How does the World view America these days?

  On 4/2/2016 at 6:41 PM, eugene said:

 

  On 4/2/2016 at 5:16 PM, LimpyLoo said:

"In a manner that doesn't hurt people"

 

This is the problem: people are hurt by everything. Showing a video where someone says "I wouldn't personally wanna watch men have sex" will get you called before a disciplinary board. It doesn't matter how reasonable the "hurt" person is, they are always right. And if the entire generation is being taught that their over-sensitivity is valid, then that is a recipe for fucking disaster.

 

This "held accountable" rhetoric is some communist-censorship shit.

"this is not up for debate...try to do so and I'll report you"

Imagine being a professor and trying to teach knowing that a few students have their fingers poised over the "report to authorities" button if they feel less than 100% validated

This is madness, it's literal fascism

there are some childish examples, no need to construct some massive, horrible threat to intellectual development of humanity out of those anecdotes. the whole thing is basically something like an enhancement of not saying nigger and fag in public and being aware of your public, nothing more. professors who make a big deal out of it are either incompetent and are incapable of dealing with such complaints in a convincing manner head on, or simply want to act as some martyr-knight in some faux crusade.

As with the Action Bronson cancellation, the most sensitive students are dictating the curricula for everyone. Professors are self-censoring to avoid disciplinary action (and understandably so).

Look at the reasons why professors are being "held accountable" and it's not encouraging.

Space Moose was so ahead of it's time

  On 4/2/2016 at 7:14 PM, eugene said:

 

  On 4/2/2016 at 6:44 PM, goDel said:

 

  On 4/2/2016 at 4:39 PM, eugene said:

i'm not quite getting your point here, it's ok to create awareness but not ok to take it to the next logical step and change particular practices given that awareness?

perhaps this is the part where different point of views are most in disagreement. one side thinks it's absolutely normal, or logical, that once a trigger-point has been "established" (as if they're unmovable points/norms/values in social space) it should be addressed such that it wil never ever happen again, or something. at least, that's how i understand your logic to be. if that's the case, the other side of the argument is arguing that it is impossible. and even if it wasn't impossible, it would be counterproductive.

 

it's not rocket science - you've learned not to say nigger in class now learn to not make remarks that will offend/cause harm or discomfort other groups of people in particular contexts. those trigger points are not static either, they are very context specific, dependent on the ways of communication of professor with particular public, their degree of closeness and so on.

 

Sure. But aren't things weakened to just being respectful to eachother at this point? If that's what this discussion is all about, it's pretty useless (because obvious). and if you start from the the idea the whole SJW thing is a strawman, this shouldn't be a surprise, i guess.

But I'm wondering whether that is really the case, btw. You can say it's a strawman, and I'd like to believe you, because I think the whole notion is nonsense. But when I hear her discus like that, I'm hearing someone with a brick wall in front of her, not acknowledging any other point of view whatsoever. Like some sort of social jihadist, or whatever. (yes, freely using another strawman here!)

Eugene, you are just horny, masturbate and I guarantee you'll change your mind.

April fools or not talk about a effeminate stance. <---- I'm American btw we're the ideal image of a masculine society.

And yes this does exist (fear based) and yes it is weird and things like concept creep and peak shift border on cool af in the realm of weirdness.

not with that nose

  On 4/2/2016 at 7:21 PM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 4/2/2016 at 6:41 PM, eugene said:

 

  On 4/2/2016 at 5:16 PM, LimpyLoo said:

"In a manner that doesn't hurt people"

 

This is the problem: people are hurt by everything. Showing a video where someone says "I wouldn't personally wanna watch men have sex" will get you called before a disciplinary board. It doesn't matter how reasonable the "hurt" person is, they are always right. And if the entire generation is being taught that their over-sensitivity is valid, then that is a recipe for fucking disaster.

 

This "held accountable" rhetoric is some communist-censorship shit.

"this is not up for debate...try to do so and I'll report you"

Imagine being a professor and trying to teach knowing that a few students have their fingers poised over the "report to authorities" button if they feel less than 100% validated

This is madness, it's literal fascism

there are some childish examples, no need to construct some massive, horrible threat to intellectual development of humanity out of those anecdotes. the whole thing is basically something like an enhancement of not saying nigger and fag in public and being aware of your public, nothing more. professors who make a big deal out of it are either incompetent and are incapable of dealing with such complaints in a convincing manner head on, or simply want to act as some martyr-knight in some faux crusade.

As with the Action Bronson cancellation, the most sensitive students are dictating the curricula for everyone. Professors are self-censoring to avoid disciplinary action (and understandably so).

Look at the reasons why professors are being "held accountable" and it's not encouraging.

 

no one's dictating anything, no sane professor will change his syllabus without a good reason, cease with you baseless panicking already. you're really failing to grasp the balance of power of freshman students and established, tenured profs here.

  On 4/2/2016 at 9:26 PM, goDel said:

 

  On 4/2/2016 at 7:14 PM, eugene said:

 

  On 4/2/2016 at 6:44 PM, goDel said:

 

  On 4/2/2016 at 4:39 PM, eugene said:

i'm not quite getting your point here, it's ok to create awareness but not ok to take it to the next logical step and change particular practices given that awareness?

perhaps this is the part where different point of views are most in disagreement. one side thinks it's absolutely normal, or logical, that once a trigger-point has been "established" (as if they're unmovable points/norms/values in social space) it should be addressed such that it wil never ever happen again, or something. at least, that's how i understand your logic to be. if that's the case, the other side of the argument is arguing that it is impossible. and even if it wasn't impossible, it would be counterproductive.

