates into ‘introspection meeting’, which I always assumed was related to those ‘self-criticism’ (ziwo pipan (自我批判) or jiǎntǎo (检讨) according to Wikipedia) forays of Mao’s China. I also think I see the same thing in memories of my youth of the Baptist revivals that came thru town with everyone coming up to confess their sins and accept Jesus as their personal saviour as well as the whole structure of AA. So I’m not sure that McT glommed on to that because it was in the air, or because he thought it was a convenient rock to throw, though I tend to think it was a little bit of both.
noticed that this thread re-exploded while I was off doing other stuff. I’d just note that the whole Maoist thing was (I think) something that Bernard tossed out, so I don’t think McT introduced it into the conversation. I glossed over it, cause here in Japan, after various large undertakings, we always have a hansei kai, which roughly translates into ‘introspection meeting’, which I always assumed was related to those ‘self-criticism’ (ziwo pipan (自我批判) or jiǎntǎo (检讨) according to Wikipedia) forays of Mao’s China. I also think I see the same thing in memories of my youth of the Baptist revivals that came thru town with everyone coming up to confess their sins and accept Jesus as their personal saviour as well as the whole structure of AA. So I’m not sure that McT glommed on to that because it was in the air, or because he thought it was a convenient rock to throw, though I tend to think it was a little bit of both.
in Japan, after various large undertakings, we always have a hansei kai, which roughly translates into ‘introspection meeting’
In software development, those meetings are called “lessons learned”.
In the US military, they are called “after action review”.
There isn’t anything Maoist about reflecting on your experience.
I have no idea whatsoever what McK was on about with the Maoist comment.
in Japan, after various large undertakings, we always have a hansei kai, which roughly translates into ‘introspection meeting’
In software development, those meetings are called “lessons learned”.
In the US military, they are called “after action review”.
There isn’t anything Maoist about reflecting on your experience.
I have no idea whatsoever what McK was on about with the Maoist comment.
in Japan, after various large undertakings, we always have a hansei kai, which roughly translates into ‘introspection meeting’
In software development, those meetings are called “lessons learned”.
In the US military, they are called “after action review”.
There isn’t anything Maoist about reflecting on your experience.
I have no idea whatsoever what McK was on about with the Maoist comment.
Vague and generalized left-bashing, which naturally deserves substantive response?
Vague and generalized left-bashing, which naturally deserves substantive response?
Vague and generalized left-bashing, which naturally deserves substantive response?
I have no idea whatsoever what McK was on about with the Maoist comment.
Well, it most likely was not this.
I have no idea whatsoever what McK was on about with the Maoist comment.
Well, it most likely was not this.
I have no idea whatsoever what McK was on about with the Maoist comment.
Well, it most likely was not this.
I expected no real response, unless someone wants to discuss what makes some of these shootings “right wing”. An observation. I have no idea what clerk is on about except to call me a racist, its been a while. I disputed not a single point in his comment in anything I said.
Finally, Ruby Ridge and Waco were NOT “a white guy getting shot by a cop”.
I expected no real response, unless someone wants to discuss what makes some of these shootings “right wing”. An observation. I have no idea what clerk is on about except to call me a racist, its been a while. I disputed not a single point in his comment in anything I said.
Finally, Ruby Ridge and Waco were NOT “a white guy getting shot by a cop”.
I expected no real response, unless someone wants to discuss what makes some of these shootings “right wing”. An observation. I have no idea what clerk is on about except to call me a racist, its been a while. I disputed not a single point in his comment in anything I said.
Finally, Ruby Ridge and Waco were NOT “a white guy getting shot by a cop”.
Give me a specific instance of a shooting being characterized as right wing and we can discuss whether that characterization has merit or not. But I’m not sure why this is such an issue on this thread and on this blog if no one here is making such a characterization. It’s a big world with lots of people saying lots of things. There’s a good chance some of them are wrong.
Give me a specific instance of a shooting being characterized as right wing and we can discuss whether that characterization has merit or not. But I’m not sure why this is such an issue on this thread and on this blog if no one here is making such a characterization. It’s a big world with lots of people saying lots of things. There’s a good chance some of them are wrong.
Give me a specific instance of a shooting being characterized as right wing and we can discuss whether that characterization has merit or not. But I’m not sure why this is such an issue on this thread and on this blog if no one here is making such a characterization. It’s a big world with lots of people saying lots of things. There’s a good chance some of them are wrong.
I have no idea what clerk is on about except to call me a racist
i said that statement was racist and explained why.
but i’ll do it again:
the issue isn’t about white people. cops have a pretty good relationship with white people, compared to the relationship they have with black people. there are piles of stats to back that up.
but you’re whining about how white people just don’t get a fair shake? or that society somehow pays too much attention to the plight of black people? caucasian please.
I have no idea what clerk is on about except to call me a racist
i said that statement was racist and explained why.
but i’ll do it again:
the issue isn’t about white people. cops have a pretty good relationship with white people, compared to the relationship they have with black people. there are piles of stats to back that up.
but you’re whining about how white people just don’t get a fair shake? or that society somehow pays too much attention to the plight of black people? caucasian please.
I have no idea what clerk is on about except to call me a racist
i said that statement was racist and explained why.
but i’ll do it again:
the issue isn’t about white people. cops have a pretty good relationship with white people, compared to the relationship they have with black people. there are piles of stats to back that up.
but you’re whining about how white people just don’t get a fair shake? or that society somehow pays too much attention to the plight of black people? caucasian please.
Well, it most likely was not this.
That all sounds like early-70’s encounter groups, on steroids.
Which is, basically, my own personal idea of hell. 🙂
Well, it most likely was not this.
That all sounds like early-70’s encounter groups, on steroids.
Which is, basically, my own personal idea of hell. 🙂
Well, it most likely was not this.
That all sounds like early-70’s encounter groups, on steroids.
Which is, basically, my own personal idea of hell. 🙂
The family of the male half of the San Bernardino terrorist couple seems to be represented by a pair of lawyers, one Muslim-ish and one NRA-ish. They seem to be pushing two messages:
1) Don’t blame the massacre on Islamic culture; and
2) Don’t blame the massacre on the gun culture.
Strange bedfellows? Their half-hour press conference yesterday is already on YouTube, so you can judge for yourself.
To my ear, it’s a tag-team defense of religion, albeit two different forms of it.
–TP
The family of the male half of the San Bernardino terrorist couple seems to be represented by a pair of lawyers, one Muslim-ish and one NRA-ish. They seem to be pushing two messages:
1) Don’t blame the massacre on Islamic culture; and
2) Don’t blame the massacre on the gun culture.
Strange bedfellows? Their half-hour press conference yesterday is already on YouTube, so you can judge for yourself.
To my ear, it’s a tag-team defense of religion, albeit two different forms of it.
–TP
The family of the male half of the San Bernardino terrorist couple seems to be represented by a pair of lawyers, one Muslim-ish and one NRA-ish. They seem to be pushing two messages:
1) Don’t blame the massacre on Islamic culture; and
2) Don’t blame the massacre on the gun culture.
Strange bedfellows? Their half-hour press conference yesterday is already on YouTube, so you can judge for yourself.
To my ear, it’s a tag-team defense of religion, albeit two different forms of it.
–TP
and the husband’s lawyer is a Sandy Hook truther.
probably not a lot of lawyers eager to take that case.
and the husband’s lawyer is a Sandy Hook truther.
probably not a lot of lawyers eager to take that case.
and the husband’s lawyer is a Sandy Hook truther.
probably not a lot of lawyers eager to take that case.
husband’s lawyer = husband’s family’s lawyer
husband’s lawyer = husband’s family’s lawyer
husband’s lawyer = husband’s family’s lawyer
why the hell does the family of the shooter need a lawyer?
why the hell does the family of the shooter need a lawyer?
why the hell does the family of the shooter need a lawyer?
let alone two lawyers?
let alone two lawyers?
let alone two lawyers?
why the hell does the family of the shooter need a lawyer?
