|
MaxxBot posted:This looks pretty clear to me, unless you think the professor is fabricating or deliberately misrepresenting stories. Yeah, that's a whole loving lot of context about what was said and done, and the remainder of his article in which he links to right-wing blogs and media doesn't impact my thoughts about whether or not he's giving an unbiased portrayal of the issue or anything. And I think you're missing the whole point the response article is making, that this has nothing to do with "political correctness" and everything to do with the fact that the academic job market is utter poo poo and some universities are willing to accept any reason (or no reason at all) to dismiss / not renew adjuncts. It's like complaining that "affirmative action" is why my white-looking friend got released from her job teaching math at one middle school and replaced with a black teacher while ignoring that she was a first-year teacher who got laid off along with an overwhelming majority of first-year teachers, and that the teacher that replaced her got laid off the next year too for the same reason. But no, you're right, it's the New McCarthyism and administrators are the new HUAC.
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 18:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 10:11 |
|
|
Tercio posted:Looks like this thread is right on topic: Seinfeld is still funny, drat. I agree he's never been edgy, but I still like the show.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 18:39
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:Consistently bad evaluations are one thing but I don't think a couple students complaining should threaten a career, and I don't think professors should be terrified of teaching standard literature that has been taught for decades. Obviously this isn't just a made up issue because even the professor who completely disagreed with the premise of the original article thinks it's an issue, they just disagree on what the cause of the issue is. The issue as it is presented in nearly every single instance of it in the media is that the tyrannical liberal nazis are trampling freedom of speech. That has absolutely nothing to do with the issue as you are presenting it, which is that university professors and teachers are having their job security destroyed. These are completely different issues. And the funny thing is that the people going into hysterics about political correctness are often the same people who want university job security to be destroyed, because the liberal professors are the ones perpetrating the liberal nazi speech-trampling and their power must be broken. The end result is that higher education is gutted and at the same time there's mass pushback against criticism of regressiveness and bigotry. It's a brilliant scheme when you think about it. icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 18:46 on Jun 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 18:41
|
|
|
FuzzySkinner posted:I have had a comedian/radio dude on twitter tell me how he sides with the GOP a lot because the "LEFT" is pro censorship in regards to how Comedy is handled now. The only moral boycott is my boycott.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
Ghost of Reagan Past posted:Here's a response My main concern is that when our generation does swing hard right, like the Boomers did, it'll be framed exactly along the lines of "we're tolerant, so stop talking about it" in the political framework of censorship. Censorship in any form is bad. The entire premise behind learning of why a particular viewpoint is bad is through discourse. Nobody under the age of 25 has lived long enough to develop a reasonable opinion about any social or political issues. Exposing them to that sort of discourse is absolutely necessary.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 18:43
|
|
|
Job Truniht posted:My main concern is that when our generation does swing hard right, like the Boomers did, it'll be framed exactly along the lines of "we're tolerant, so stop talking about it" in the political framework of censorship. Censorship in any form is bad. The entire premise behind learning of why a particular viewpoint is bad is through discourse. Nobody under the age of 25 has lived long enough to develop a reasonable opinion about any social or political issues. Exposing them to that sort of discourse is absolutely necessary. So literally "you can't be intolerant of bigotry" I'm glad to see we've moved beyond that argument
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 18:45
|
|
|
Also who said our generation was going to swing hard right? Weren't the World War II generation pretty strongly Democratic up until their dying days?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 18:46
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:So literally "you can't be intolerant of bigotry" I'm glad to see we've moved beyond that argument How can you recognize an intolerant position if you have never had any exposure to them? For example, what metrics do you use to accuse someone of being a racist? There are the obvious cases when using specifically offensive language to degrade or demean someone, but there are countless more subtle opinions beyond just "black on white violence". And you run into that a lot more often. These opinions are best expressed inside of a classroom rather than outside on the streets and in political discourse in this country.\ Jerry Manderbilt posted:Also who said our generation was going to swing hard right? Weren't the World War II generation pretty strongly Democratic up until their dying days? Because we are raised by boomers, and our animosity towards them is less "they were completely reprehensible human beings" and more "they have something I don't (stable job, housing, income, ect)". Job Truniht fucked around with this message at 18:55 on Jun 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 18:50
|
|
|