 

it's not rocket science - you've learned not to say nigger in class now learn to not make remarks that will offend/cause harm or discomfort other groups of people in particular contexts. those trigger points are not static either, they are very context specific, dependent on the ways of communication of professor with particular public, their degree of closeness and so on.

 

Sure. But aren't things weakened to just being respectful to eachother at this point? If that's what this discussion is all about, it's pretty useless (because obvious). and if you start from the the idea the whole SJW thing is a strawman, this shouldn't be a surprise, i guess.

 

But I'm wondering whether that is really the case, btw. You can say it's a strawman, and I'd like to believe you, because I think the whole notion is nonsense. But when I hear her discus like that, I'm hearing someone with a brick wall in front of her, not acknowledging any other point of view whatsoever. Like some sort of social jihadist, or whatever. (yes, freely using another strawman here!)

 

that's a a slightly more advanced level than just being respectful at this point, it's about [trigger warning] realizing your own privilege position and how it clouds your awareness, it's a logical extension of post-colonial thought, gender studies and such.

i don't think haidt had any reasonable argument or some kind of point of view that needed addressing in that 25 bit (the whole talk is actually much longer, maybe i'll take a look later:

The fact that you couldn't find 'any reasonable argument' from Haidt is suspicious IMO

At the very least I agree with the girl but simply think her proposed means don't serve the ends she is ostensibly interested in

To literally not see any value in Haidt's perspective is proof that you are a brick wall on this matter and I guess I'm done wasting time here

From that YouTube screenshot it looks like Haidt is thinking about smashing later

This is totally random but...

Georgia teacher smashing a special needs student:

http://i.imgur.com/cJgtl5c.gifv

http://i.imgur.com/cJgtl5c.gifv

Bah, how do you post gifs on Tapatalk?

goddamn

Can you see what I posted?

All I see is random code-y shit

It's a link to the gif, but it didn't embed.

he can see it, he's just appreciating the effective schooling principles displayed in that gif.

More like special knee'd amarite

She's facing 1-10 years in prison for felony 'cruelty of a child'

maybe the kid deserved it, we dont know the full story

Apparently kid owed her $50 for a slice of killa she cuffed him

It looks like she was looking at that thing in her hand and couldn't see past her gut.

Is it at all possible that she tried to nudge him into the classroom and got clumsy (she is both fat and carrying things)? I'm not excusing her, that's shitty no matter how you shake it (even trying to nudge a kid with your knee is a pretty ridiculous way to go about things), but jesus, some of the comments on the news stories about it are horrendous, people are threatening to kill her ffs, and without any additional info. Makes me remember why I got a chrome extension to block all news comments.

edit: I only bring this up because I too have accidentally knocked people over while trying to regain my balance or just applying a bit too much force accidentally, then going full Urkel

I'm not defending her, but I would want to have a list of past offenses and accusations before making a judgement call.

  On 4/2/2016 at 11:47 PM, eugene said:

that's a a slightly more advanced level than just being respectful at this point, it's about [trigger warning] realizing your own privilege position and how it clouds your awareness, it's a logical extension of post-colonial thought, gender studies and such.

 

i don't think haidt had any reasonable argument or some kind of point of view that needed addressing in that 25 bit (the whole talk is actually much longer, maybe i'll take a look later: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTU3hxgr2Kc) besides namedropping some study that in that particular setting couldn't be even addressed properly.

And such... So, if I'm arachnophobic and I want to study biology, should a teacher be aware of my fear of spiders and teach accordingly, or perhaps even change the curriculum? Or is this just about racism and sexism?

I can understand people expecting a certain level of sensitivity from teachers for issues wrt race and sex, but certain levels of awareness clouds are a given as well.

A white historian teaching a course on colonialism will never fully understand what it means to be a slave or what it means to be black in current us society. Or a heterosexual teaching gender studies being clouded wrt to being gay and/or transgender. A woman teaching male issues in contemporary society.

In the lingo of those non-existing SJW people: those people do not have agency. But they still can talk about the science behind these subjects. And imo, i prefer them teaching the science as they seem fit, even though it should be perfectly fine to bring up any potential issues when it comes to race and sex. Or, the uncomfortable conversation, if you will. But I don't see it as a logical extension to change the curriculum.

In a way, the science up unto this point could have been clouded wrt certain issues and you cant expect from teachers to re-science or de-cloud the stuff they have been taught themselves. Teachers are accountable for teaching a certain curriculum. The science. And some teachers will be better wrt dealing with certain clouds in awareness than others. That is a given.

A black teacher will in some aspects be better when it comes to awareness of racial issues. And to a certain degree students have to accept this. Just like the existence of "good" and "bad" teachers.

ideally everyone should be aware of everything.

but your whole concern is based on the request of the so called sjws to change the curriculum and just not study certain things, a request that obviously doesn't exist.

  On 4/3/2016 at 2:19 PM, eugene said:

ideally everyone should be aware of everything.

 

but your whole concern is based on the request of the so called sjws to change the curriculum and just not study certain things, a request that obviously doesn't exist.

It's not a request, it's an unintended consequence

How could "holding teacher's accountable" for controversial content NOT result in altered curricula? If you dis-incentivize something, it will happen less...that is as fundamental as psychological facts get