Go find Donald Trump’s recent remarks about going after the families of the 9/11 perpetrators, and generalizing from there.
Plus, although these lawyers sound like a piece of work, if I became, unwelcomely and through no choice of my own, the focus of a media circus like these families now are, I would get myself a lawyer too. Among other protectors.
why the hell does the family of the shooter need a lawyer?
Go find Donald Trump’s recent remarks about going after the families of the 9/11 perpetrators, and generalizing from there.
Plus, although these lawyers sound like a piece of work, if I became, unwelcomely and through no choice of my own, the focus of a media circus like these families now are, I would get myself a lawyer too. Among other protectors.
why the hell does the family of the shooter need a lawyer?
Go find Donald Trump’s recent remarks about going after the families of the 9/11 perpetrators, and generalizing from there.
Plus, although these lawyers sound like a piece of work, if I became, unwelcomely and through no choice of my own, the focus of a media circus like these families now are, I would get myself a lawyer too. Among other protectors.
why the hell does the family of the shooter need a lawyer?
i’d start with suing the TV stations who broadcast all that stuff live.
why the hell does the family of the shooter need a lawyer?
i’d start with suing the TV stations who broadcast all that stuff live.
why the hell does the family of the shooter need a lawyer?
i’d start with suing the TV stations who broadcast all that stuff live.
One apparently practical reason for hiring lawyers: custody of the poor baby the killers left behind.
–TP
One apparently practical reason for hiring lawyers: custody of the poor baby the killers left behind.
–TP
One apparently practical reason for hiring lawyers: custody of the poor baby the killers left behind.
–TP
Ah, even a terror baby! We have told you about those but you wouldn’t listen. [/sarcasm]
Ah, even a terror baby! We have told you about those but you wouldn’t listen. [/sarcasm]
Ah, even a terror baby! We have told you about those but you wouldn’t listen. [/sarcasm]
The two attorneys and the so-called journalists who tampered with and broadcast a scene of potential evidence are nutcase a*sholes.
Which fits hand-in-glove with the Zeitgeist we’re marinating in, so what’s the surprise, since they’ve all graduated from The Academy of Reality Show Dysfunction?
Yes, the six-month old baby is going to need a team of attorneys and bodyguards as he/she is named a co-conspirator, with every other innocent Muslim-American, in the murders.
I’d expect crazy-as*ed conservatives, not the innocent ones mind you, among the Trump/Carson/Cruz and company’s supporters to take time out from shooting up Planned Parenthood clinics for a few weeks and set their gun sights on the baby itself.
There are two paramilitary political forces in the world who are deeply happy over these murders because it suits their ends.
Do we know who they are?
The two attorneys and the so-called journalists who tampered with and broadcast a scene of potential evidence are nutcase a*sholes.
Which fits hand-in-glove with the Zeitgeist we’re marinating in, so what’s the surprise, since they’ve all graduated from The Academy of Reality Show Dysfunction?
Yes, the six-month old baby is going to need a team of attorneys and bodyguards as he/she is named a co-conspirator, with every other innocent Muslim-American, in the murders.
I’d expect crazy-as*ed conservatives, not the innocent ones mind you, among the Trump/Carson/Cruz and company’s supporters to take time out from shooting up Planned Parenthood clinics for a few weeks and set their gun sights on the baby itself.
There are two paramilitary political forces in the world who are deeply happy over these murders because it suits their ends.
Do we know who they are?
The two attorneys and the so-called journalists who tampered with and broadcast a scene of potential evidence are nutcase a*sholes.
Which fits hand-in-glove with the Zeitgeist we’re marinating in, so what’s the surprise, since they’ve all graduated from The Academy of Reality Show Dysfunction?
Yes, the six-month old baby is going to need a team of attorneys and bodyguards as he/she is named a co-conspirator, with every other innocent Muslim-American, in the murders.
I’d expect crazy-as*ed conservatives, not the innocent ones mind you, among the Trump/Carson/Cruz and company’s supporters to take time out from shooting up Planned Parenthood clinics for a few weeks and set their gun sights on the baby itself.
There are two paramilitary political forces in the world who are deeply happy over these murders because it suits their ends.
Do we know who they are?
thanks JanieM and others, I guess all of that makes sense. Unfortunately.
Ah, even a terror baby!
Can’t wait for the terror anchor baby. 🙁
thanks JanieM and others, I guess all of that makes sense. Unfortunately.
Ah, even a terror baby!
Can’t wait for the terror anchor baby. 🙁
thanks JanieM and others, I guess all of that makes sense. Unfortunately.
Ah, even a terror baby!
Can’t wait for the terror anchor baby. 🙁
And likely won’t have to wait long. (Trump is always in the market for some new nonsense to spout.)
And likely won’t have to wait long. (Trump is always in the market for some new nonsense to spout.)
And likely won’t have to wait long. (Trump is always in the market for some new nonsense to spout.)
A bit dated…
Recently, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Tex.) has beens sounding the alarm about a new and insidious plot involving so called “terror babies.” Infants are sometimes known to be terrors in their own right, but this diabolical plan involves terrorists sending pregnant women into the US to birth their America-hating spawns. The mothers and their kids then return home where, the congressman says, the children “could be raised and coddled as future terrorists”— and later, “twenty, thirty years down the road, they can be sent in to help destroy our way of life.”
[…]
Rep. Louie Gohmert’s “Terror Baby” Meltdown (Fri Aug. 13, 2010)
A bit dated…
Recently, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Tex.) has beens sounding the alarm about a new and insidious plot involving so called “terror babies.” Infants are sometimes known to be terrors in their own right, but this diabolical plan involves terrorists sending pregnant women into the US to birth their America-hating spawns. The mothers and their kids then return home where, the congressman says, the children “could be raised and coddled as future terrorists”— and later, “twenty, thirty years down the road, they can be sent in to help destroy our way of life.”
[…]
Rep. Louie Gohmert’s “Terror Baby” Meltdown (Fri Aug. 13, 2010)
A bit dated…
Recently, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Tex.) has beens sounding the alarm about a new and insidious plot involving so called “terror babies.” Infants are sometimes known to be terrors in their own right, but this diabolical plan involves terrorists sending pregnant women into the US to birth their America-hating spawns. The mothers and their kids then return home where, the congressman says, the children “could be raised and coddled as future terrorists”— and later, “twenty, thirty years down the road, they can be sent in to help destroy our way of life.”
[…]
Rep. Louie Gohmert’s “Terror Baby” Meltdown (Fri Aug. 13, 2010)
it’s amazing Gohmert and his ilk find the courage to leave their beds every day, what with the existential threats lurking around every corner.
it’s amazing Gohmert and his ilk find the courage to leave their beds every day, what with the existential threats lurking around every corner.
it’s amazing Gohmert and his ilk find the courage to leave their beds every day, what with the existential threats lurking around every corner.
The terror baby meme got warmed up just a few days ago in the context of the Syrian refugees. Can’t remember who of the usual suspects* said it, but he claimed that the small kids, in particular the orphans among them, were the most dangerous of all the refugees and the most important not to let anywhere near the US.
*i.e. GOP presidential candidates or congresscritters, FOX News ‘experts’ and the like. It was not some ‘fringe’ guy (under the doubtful assumption of course that the aforementioned groups do not qualify as fringe).
The terror baby meme got warmed up just a few days ago in the context of the Syrian refugees. Can’t remember who of the usual suspects* said it, but he claimed that the small kids, in particular the orphans among them, were the most dangerous of all the refugees and the most important not to let anywhere near the US.
*i.e. GOP presidential candidates or congresscritters, FOX News ‘experts’ and the like. It was not some ‘fringe’ guy (under the doubtful assumption of course that the aforementioned groups do not qualify as fringe).
The terror baby meme got warmed up just a few days ago in the context of the Syrian refugees. Can’t remember who of the usual suspects* said it, but he claimed that the small kids, in particular the orphans among them, were the most dangerous of all the refugees and the most important not to let anywhere near the US.