Job Truniht posted:My main concern is that when our generation does swing hard right, like the Boomers did, it'll be framed exactly along the lines of "we're tolerant, so stop talking about it" in the political framework of censorship. Censorship in any form is bad. The entire premise behind learning of why a particular viewpoint is bad is through discourse. Nobody under the age of 25 has lived long enough to develop a reasonable opinion about any social or political issues. Exposing them to that sort of discourse is absolutely necessary. Except it is absolutely bullshit. There is no PC police run amok on campuses. Jason Richwine got a PhD from Harvard with a dissertation that argued that Hispanics have lower IQs. Harvard and the professors in his committee had no problem passing him (though he was forced to resign by the Heritage foundation). So, if you are keeping score, a position that was too right wing for the Heritage foundation was just fine for Harvard. And I guarantee you will find more colleges with The Bell Curve on its curriculum than without Mark Twain. Job Truniht posted:How can you recognize an intolerant position if you have never had any exposure to them? For example, what metrics do you use to accuse someone of being a racist? There are the obvious cases when using specifically offensive language to degrade or demean someone, but there are countless more subtle opinions beyond just "black on white violence". And you run into that a lot more often. The claim that these opinions are not being covered inside a classroom is bullshit. Open any "social problems" textbook and they will cover the Moynihan report, the Bell Curve, and similar type of stuff. I teach a social science in college, and every single year I get more pushback from students who claim that racism doesn't exist than I do from students who think the Bell Curve is BS. joepinetree fucked around with this message at 18:55 on Jun 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 18:52
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:Also who said our generation was going to swing hard right? Weren't the World War II generation pretty strongly Democratic up until their dying days? Yeah I've always been skeptical of that argument. It's a danger, sure, but the historical context of the Boomers is completely different than that of Millenials. For as much panic over liberal revivalism or whatever going around the situation of the late 60s simply is not being repeated. Call me when you have student mobs storming university offices and conducting bombing campaigns instead of criticizing professors on the internet icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 18:55 on Jun 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 18:53
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Yeah I've always been skeptical of that argument. It's a danger, sure, but the historical context of the Boomers is completely different than that of Millenials. For as much panic over Obama and liberal revivalism or whatever going around the situation of the late 60s simply is not being repeated. Call me when you have student mobs storming university offices and conducting bombing campaigns instead of criticizing professors on the internet Also even then, I'm pretty sure that those weren't the majority of students in the late 60s, although, stuff like the Berkeley protests and Kent State loom large in the collective American memory of the period.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
Kugyou no Tenshi posted:And I think you're missing the whole point the response article is making, that this has nothing to do with "political correctness" and everything to do with the fact that the academic job market is utter poo poo and some universities are willing to accept any reason (or no reason at all) to dismiss / not renew adjuncts. It's like complaining that "affirmative action" is why my white-looking friend got released from her job teaching math at one middle school and replaced with a black teacher while ignoring that she was a first-year teacher who got laid off along with an overwhelming majority of first-year teachers, and that the teacher that replaced her got laid off the next year too for the same reason. But no, you're right, it's the New McCarthyism and administrators are the new HUAC. I'm not trying to specifically defend the argument that "PC" or "identity politics" is the root issue here, I was originally responding to a poster who called the "liberal professor" sensitive for his fears over job security which I think is misguided. Both the liberal professor and the adjunct agree that fears over job security are influencing what professors teach and say in the classroom in a deleterious way, which I think is a bad and unfortunate thing. You can simultaneously think the professor's PC argument is BS while also recognizing that some of their fears are justified. Also, I don't really buy the argument that this guy is a closet conservative. It's true that you can make money doing what Horowitz and Reilly do but they're conservatives catering to a conservative audience, why would this audience pay to listen to a guy who's still a liberal saying mildly impolite things about other liberals? It's not like conservative blogs and websites have been embracing the piece, some were sympathetic but most were just eager to see liberals fighting each other.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 18:59
|
|
|
Chantilly Say posted:Yeah, yesterday, when I'm sure you could walk around in public randomly showing pictures of dead dogs to people without any trouble. I was speaking figuratively, and he was talking about creating a gallery (of dead dogs covered in flowers) on the internet. Honestly, my dad just doesn't give a poo poo about 'sensitivity' considering how he jokes about the PTSD he gave me when I was a child. But making fun of younger generations woes w/r/t the problems older generations made for them seems to be a theme with comedians that are past their prime.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 19:03
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:I'm not trying to specifically defend the argument that "PC" or "identity politics" is the root issue here, I was originally responding to a poster who called the "liberal professor" sensitive for his fears over job security which I think is misguided. Both the liberal professor and the adjunct agree that fears over job security are influencing what professors teach and say in the classroom in a deleterious way, which I think is a bad and unfortunate thing. You can simultaneously think the professor's PC argument is BS while also recognizing that some of their fears are justified. What? Google his piece and you will find that the main place it has gotten attention are places like National Review Online, daily caller, frontpagemag and David Horowitz's sites. "I am a [group] who speaks out against [group]" is just about the most surefire way to become a pundit nowadays. There is a whole group of people making a career as "liberal who calls out liberals" (Johnathan Chait, Freddie Deboer, token liberals at fox news).