*i.e. GOP presidential candidates or congresscritters, FOX News ‘experts’ and the like. It was not some ‘fringe’ guy (under the doubtful assumption of course that the aforementioned groups do not qualify as fringe).
Perhaps when Trump et al are elected, they will join with the Republican Congress and instruct the Immigration and Naturalization Service to set up a network of abortion clinics at the U.S. Borders to terminate involuntarily the pregnancies of all expecting foreign female immigrants as a requirement for entering and/or immigrating into the country.
The terror fetus is merely a gestating terror baby*.
Ivan Karamazov supposedly said “If God is dead, then everything is permitted.”
ISIL, our own home-grown radical fundamentalists, and the growing conservative religious radicalism within all religions around the world seem to want to prove the opposite: “God lives and must be obeyed, therefore everything is permitted.”
*Since this is the “Missouri” thread, I read the other day that the state of Missouri leads all states in the number of gun deaths perpetrated by toddlers.
Beware the toddler terrorists as well.
Some believe the Second Amendment is a God-given Right, so is it a surprise that even toddlers compete to make all things possible.
As with ISIL,
Perhaps when Trump et al are elected, they will join with the Republican Congress and instruct the Immigration and Naturalization Service to set up a network of abortion clinics at the U.S. Borders to terminate involuntarily the pregnancies of all expecting foreign female immigrants as a requirement for entering and/or immigrating into the country.
The terror fetus is merely a gestating terror baby*.
Ivan Karamazov supposedly said “If God is dead, then everything is permitted.”
ISIL, our own home-grown radical fundamentalists, and the growing conservative religious radicalism within all religions around the world seem to want to prove the opposite: “God lives and must be obeyed, therefore everything is permitted.”
*Since this is the “Missouri” thread, I read the other day that the state of Missouri leads all states in the number of gun deaths perpetrated by toddlers.
Beware the toddler terrorists as well.
Some believe the Second Amendment is a God-given Right, so is it a surprise that even toddlers compete to make all things possible.
As with ISIL,
Perhaps when Trump et al are elected, they will join with the Republican Congress and instruct the Immigration and Naturalization Service to set up a network of abortion clinics at the U.S. Borders to terminate involuntarily the pregnancies of all expecting foreign female immigrants as a requirement for entering and/or immigrating into the country.
The terror fetus is merely a gestating terror baby*.
Ivan Karamazov supposedly said “If God is dead, then everything is permitted.”
ISIL, our own home-grown radical fundamentalists, and the growing conservative religious radicalism within all religions around the world seem to want to prove the opposite: “God lives and must be obeyed, therefore everything is permitted.”
*Since this is the “Missouri” thread, I read the other day that the state of Missouri leads all states in the number of gun deaths perpetrated by toddlers.
Beware the toddler terrorists as well.
Some believe the Second Amendment is a God-given Right, so is it a surprise that even toddlers compete to make all things possible.
As with ISIL,
“could be raised and coddled as future terrorists”— and later, “twenty, thirty years down the road, they can be sent in to help destroy our way of life.”
Leaving aside the parsing of the word “coddled” to describe raising a baby to terrorize, if we are to fear babies originating in the Middle East as infant Manchurian candidates, can we insert a look-back clause in whatever laws will be passed to examine the perverse coddling of the infant Ted Cruz, the infant Tim McVeigh, the infant Donald Trump, and the infant Wayne La Pierre, among others.
What sort of coddling occurred in the Carson family to enable such transparent lying, surely the first step toward terrorizing a good part of the American population?
Recipe for coddled Gohmert:
“Carefully place egg coddlers into boiling water. Reduce heat to medium, and simmer for 4 minutes. Turn off heat, cover pan, and let stand for 6 to 7 minutes. Remove coddlers from water, unscrew lids, and serve immediately.”
Someone certainly unscrewed his lid.
“could be raised and coddled as future terrorists”— and later, “twenty, thirty years down the road, they can be sent in to help destroy our way of life.”
Leaving aside the parsing of the word “coddled” to describe raising a baby to terrorize, if we are to fear babies originating in the Middle East as infant Manchurian candidates, can we insert a look-back clause in whatever laws will be passed to examine the perverse coddling of the infant Ted Cruz, the infant Tim McVeigh, the infant Donald Trump, and the infant Wayne La Pierre, among others.
What sort of coddling occurred in the Carson family to enable such transparent lying, surely the first step toward terrorizing a good part of the American population?
Recipe for coddled Gohmert:
“Carefully place egg coddlers into boiling water. Reduce heat to medium, and simmer for 4 minutes. Turn off heat, cover pan, and let stand for 6 to 7 minutes. Remove coddlers from water, unscrew lids, and serve immediately.”
Someone certainly unscrewed his lid.
“could be raised and coddled as future terrorists”— and later, “twenty, thirty years down the road, they can be sent in to help destroy our way of life.”
Leaving aside the parsing of the word “coddled” to describe raising a baby to terrorize, if we are to fear babies originating in the Middle East as infant Manchurian candidates, can we insert a look-back clause in whatever laws will be passed to examine the perverse coddling of the infant Ted Cruz, the infant Tim McVeigh, the infant Donald Trump, and the infant Wayne La Pierre, among others.
What sort of coddling occurred in the Carson family to enable such transparent lying, surely the first step toward terrorizing a good part of the American population?
Recipe for coddled Gohmert:
“Carefully place egg coddlers into boiling water. Reduce heat to medium, and simmer for 4 minutes. Turn off heat, cover pan, and let stand for 6 to 7 minutes. Remove coddlers from water, unscrew lids, and serve immediately.”
Someone certainly unscrewed his lid.
Countme-In: …“God lives and must be obeyed, therefore everything is permitted.”
The really devout would replace “permitted” with required.
I have never quite known what to make of the notion that God needs human help to punish sinners, chastize heretics, or condemn apostates. Maybe it makes sense to take God’s job on yourself, if your God is weak or lazy.
–TP
Countme-In: …“God lives and must be obeyed, therefore everything is permitted.”
The really devout would replace “permitted” with required.
I have never quite known what to make of the notion that God needs human help to punish sinners, chastize heretics, or condemn apostates. Maybe it makes sense to take God’s job on yourself, if your God is weak or lazy.
–TP
Countme-In: …“God lives and must be obeyed, therefore everything is permitted.”
The really devout would replace “permitted” with required.
I have never quite known what to make of the notion that God needs human help to punish sinners, chastize heretics, or condemn apostates. Maybe it makes sense to take God’s job on yourself, if your God is weak or lazy.
–TP
The idea is that G#d provides the faithful with ample opportunities to show their devotion in deeds. HE does not need help but his followers can’t be allowed to be idle for lack of outrage to fight.
The idea is that G#d provides the faithful with ample opportunities to show their devotion in deeds. HE does not need help but his followers can’t be allowed to be idle for lack of outrage to fight.
The idea is that G#d provides the faithful with ample opportunities to show their devotion in deeds. HE does not need help but his followers can’t be allowed to be idle for lack of outrage to fight.
If I had been at this kids’ sporting event and had tackled this f*ck because his motives for waving a gun around were not readily apparent (Why take chances? I hope I would have the presence of mind to tackle him hard enough to knock the weapon out his hands and yell “Now I have your weapon and there is nothing YOU can do about it,” I would be charged with assault.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/cops-defend-georgia-man-gun-caused-scare-children-baseball-game-article-1.1770008
I’d have Georgia cops all over me.
Thank God I’m white. And that scum should thank Allah he’s white too because he would be lying in state at the funeral home right about now, with FOX News and Presidential candidates belittling his parentage.
But Falwell Junior, another noted anchor baby, can call on his minions to shoot those Muslims “BEFORE they walk in”.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/05/liberty-university-president-san-bernardino-shooting-concealed-weapons-carry-muslims
BEFORE!
Every Muslim in America at this very moment is in a state of “Before” doing something.
Not to mention the rest of us.
Let me guess on which side of the law Georgia cops and the Georgia Governor would be on.