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
1stGear posted:As as already been pointed out, all of these complaints are coming from older comics who's heyday was decades ago. If Louis CK can do this bit, then comedy is fine. That clip also highlights a good point too. What is considered edgy comedy has completely changed. How many other comedians working today have the guts to make jokes about the U.S. Military like that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 19:09
|
|
|
I'm on a slow connection so I'll get back to the other responses later, buticantfindaname posted:Yeah I've always been skeptical of that argument. It's a danger, sure, but the historical context of the Boomers is completely different than that of Millenials. For as much panic over liberal revivalism or whatever going around the situation of the late 60s simply is not being repeated. Call me when you have student mobs storming university offices and conducting bombing campaigns instead of criticizing professors on the internet Jerry Manderbilt posted:Also even then, I'm pretty sure that those weren't the majority of students in the late 60s, although, stuff like the Berkeley protests and Kent State loom large in the collective American memory of the period. You guys are deluding yourselvesThe championing of social issues over economic ones, materialism and the commodification of ethics, white noise over anything coherent, a declining environment, and the mercenary work environment we live in is like the perfect storm for a reactionary time bomb down the line. People are going to be angry about things not being as they were once before and will turn into the same regressive shitheads their parents were.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 19:19
|
|
|
Millennials aren't going to be as FYGM because they're not nearly as white.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 19:24
|
|
|
So have Rush and the usual suspects restrained themselves from calling the black teens at the McKinney, TX pool party a bunch of thugs who were rightfully terrorized by the Roid Rage Cop for their thuggishness?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 19:25
|
|
|
Rush is off this week. His substitute has been Mark Steyn the insufferable Canadian who sounds like an old Englishmen that just Godwin's all day.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Millennials aren't going to be as FYGM because they're not nearly as white. Millenials aren't going to be as FYGM because they'll never GT.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
Unless we finally eat the rich.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 19:34
|
|
|
Zwabu posted:So have Rush and the usual suspects restrained themselves from calling the black teens at the McKinney, TX pool party a bunch of thugs who were rightfully terrorized by the Roid Rage Cop for their thuggishness? Crossposting from the cops thread.  They are trying to push the narrative that the kids were having a crazy party on private property in the middle of the day with expletive laced music. After being asked very kindly to turn it down they turned savage and started attacking all the peaceful white people. Then the police were called to help stop the violence. Of course this doesn't really explain how the police knew to avoid any of the white kids when they came to start pushing around teenagers. They couldn't even make it believable, they had to check off all the bullet points in the racist, white, middle class textbook. It has everything: loud, evil, devil music, minorities massing in an area they shouldn't be, attacking people for no reason, minorities being THE REAL RACISTS, the white people being the mature respectful group that just want to be left alone, the kids provoking the cops (minorities just LOVE starting altercations with cops) who had no choice but to subdue them, etc. I'm sure even after all the facts are on the table we're going to hear about white mothers being attacked by urban youths in front of their children on Fox News and on Rush Limbaugh until they are thoroughly sure that reality has been muddied enough that the cursory listener doesn't know what to believe. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 19:39 on Jun 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 19:36
|
|
|
Lumberjack Bonanza posted:Unless we finally eat the rich. What kind of wine goes great with 1%er ribs?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 19:37
|
|
|
BigRed0427 posted:What kind of wine goes great with 1%er ribs? Just start drinking from their wine cellar, you'll find something.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 19:38
|
|
|
BigRed0427 posted:What kind of wine goes great with 1%er ribs? Whatever you stole out of their wine cellar. e: ^^^ 
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
Looks like Megyn Kelly is in the lead, possibly wanting to stop being referred to as a molestation apologist, she offered up the "that 14 year old was no angel" quote during an interview with (wait for it...) Mark Fuhrman before RWM had come back with the negative research on the gal. You know you gotta find the "throwing gang/peace sign" before you do that Megyn, cmon.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
Zwabu posted:So have Rush and the usual suspects restrained themselves from calling the black teens at the McKinney, TX pool party a bunch of thugs who were rightfully terrorized by the Roid Rage Cop for their thuggishness? http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/06/08/the-girl-was-no-saint-either-fox-jumps-to-defen/203924 That url is part of a direct quote from Megyn Kelly, but there are plenty more at the link. I particularly like the Hannity blurb. "Are they gonna come in and hit him with a shank in the back?" edit: oh and for those who don't click the Hannity link, which I wouldn't blame you for because it's a nine minute clip of his show, he begins the segment by blaming Obama. Not even kidding. (Also his two guests, amazingly enough, disagreed with him about the behavior of the officer.) Von Sloneker fucked around with this message at 19:52 on Jun 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
Job Truniht posted:My main concern is that when our generation does swing hard right, like the Boomers did, it'll be framed exactly along the lines of "we're tolerant, so stop talking about it" in the political framework of censorship. Censorship in any form is bad. The entire premise behind learning of why a particular viewpoint is bad is through discourse. Nobody under the age of 25 has lived long enough to develop a reasonable opinion about any social or political issues. Exposing them to that sort of discourse is absolutely necessary. This might be a tangent but, what would our generation's rightward shift even look like? The current orthodoxy in both social conservatism and even economic conservatism or neoliberalism has me with very serious reservations at best and outright repulsion at worst. I just can't go there, not without completely tossing my ethics and virtues. I'm left struggling to understand where the impulse for it even comes from. I'm not doubting that we'll become more set in our ways when we're older, but I'm just wondering what form it could possibly take because it is clearly not this. The best I can think of might be difficulties adapting to environmental mandates, but that would require actual social and political progression in the first place, which we practically have none of.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 19:48
|
|
|
Von Sloneker posted:http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/06/08/the-girl-was-no-saint-either-fox-jumps-to-defen/203924 Surprise more armed men INTIMIDATED by smaller, unarmed people. Also Kelly is scum. "I'm not defending his actions BUUUUUUUT what was he supposed to do when people don't do what he says?"