While linking to that first article, there was this:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/nra-wayne-lapierre-tells-group-guns-protect-murderers-bloomberg-article-1.1769560
I think LaPierre just threatened me (I’ll let Bloomberg and murderers fend for themselves) with lethal violence.
Anyone got any advice about what defensive action I should take?
In Georgia, Syria and a few other paradises, I guess I would be within my rights to stick a fork in his eye and into his brain pan if he threatened me in a bar like that.
I wouldn’t shoot him “before he walked in”, however.
I’d let him get comfortable, order a drink, and then threaten me.
I’m trying to maintain some standards in the maelstrom of thoroughly f*cked up and deliberate insanity surrounding us.
If I had been at this kids’ sporting event and had tackled this f*ck because his motives for waving a gun around were not readily apparent (Why take chances? I hope I would have the presence of mind to tackle him hard enough to knock the weapon out his hands and yell “Now I have your weapon and there is nothing YOU can do about it,” I would be charged with assault.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/cops-defend-georgia-man-gun-caused-scare-children-baseball-game-article-1.1770008
I’d have Georgia cops all over me.
Thank God I’m white. And that scum should thank Allah he’s white too because he would be lying in state at the funeral home right about now, with FOX News and Presidential candidates belittling his parentage.
But Falwell Junior, another noted anchor baby, can call on his minions to shoot those Muslims “BEFORE they walk in”.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/05/liberty-university-president-san-bernardino-shooting-concealed-weapons-carry-muslims
BEFORE!
Every Muslim in America at this very moment is in a state of “Before” doing something.
Not to mention the rest of us.
Let me guess on which side of the law Georgia cops and the Georgia Governor would be on.
While linking to that first article, there was this:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/nra-wayne-lapierre-tells-group-guns-protect-murderers-bloomberg-article-1.1769560
I think LaPierre just threatened me (I’ll let Bloomberg and murderers fend for themselves) with lethal violence.
Anyone got any advice about what defensive action I should take?
In Georgia, Syria and a few other paradises, I guess I would be within my rights to stick a fork in his eye and into his brain pan if he threatened me in a bar like that.
I wouldn’t shoot him “before he walked in”, however.
I’d let him get comfortable, order a drink, and then threaten me.
I’m trying to maintain some standards in the maelstrom of thoroughly f*cked up and deliberate insanity surrounding us.
If I had been at this kids’ sporting event and had tackled this f*ck because his motives for waving a gun around were not readily apparent (Why take chances? I hope I would have the presence of mind to tackle him hard enough to knock the weapon out his hands and yell “Now I have your weapon and there is nothing YOU can do about it,” I would be charged with assault.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/cops-defend-georgia-man-gun-caused-scare-children-baseball-game-article-1.1770008
I’d have Georgia cops all over me.
Thank God I’m white. And that scum should thank Allah he’s white too because he would be lying in state at the funeral home right about now, with FOX News and Presidential candidates belittling his parentage.
But Falwell Junior, another noted anchor baby, can call on his minions to shoot those Muslims “BEFORE they walk in”.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/05/liberty-university-president-san-bernardino-shooting-concealed-weapons-carry-muslims
BEFORE!
Every Muslim in America at this very moment is in a state of “Before” doing something.
Not to mention the rest of us.
Let me guess on which side of the law Georgia cops and the Georgia Governor would be on.
While linking to that first article, there was this:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/nra-wayne-lapierre-tells-group-guns-protect-murderers-bloomberg-article-1.1769560
I think LaPierre just threatened me (I’ll let Bloomberg and murderers fend for themselves) with lethal violence.
Anyone got any advice about what defensive action I should take?
In Georgia, Syria and a few other paradises, I guess I would be within my rights to stick a fork in his eye and into his brain pan if he threatened me in a bar like that.
I wouldn’t shoot him “before he walked in”, however.
I’d let him get comfortable, order a drink, and then threaten me.
I’m trying to maintain some standards in the maelstrom of thoroughly f*cked up and deliberate insanity surrounding us.
life in the us today:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/12/03/us/mass-shootings-fear-voices.html?_r=0
life in the us today:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/12/03/us/mass-shootings-fear-voices.html?_r=0
life in the us today:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/12/03/us/mass-shootings-fear-voices.html?_r=0
From The Count’s first link:
Two things:
1) Probably also the Filbert, Hazel, and pistachio capital of Georgia.
2) “Our religion” and “our guns” sounds redundant.
Then there’s this:
I hate to break it to the poor woman but:
1) She does have a problem with the 2nd Amendment: the NRA.
2) “Go to the Capitol” is a 1st Amendment restriction.
Dare I even open The Count’s second link?
–TP
From The Count’s first link:
Two things:
1) Probably also the Filbert, Hazel, and pistachio capital of Georgia.
2) “Our religion” and “our guns” sounds redundant.
Then there’s this:
I hate to break it to the poor woman but:
1) She does have a problem with the 2nd Amendment: the NRA.
2) “Go to the Capitol” is a 1st Amendment restriction.
Dare I even open The Count’s second link?
–TP
From The Count’s first link:
Two things:
1) Probably also the Filbert, Hazel, and pistachio capital of Georgia.
2) “Our religion” and “our guns” sounds redundant.
Then there’s this:
I hate to break it to the poor woman but:
1) She does have a problem with the 2nd Amendment: the NRA.
2) “Go to the Capitol” is a 1st Amendment restriction.
Dare I even open The Count’s second link?
–TP
The Count’s second link reminded me of Christopher Hitchens, on the occasion when the elder Falwell was gathered unto The Lord: “If they’d given him an enema they could have buried him in a shoe box.”
It will be interesting to follow this story. A few thousand young sexually-repressed Christians packing heat, all in one place, promises well.
–TP
The Count’s second link reminded me of Christopher Hitchens, on the occasion when the elder Falwell was gathered unto The Lord: “If they’d given him an enema they could have buried him in a shoe box.”
It will be interesting to follow this story. A few thousand young sexually-repressed Christians packing heat, all in one place, promises well.
–TP
The Count’s second link reminded me of Christopher Hitchens, on the occasion when the elder Falwell was gathered unto The Lord: “If they’d given him an enema they could have buried him in a shoe box.”
It will be interesting to follow this story. A few thousand young sexually-repressed Christians packing heat, all in one place, promises well.
–TP
The Count’s third link confirms something I have been saying for years: we need our guns to protect our 2nd Amendment rights; we need the 2nd Amendement to protect our guns.
Wayne LaPierre has the sweetest gig since the guy who worked half-time as a buyer for one company, and half-time as a salesman for its biggest supplier.
–TP
The Count’s third link confirms something I have been saying for years: we need our guns to protect our 2nd Amendment rights; we need the 2nd Amendement to protect our guns.
Wayne LaPierre has the sweetest gig since the guy who worked half-time as a buyer for one company, and half-time as a salesman for its biggest supplier.
–TP
The Count’s third link confirms something I have been saying for years: we need our guns to protect our 2nd Amendment rights; we need the 2nd Amendement to protect our guns.
Wayne LaPierre has the sweetest gig since the guy who worked half-time as a buyer for one company, and half-time as a salesman for its biggest supplier.
–TP
I’ll stick with hypocrisy:
https://twitter.com/EWErickson?ref_src=twsrc^tfw
I’ll stick with hypocrisy:
https://twitter.com/EWErickson?ref_src=twsrc^tfw
I’ll stick with hypocrisy:
https://twitter.com/EWErickson?ref_src=twsrc^tfw
Let’s try another way in to Erickson’s pigf*cker feed:
http://www.balloon-juice.com/2015/12/06/late-night-clowns-with-guns-open-thread/
Let’s try another way in to Erickson’s pigf*cker feed:
http://www.balloon-juice.com/2015/12/06/late-night-clowns-with-guns-open-thread/
Let’s try another way in to Erickson’s pigf*cker feed:
http://www.balloon-juice.com/2015/12/06/late-night-clowns-with-guns-open-thread/
don’t call em pants-wetters, though!
don’t call em pants-wetters, though!
don’t call em pants-wetters, though!