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
Intel&Sebastian posted:Looks like Megyn Kelly is in the lead, possibly wanting to stop being referred to as a molestation apologist, she offered up the "that 14 year old was no angel" quote during an interview with (wait for it...) Mark Fuhrman before RWM had come back with the negative research on the gal. "was no angel" = "is black so must have done something illegal"
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
Morroque posted:This might be a tangent but, what would our generation's rightward shift even look like? The current orthodoxy in both social conservatism and even economic conservatism or neoliberalism has me with very serious reservations at best and outright repulsion at worst. I just can't go there, not without completely tossing my ethics and virtues. I'm left struggling to understand where the impulse for it even comes from. I'm saying the future of this world is Starbucks- not communism. Global capitalists won't die because of ethics, they'll just repackage it and sell it. Essentially future conservatism will be this mass circle jerk of people trying to feel good about themselves by donating to charities or buying from "ethical" or "environmentally friendly" companies, but always avoid the hypocrisy they are actively participating in.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 20:07
|
|
|
big mean giraffe posted:Still doesn't mean he's some insightful genius with a lot to offer on this discussion because he was part of a funny comedy troupe 40 years ago. fawlty towers is some of the funniest poo poo ever you idiot haha
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:fawlty towers is some of the funniest poo poo ever you idiot haha Still doesn't mean he's qualified to talk about complex social issues because he's funny you illiterate weirdo. Why are you guys getting so butthurt that I possibly insulted your hero? He's out of touch and has demonstrated such.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
Intel&Sebastian posted:Looks like Megyn Kelly is in the lead, possibly wanting to stop being referred to as a molestation apologist, she offered up the "that 14 year old was no angel" quote during an interview with (wait for it...) Mark Fuhrman before RWM had come back with the negative research on the gal. Did anybody watch the second interview on Friday? I wonder how that went, considering there wasn't any noise about it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
Also this: Haha now apparently these black teens are an occupying army that terrorize the poor whites by kicking in their doors and trashing their cars and it's all kept hush hush by the media for Reasons. I was going to say that True Conservatives are loving insane, but then I realized that they're just confused, and the world they think they're in is the one that low-income black people actually live in.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 20:23
|
|
|
big mean giraffe posted:Still doesn't mean he's qualified to talk about complex social issues because he's funny you illiterate weirdo. Why are you guys getting so butthurt that I possibly insulted your hero? He's out of touch and has demonstrated such. Its just really funny when people dismiss someone's opinion on their relevant field with wildly inaccurate and uninformed claims haha
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 20:33
|
|
|
Tender Bender posted:Also this: Yeah if doors were actually kicked in and cars were actually stolen, crashed and vandalized someone would have taken pictures of the aftermath and they'd be all over Drudge and Fox by now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 20:36
|
|
|
Morroque posted:This might be a tangent but, what would our generation's rightward shift even look like? The current orthodoxy in both social conservatism and even economic conservatism or neoliberalism has me with very serious reservations at best and outright repulsion at worst. I just can't go there, not without completely tossing my ethics and virtues. I'm left struggling to understand where the impulse for it even comes from. Most Boomers were not Hippies. They always were more conservative because they had things made. Any opposition to Vietnam was because it could have invoved them. Most of them grew up with "The Red Menace" being shoved down their throat. Our "Right Swingers" are the Ron Paul club, the James O'Keefe types, and those "Here's a ______ that gets it" fodder.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 20:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 10:11 |
|
|
site posted:Did anybody watch the second interview on Friday? I wonder how that went, considering there wasn't any noise about it. I refuse to watch it, but the sense i got was that the girls got the same PR script their parents did and offered nothing new, and they are obviously less straightforward to cover than the parents who had actually done wrong. On top of that people saw it coming a mile away and had already covered the expected responses in the first interview article.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 20:48
|
|