This was interesting– the writer suggests we should be looking at restricting gun ownership to people who don’t have a history of violence. ( Duh.) The focus on mental illness isn’t the right focus.
http://www.thenation.com/article/why-speculation-about-the-san-bernardino-shooters-is-a-dangerous-distraction/
This was interesting– the writer suggests we should be looking at restricting gun ownership to people who don’t have a history of violence. ( Duh.) The focus on mental illness isn’t the right focus.
http://www.thenation.com/article/why-speculation-about-the-san-bernardino-shooters-is-a-dangerous-distraction/
This was interesting– the writer suggests we should be looking at restricting gun ownership to people who don’t have a history of violence. ( Duh.) The focus on mental illness isn’t the right focus.
http://www.thenation.com/article/why-speculation-about-the-san-bernardino-shooters-is-a-dangerous-distraction/
The focus on mental illness isn’t the right focus.
plus, ya know, it wouldn’t be right(-wing) to limit the mentally-ill’ss access to guns.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/senate-gop-votes-terrorist-gun-bill-article-1.2454448
The focus on mental illness isn’t the right focus.
plus, ya know, it wouldn’t be right(-wing) to limit the mentally-ill’ss access to guns.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/senate-gop-votes-terrorist-gun-bill-article-1.2454448
The focus on mental illness isn’t the right focus.
plus, ya know, it wouldn’t be right(-wing) to limit the mentally-ill’ss access to guns.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/senate-gop-votes-terrorist-gun-bill-article-1.2454448
The focus on mental illness isn’t the right focus.
Just to push back on this ever so slightly – more than half of deaths by firearm in the US are suicides. Improvements in the availability of mental health services, and in people’s willingness to accept mental health care, could potentially make a tremendous change in the rate of death by firearm in the US.
It’s true, people can find other ways to kill themselves, but few that are as convenient and as likely to succeed as shooting yourself.
Tens of thousands of people a year die from firearms in the US, which is horrendous, but there are a number of dimensions to the issue.
The focus on mental illness isn’t the right focus.
Just to push back on this ever so slightly – more than half of deaths by firearm in the US are suicides. Improvements in the availability of mental health services, and in people’s willingness to accept mental health care, could potentially make a tremendous change in the rate of death by firearm in the US.
It’s true, people can find other ways to kill themselves, but few that are as convenient and as likely to succeed as shooting yourself.
Tens of thousands of people a year die from firearms in the US, which is horrendous, but there are a number of dimensions to the issue.
The focus on mental illness isn’t the right focus.
Just to push back on this ever so slightly – more than half of deaths by firearm in the US are suicides. Improvements in the availability of mental health services, and in people’s willingness to accept mental health care, could potentially make a tremendous change in the rate of death by firearm in the US.
It’s true, people can find other ways to kill themselves, but few that are as convenient and as likely to succeed as shooting yourself.
Tens of thousands of people a year die from firearms in the US, which is horrendous, but there are a number of dimensions to the issue.
The writer would probably agree regarding suicide– he was speaking about murder.
The writer would probably agree regarding suicide– he was speaking about murder.
The writer would probably agree regarding suicide– he was speaking about murder.
It also needs to be said that the same people who oppose gun control legislation tend to also be opposed to additional government spending on (mental) health care. Which makes their “it’s a mental health problem” position . . . interesting.
It also needs to be said that the same people who oppose gun control legislation tend to also be opposed to additional government spending on (mental) health care. Which makes their “it’s a mental health problem” position . . . interesting.
It also needs to be said that the same people who oppose gun control legislation tend to also be opposed to additional government spending on (mental) health care. Which makes their “it’s a mental health problem” position . . . interesting.
What wj said.
What wj said.
What wj said.
Would you leave the solution to the problem to pshrinks? That would be both expensive and far too unreliable. For-profit prisons are the only way to be sure.
Would you leave the solution to the problem to pshrinks? That would be both expensive and far too unreliable. For-profit prisons are the only way to be sure.
Would you leave the solution to the problem to pshrinks? That would be both expensive and far too unreliable. For-profit prisons are the only way to be sure.
Gotta hand it to the Brits.
Gotta hand it to the Brits.
Gotta hand it to the Brits.
We’ve got for-profit prisons. What they mostly contribute is heavy lobbying for longer sentences, three-strikes laws, etc. — in short, anything which will increase inmate numbers, and so their profits. Not, perhaps, as bad as the prison guards unions. But still a big negative.
We’ve got for-profit prisons. What they mostly contribute is heavy lobbying for longer sentences, three-strikes laws, etc. — in short, anything which will increase inmate numbers, and so their profits. Not, perhaps, as bad as the prison guards unions. But still a big negative.
We’ve got for-profit prisons. What they mostly contribute is heavy lobbying for longer sentences, three-strikes laws, etc. — in short, anything which will increase inmate numbers, and so their profits. Not, perhaps, as bad as the prison guards unions. But still a big negative.
“the issue isn’t about white people.”
We would probably get further if you would recognize that there could be more than one problem. Discussing problem b does not diminish the importance of problem a.
“the issue isn’t about white people.”
We would probably get further if you would recognize that there could be more than one problem. Discussing problem b does not diminish the importance of problem a.
“the issue isn’t about white people.”
We would probably get further if you would recognize that there could be more than one problem. Discussing problem b does not diminish the importance of problem a.
Quite true, Marty. From both sides.
Quite true, Marty. From both sides.
Quite true, Marty. From both sides.
First, French Jews need to join the vast majority of innocent French Muslims, who are merely trying to make a life away from the wood-chipper of the Middle East, in becoming very heavily armed to fend off another Fascist wood-chipper, this time European.
This time it’s Fascism with lipstick and pumps. Fascist women are up to the challenge of becoming equal with their dumbass male counterparts.
I see that ISIS and Boko-Haram are equal opportunity enthusiasts as well in the gender-neutral fashion search for the perfect explosive vest.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/06/front-national-wins-opening-round-in-frances-regional-elections
And, seemingly unrelated, an incredible story, for its profundity and its expose of the shallow, ridiculous Fascism of our own nutters.
I mean it’s a good thing, but really, coming from the base level of stupidity that it does, I’m not particularly congratulatory for the apostasy. Duh.
But we’ll take it.
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/11/23/conversion-via-twitter-westboro-baptist-church-megan-phelps-roper
I want y’all to compare the protagonist’s former views with the now mainstream, poll-garnering views of Cruz, Huckabee, and Bachmann, particularly regarding the “God hates fags” position and their dangerous views regarding Israel and Jews, minus the 44,000 lucky ones.
This sh*t is being mainlined now into the large arteries supplying the Republican aorta.
There’s now 53% epistemic closure among the usual suspects, who make up the heart of country.
But the country is about to have a heart attack.
Two remarkable facts about Fred Phelps. He was a well-regarded Civil Rights attorney in the early 1960s for blacks f*cked over by white law in Kansas before he became the Fred Phelps we all know and love, AND, somewhat mythically, he repented and was forced to step aside just before he croaked on account of a sudden moderating of his views.
Then there is Donald Trump, who is to American Fascism what, and I apologize for the metaphor, Dizzy Gillespie was to Jazz.
You don’t know where he’s going to go next and what the next key is (I’d venture the keys of K, M, and V), and he gets sounds out of his instrument that no one has heard before.
But the dogs sit up.
My own feeling is that Trump is a passing, anti-climactic figure in the coming paroxysm of American Fascism and will be followed in the not too distant future by a sincerely rude Beast from the Right whose only antidote (for it’s followers as well) will be savage violence, dwarfing the Civil War.
First, French Jews need to join the vast majority of innocent French Muslims, who are merely trying to make a life away from the wood-chipper of the Middle East, in becoming very heavily armed to fend off another Fascist wood-chipper, this time European.
This time it’s Fascism with lipstick and pumps. Fascist women are up to the challenge of becoming equal with their dumbass male counterparts.
I see that ISIS and Boko-Haram are equal opportunity enthusiasts as well in the gender-neutral fashion search for the perfect explosive vest.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/06/front-national-wins-opening-round-in-frances-regional-elections
And, seemingly unrelated, an incredible story, for its profundity and its expose of the shallow, ridiculous Fascism of our own nutters.
I mean it’s a good thing, but really, coming from the base level of stupidity that it does, I’m not particularly congratulatory for the apostasy. Duh.
But we’ll take it.
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/11/23/conversion-via-twitter-westboro-baptist-church-megan-phelps-roper
I want y’all to compare the protagonist’s former views with the now mainstream, poll-garnering views of Cruz, Huckabee, and Bachmann, particularly regarding the “God hates fags” position and their dangerous views regarding Israel and Jews, minus the 44,000 lucky ones.
This sh*t is being mainlined now into the large arteries supplying the Republican aorta.
There’s now 53% epistemic closure among the usual suspects, who make up the heart of country.
But the country is about to have a heart attack.
Two remarkable facts about Fred Phelps. He was a well-regarded Civil Rights attorney in the early 1960s for blacks f*cked over by white law in Kansas before he became the Fred Phelps we all know and love, AND, somewhat mythically, he repented and was forced to step aside just before he croaked on account of a sudden moderating of his views.
Then there is Donald Trump, who is to American Fascism what, and I apologize for the metaphor, Dizzy Gillespie was to Jazz.
You don’t know where he’s going to go next and what the next key is (I’d venture the keys of K, M, and V), and he gets sounds out of his instrument that no one has heard before.
But the dogs sit up.
My own feeling is that Trump is a passing, anti-climactic figure in the coming paroxysm of American Fascism and will be followed in the not too distant future by a sincerely rude Beast from the Right whose only antidote (for it’s followers as well) will be savage violence, dwarfing the Civil War.
First, French Jews need to join the vast majority of innocent French Muslims, who are merely trying to make a life away from the wood-chipper of the Middle East, in becoming very heavily armed to fend off another Fascist wood-chipper, this time European.
This time it’s Fascism with lipstick and pumps. Fascist women are up to the challenge of becoming equal with their dumbass male counterparts.
I see that ISIS and Boko-Haram are equal opportunity enthusiasts as well in the gender-neutral fashion search for the perfect explosive vest.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/06/front-national-wins-opening-round-in-frances-regional-elections
And, seemingly unrelated, an incredible story, for its profundity and its expose of the shallow, ridiculous Fascism of our own nutters.
I mean it’s a good thing, but really, coming from the base level of stupidity that it does, I’m not particularly congratulatory for the apostasy. Duh.
But we’ll take it.
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/11/23/conversion-via-twitter-westboro-baptist-church-megan-phelps-roper
I want y’all to compare the protagonist’s former views with the now mainstream, poll-garnering views of Cruz, Huckabee, and Bachmann, particularly regarding the “God hates fags” position and their dangerous views regarding Israel and Jews, minus the 44,000 lucky ones.
This sh*t is being mainlined now into the large arteries supplying the Republican aorta.
There’s now 53% epistemic closure among the usual suspects, who make up the heart of country.
But the country is about to have a heart attack.
Two remarkable facts about Fred Phelps. He was a well-regarded Civil Rights attorney in the early 1960s for blacks f*cked over by white law in Kansas before he became the Fred Phelps we all know and love, AND, somewhat mythically, he repented and was forced to step aside just before he croaked on account of a sudden moderating of his views.
Then there is Donald Trump, who is to American Fascism what, and I apologize for the metaphor, Dizzy Gillespie was to Jazz.
You don’t know where he’s going to go next and what the next key is (I’d venture the keys of K, M, and V), and he gets sounds out of his instrument that no one has heard before.
But the dogs sit up.
My own feeling is that Trump is a passing, anti-climactic figure in the coming paroxysm of American Fascism and will be followed in the not too distant future by a sincerely rude Beast from the Right whose only antidote (for it’s followers as well) will be savage violence, dwarfing the Civil War.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/justice-department-investigate-chicago-police
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/justice-department-investigate-chicago-police
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/justice-department-investigate-chicago-police
Ya know, it’s odd that for-profit prison corporations lobby for society to buy more of the noxious product, high-margin they are selling, and United Healthcare can’t make a dent margin from selling what society wants most of all, some f*cking healthcare insurance.
Ya know, it’s odd that for-profit prison corporations lobby for society to buy more of the noxious product, high-margin they are selling, and United Healthcare can’t make a dent margin from selling what society wants most of all, some f*cking healthcare insurance.
Ya know, it’s odd that for-profit prison corporations lobby for society to buy more of the noxious product, high-margin they are selling, and United Healthcare can’t make a dent margin from selling what society wants most of all, some f*cking healthcare insurance.
“decent”, but I’d like to make a dent.
“decent”, but I’d like to make a dent.
“decent”, but I’d like to make a dent.
Considering that the term of the best President in my lifetime is going to come to an end in a tiny bit over a year:
I’d like not to predict the worst about what happens after 2016. So the Count’s statement My own feeling is that Trump is a passing, anti-climactic figure in the coming paroxysm of American Fascism and will be followed in the not too distant future by a sincerely rude Beast from the Right whose only antidote (for it’s followers as well) will be savage violence, dwarfing the Civil War. — well, yeah, it could definitely happen if people don’t rise to the occasion and make it not happen. My guess is that it’s not going to happen. In two years, we’ll probably know, and then whatever call to arms occurs, I’ll be on the Count’s side. I’m thinking (hoping) it won’t happen that way. Because despite Hillary’s downsides, she’s fine, and things will keep keeping on. Hoping that she takes it, and things happen accordingly.
Considering that the term of the best President in my lifetime is going to come to an end in a tiny bit over a year:
I’d like not to predict the worst about what happens after 2016. So the Count’s statement My own feeling is that Trump is a passing, anti-climactic figure in the coming paroxysm of American Fascism and will be followed in the not too distant future by a sincerely rude Beast from the Right whose only antidote (for it’s followers as well) will be savage violence, dwarfing the Civil War. — well, yeah, it could definitely happen if people don’t rise to the occasion and make it not happen. My guess is that it’s not going to happen. In two years, we’ll probably know, and then whatever call to arms occurs, I’ll be on the Count’s side. I’m thinking (hoping) it won’t happen that way. Because despite Hillary’s downsides, she’s fine, and things will keep keeping on. Hoping that she takes it, and things happen accordingly.
Considering that the term of the best President in my lifetime is going to come to an end in a tiny bit over a year:
I’d like not to predict the worst about what happens after 2016. So the Count’s statement My own feeling is that Trump is a passing, anti-climactic figure in the coming paroxysm of American Fascism and will be followed in the not too distant future by a sincerely rude Beast from the Right whose only antidote (for it’s followers as well) will be savage violence, dwarfing the Civil War. — well, yeah, it could definitely happen if people don’t rise to the occasion and make it not happen. My guess is that it’s not going to happen. In two years, we’ll probably know, and then whatever call to arms occurs, I’ll be on the Count’s side. I’m thinking (hoping) it won’t happen that way. Because despite Hillary’s downsides, she’s fine, and things will keep keeping on. Hoping that she takes it, and things happen accordingly.
wj, my sarcasm went by you, it seems 😉
Private for profit prisons are presently pushed as the panacea for all* pressing problems (in particular that of psychos).
*only youthful affluenza (rich kid syndrome)cannot be cured by it and is thus contraindicated.
wj, my sarcasm went by you, it seems 😉
Private for profit prisons are presently pushed as the panacea for all* pressing problems (in particular that of psychos).
*only youthful affluenza (rich kid syndrome)cannot be cured by it and is thus contraindicated.
wj, my sarcasm went by you, it seems 😉
Private for profit prisons are presently pushed as the panacea for all* pressing problems (in particular that of psychos).
*only youthful affluenza (rich kid syndrome)cannot be cured by it and is thus contraindicated.
… minus the 44,000 lucky ones.
Your bias is showing again. It’s 144000! 😉
… minus the 44,000 lucky ones.
Your bias is showing again. It’s 144000! 😉
… minus the 44,000 lucky ones.
Your bias is showing again. It’s 144000! 😉
Apparently Trump has somewhat thin skin. Quelle surprise.
A while back – like, almost 30 years back – Vanity Fair editor Graydon Carter started saying that Trump had stubby little fingers. Trump doesn’t have unusually short fingers, Carter just did it to piss him off.
It worked. Almost 30 years later, Trump still sends Carter pictures of his hands, to prove his fingers aren’t short.
My suggestion is that folks who don’t want to see President Trump set up a PAC and run a series of ads talking about how short Trump’s fingers are. Flood the airwaves and print media.
Then, stand back and watch Trump melt the hell down.
Who wants a President with stubby fingers? How is he going to defeat ISIS with such short little fingers? You know what they say about guys with short fingers!
If he’s gonna take the campaign into the gutter, I say bring it. He’s not a guy that is going to respond to requests to take the high road.
Plus, it would be really funny.
He’s a bully. He can dish it out, but he can’t take it.
Apparently Trump has somewhat thin skin. Quelle surprise.
A while back – like, almost 30 years back – Vanity Fair editor Graydon Carter started saying that Trump had stubby little fingers. Trump doesn’t have unusually short fingers, Carter just did it to piss him off.
It worked. Almost 30 years later, Trump still sends Carter pictures of his hands, to prove his fingers aren’t short.
My suggestion is that folks who don’t want to see President Trump set up a PAC and run a series of ads talking about how short Trump’s fingers are. Flood the airwaves and print media.
Then, stand back and watch Trump melt the hell down.
Who wants a President with stubby fingers? How is he going to defeat ISIS with such short little fingers? You know what they say about guys with short fingers!
If he’s gonna take the campaign into the gutter, I say bring it. He’s not a guy that is going to respond to requests to take the high road.
Plus, it would be really funny.
He’s a bully. He can dish it out, but he can’t take it.
Apparently Trump has somewhat thin skin. Quelle surprise.
A while back – like, almost 30 years back – Vanity Fair editor Graydon Carter started saying that Trump had stubby little fingers. Trump doesn’t have unusually short fingers, Carter just did it to piss him off.
It worked. Almost 30 years later, Trump still sends Carter pictures of his hands, to prove his fingers aren’t short.
My suggestion is that folks who don’t want to see President Trump set up a PAC and run a series of ads talking about how short Trump’s fingers are. Flood the airwaves and print media.
Then, stand back and watch Trump melt the hell down.
Who wants a President with stubby fingers? How is he going to defeat ISIS with such short little fingers? You know what they say about guys with short fingers!
If he’s gonna take the campaign into the gutter, I say bring it. He’s not a guy that is going to respond to requests to take the high road.
Plus, it would be really funny.
He’s a bully. He can dish it out, but he can’t take it.
Discussing problem b does not diminish the importance of problem a.
no, it certainly doesn’t. but given two years of “oh, there’s nothing to see here” in response to ‘subject a’ vs., for example, McTx’s breathless screeds about ‘subject b’, does tell the world about which subject is more appealing.
Discussing problem b does not diminish the importance of problem a.
no, it certainly doesn’t. but given two years of “oh, there’s nothing to see here” in response to ‘subject a’ vs., for example, McTx’s breathless screeds about ‘subject b’, does tell the world about which subject is more appealing.
Discussing problem b does not diminish the importance of problem a.
no, it certainly doesn’t. but given two years of “oh, there’s nothing to see here” in response to ‘subject a’ vs., for example, McTx’s breathless screeds about ‘subject b’, does tell the world about which subject is more appealing.
In German(y) it would be unwise to insist on one’s long fingers since Langfinger (long fingers) is a common colloquialism for ‘thief’. 😉
In German(y) it would be unwise to insist on one’s long fingers since Langfinger (long fingers) is a common colloquialism for ‘thief’. 😉
In German(y) it would be unwise to insist on one’s long fingers since Langfinger (long fingers) is a common colloquialism for ‘thief’. 😉
144,000.
Hey, don’t blame me. The Tea Party has cut immigration/refugee quota levels at the borders to their Heaven.
In a marked reversal of Christian Scripture, even virgins are being turned away from Paradise on account of the jihadis in heat who are bound to follow.
Which is why Michelle Bachmann is now desperate for someone … anyone … to take her to bed.
As Donald Trump said the other day, “There are 44,000 Jews who think I’m terrific. The rest of them can pound sand. Let them negotiate to enter the Kingdom of Trumpdumb, and see where that gets them.
The Road to burning Hell, of course, remains free and clear.
The new Highway funding bill assures that.
144,000.
Hey, don’t blame me. The Tea Party has cut immigration/refugee quota levels at the borders to their Heaven.
In a marked reversal of Christian Scripture, even virgins are being turned away from Paradise on account of the jihadis in heat who are bound to follow.
Which is why Michelle Bachmann is now desperate for someone … anyone … to take her to bed.
As Donald Trump said the other day, “There are 44,000 Jews who think I’m terrific. The rest of them can pound sand. Let them negotiate to enter the Kingdom of Trumpdumb, and see where that gets them.
The Road to burning Hell, of course, remains free and clear.
The new Highway funding bill assures that.
144,000.
Hey, don’t blame me. The Tea Party has cut immigration/refugee quota levels at the borders to their Heaven.
In a marked reversal of Christian Scripture, even virgins are being turned away from Paradise on account of the jihadis in heat who are bound to follow.
Which is why Michelle Bachmann is now desperate for someone … anyone … to take her to bed.
As Donald Trump said the other day, “There are 44,000 Jews who think I’m terrific. The rest of them can pound sand. Let them negotiate to enter the Kingdom of Trumpdumb, and see where that gets them.
The Road to burning Hell, of course, remains free and clear.
The new Highway funding bill assures that.
Funny, but Trump just doesn’t to me to have the subtle backstabbing capability of a Littlefinger.
Funny, but Trump just doesn’t to me to have the subtle backstabbing capability of a Littlefinger.
Funny, but Trump just doesn’t to me to have the subtle backstabbing capability of a Littlefinger.
Trump is a frontstabber, which is what endears him to the howling mob of authenticity-seekers.
Trump is a frontstabber, which is what endears him to the howling mob of authenticity-seekers.
Trump is a frontstabber, which is what endears him to the howling mob of authenticity-seekers.
The man who the Atlantic called the most powerful conservative in America serves up some sweet and sour Republican pigf*cker:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/erick-erickson-pearl-harbor-asian-food
If he can shoot a newspaper, can I shoot a right-wing political blog?
The man who the Atlantic called the most powerful conservative in America serves up some sweet and sour Republican pigf*cker:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/erick-erickson-pearl-harbor-asian-food
If he can shoot a newspaper, can I shoot a right-wing political blog?
The man who the Atlantic called the most powerful conservative in America serves up some sweet and sour Republican pigf*cker:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/erick-erickson-pearl-harbor-asian-food
If he can shoot a newspaper, can I shoot a right-wing political blog?
people having a way of forgiving.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_International_Jew
people having a way of forgiving.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_International_Jew
people having a way of forgiving.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_International_Jew
I’m hoping for Trump to max out at 666 convention delegates. But not really confident that we will be that lucky. Still, it would be fitting….
I’m hoping for Trump to max out at 666 convention delegates. But not really confident that we will be that lucky. Still, it would be fitting….
I’m hoping for Trump to max out at 666 convention delegates. But not really confident that we will be that lucky. Still, it would be fitting….
Trump just doesn’t to me to have the subtle backstabbing capability of a Littlefinger.
I read that and think of a gesture that a friend taught me years ago. Closed fist, with just the little (not middle) finger extended. Her gloss on it: “When you don’t care enough to send the very best.” 😉
Trump just doesn’t to me to have the subtle backstabbing capability of a Littlefinger.
I read that and think of a gesture that a friend taught me years ago. Closed fist, with just the little (not middle) finger extended. Her gloss on it: “When you don’t care enough to send the very best.” 😉
Trump just doesn’t to me to have the subtle backstabbing capability of a Littlefinger.
I read that and think of a gesture that a friend taught me years ago. Closed fist, with just the little (not middle) finger extended. Her gloss on it: “When you don’t care enough to send the very best.” 😉
people having a way of forgiving.
I had a conversation with a guy about a week and a half ago, all about how the Jewish bankers were behind everything.
The Queen of England, too, somehow.
The guy seemed normal, right up until then. Good bass player. But his head was full of some of the weirdest crap I’ve heard in years.
I thought the whole “world Jewish banking cabal” thing was over and done with, but apparently it’s yet another zombie meme.
people having a way of forgiving.
I had a conversation with a guy about a week and a half ago, all about how the Jewish bankers were behind everything.
The Queen of England, too, somehow.
The guy seemed normal, right up until then. Good bass player. But his head was full of some of the weirdest crap I’ve heard in years.
I thought the whole “world Jewish banking cabal” thing was over and done with, but apparently it’s yet another zombie meme.
people having a way of forgiving.
I had a conversation with a guy about a week and a half ago, all about how the Jewish bankers were behind everything.
The Queen of England, too, somehow.
The guy seemed normal, right up until then. Good bass player. But his head was full of some of the weirdest crap I’ve heard in years.
I thought the whole “world Jewish banking cabal” thing was over and done with, but apparently it’s yet another zombie meme.
If everything bad is the result of a conspiracy, then somebody has to be doing the conspiring. If you lack the imagination to come up with a new supposed cabel, might as well recycle (sorry!) one of the old standards.
If everything bad is the result of a conspiracy, then somebody has to be doing the conspiring. If you lack the imagination to come up with a new supposed cabel, might as well recycle (sorry!) one of the old standards.
If everything bad is the result of a conspiracy, then somebody has to be doing the conspiring. If you lack the imagination to come up with a new supposed cabel, might as well recycle (sorry!) one of the old standards.
I’m going to beat McKinneyTexas to it and join Charles Pierce in calling out this abject silliness on a college campus:
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a40337/college-protesters-lynch-memorial-hall/
Like someone or other pointed out, I don’t think Attorney General Loretta Lynch should be forced to change her name to Loretta Letmypeoplego.
When I had a colonoscopy, I was merely bemused by the fact that the physician’s name was Dr. Rector. I didn’t demand he change it to Dr. Benign to assuage my feelings.
Maybe I would have felt differently if he had been named Dr. Tumor, but I doubt it.
The “young adults” at Lebanon Valley College would better serve the struggle by renting a bus and traveling to Austin, Texas and taking on these ilk:
http://www.mediaite.com/online/gun-rights-groups-to-stage-fake-mass-shooting-on-tx-campus-to-protest-gun-free-zones/
A fake mass shooting? Aren’t the real ones good enough for them.
Well, in that case let’s rename the buildings on the Austin campus along the lines of Seepinggutwound Hall, The Man Down Student Union, the AK-47 Slaughter School of Romance Languages, and the Charles Whitman Memorial Bell Tower and Target Practice Facility.
Lynch LaPierre Library has a certain choking, gagging sound to it that I like as well.
I’m going to beat McKinneyTexas to it and join Charles Pierce in calling out this abject silliness on a college campus:
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a40337/college-protesters-lynch-memorial-hall/
Like someone or other pointed out, I don’t think Attorney General Loretta Lynch should be forced to change her name to Loretta Letmypeoplego.
When I had a colonoscopy, I was merely bemused by the fact that the physician’s name was Dr. Rector. I didn’t demand he change it to Dr. Benign to assuage my feelings.
Maybe I would have felt differently if he had been named Dr. Tumor, but I doubt it.
The “young adults” at Lebanon Valley College would better serve the struggle by renting a bus and traveling to Austin, Texas and taking on these ilk:
http://www.mediaite.com/online/gun-rights-groups-to-stage-fake-mass-shooting-on-tx-campus-to-protest-gun-free-zones/
A fake mass shooting? Aren’t the real ones good enough for them.
Well, in that case let’s rename the buildings on the Austin campus along the lines of Seepinggutwound Hall, The Man Down Student Union, the AK-47 Slaughter School of Romance Languages, and the Charles Whitman Memorial Bell Tower and Target Practice Facility.
Lynch LaPierre Library has a certain choking, gagging sound to it that I like as well.
I’m going to beat McKinneyTexas to it and join Charles Pierce in calling out this abject silliness on a college campus:
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a40337/college-protesters-lynch-memorial-hall/
Like someone or other pointed out, I don’t think Attorney General Loretta Lynch should be forced to change her name to Loretta Letmypeoplego.
When I had a colonoscopy, I was merely bemused by the fact that the physician’s name was Dr. Rector. I didn’t demand he change it to Dr. Benign to assuage my feelings.
Maybe I would have felt differently if he had been named Dr. Tumor, but I doubt it.
The “young adults” at Lebanon Valley College would better serve the struggle by renting a bus and traveling to Austin, Texas and taking on these ilk:
http://www.mediaite.com/online/gun-rights-groups-to-stage-fake-mass-shooting-on-tx-campus-to-protest-gun-free-zones/
A fake mass shooting? Aren’t the real ones good enough for them.
Well, in that case let’s rename the buildings on the Austin campus along the lines of Seepinggutwound Hall, The Man Down Student Union, the AK-47 Slaughter School of Romance Languages, and the Charles Whitman Memorial Bell Tower and Target Practice Facility.
Lynch LaPierre Library has a certain choking, gagging sound to it that I like as well.
I wonder what the death toll among the Ohio National Guard and the student body would have been in 1970 if a number Kent Staters had been carrying instead of lighting fires in 1970.
I wonder what the death toll among the Ohio National Guard and the student body would have been in 1970 if a number Kent Staters had been carrying instead of lighting fires in 1970.
I wonder what the death toll among the Ohio National Guard and the student body would have been in 1970 if a number Kent Staters had been carrying instead of lighting fires in 1970.
It happened only once in 1970, and that was enough.
It happened only once in 1970, and that was enough.
It happened only once in 1970, and that was enough.
If you lack the imagination to come up with a new supposed cabel, might as well recycle (sorry!) one of the old standards.
Why not the nation of Luxembourg? Tiny, but really really wealthy. How do they do it?
The Knights of Malta? Those dudes are still around.
The descendants of the Princely House of Thurn and Taxis? You have a ready-made paranoid delusion you can step right into, courtesy of Thomas Pynchon.
Really, though, all roads lead to the Cayman Islands. There’s some guy with dreads and a Caribbean accent, smoking a great big fattie while he picks up the mail at a PO Box, whose running the whole shooting match.
If you lack the imagination to come up with a new supposed cabel, might as well recycle (sorry!) one of the old standards.
Why not the nation of Luxembourg? Tiny, but really really wealthy. How do they do it?
The Knights of Malta? Those dudes are still around.
The descendants of the Princely House of Thurn and Taxis? You have a ready-made paranoid delusion you can step right into, courtesy of Thomas Pynchon.
Really, though, all roads lead to the Cayman Islands. There’s some guy with dreads and a Caribbean accent, smoking a great big fattie while he picks up the mail at a PO Box, whose running the whole shooting match.
If you lack the imagination to come up with a new supposed cabel, might as well recycle (sorry!) one of the old standards.
Why not the nation of Luxembourg? Tiny, but really really wealthy. How do they do it?
The Knights of Malta? Those dudes are still around.
The descendants of the Princely House of Thurn and Taxis? You have a ready-made paranoid delusion you can step right into, courtesy of Thomas Pynchon.
Really, though, all roads lead to the Cayman Islands. There’s some guy with dreads and a Caribbean accent, smoking a great big fattie while he picks up the mail at a PO Box, whose running the whole shooting match.