|
Joementum posted:Hopefully we all learned in the last 24 hours that "poo poo is blowing up on social media" may not indicate that any of it is actually true. Particularly if a recordable event is supposedly going down and no video or photographic record of it exists.
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 05:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 02:36 |
|
|
Casimir Radon posted:The Mizzou one is also pretty stupid. Some idiots who may not even be students yell a racial slur at a student and somebody paints a poo poo-swastika on a wall. It's pretty hard to investigate both of those, so what exactly was the school supposed to do about it? Reasonable actions, not the dumbass demands that actually got issued. Mizzou athletics is apparently a pretty organization, letting their players know they can bully the administration like that probably wasn't the best move. It was way more than those two incidents: http://www.columbiamissourian.com/n...55f13bae45.html https://twitter.com/MizzouLBC/status/651053968483704832 http://www.columbiamissourian.com/n...c30fc7565e.html Not to mention the average amount of racism you'll encounter in your typical homogenous midwestern town. These things don't happen in a vaccuum.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 05:03
|
|
|
Hulk Krogan posted:He wasn't being particularly aggressive or adversarial, but he was going on about his first amendment rights, which had nothing to do with that situation. However all the other media types that have subsequently latched onto this story to bemoan the big bad college students oppressing that photographer are displaying exactly the attitude I described.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 05:03
|
|
|
It's almost like trying to change things can be really hard and that there are multitudes of ways for the current system to keep itself as such
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 05:07
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:I guess I just don't see how an incident where even the people involved are saying 'yep we were in the wrong' plays into that argument other than using this event as a cudgel to be all 'lol safe spaces right' by other shitheads. I agree and think that the harm of allowing potentially harmful speech doesn't exceed the benefits of allowing free expression, but this is not a universal view.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 05:08
|
|
|
Hulk Krogan posted:Police are agents of the state, college students protesting are not. Professors employed at a public university are paid by the taxpayers, however. So they probably shouldn't be in a group surrounding a minority photog pushing him along with a bunch of 20 year old (mostly white) dipshits. quote:And this is where the arguments about the freedom of speech become most tone deaf. The freedom to offend the powerful is not equivalent to the freedom to bully the relatively disempowered. Yeah, this sounds like a great idea until the other team wins an election and gets to decide who's oppressed for a few years.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 05:18
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Professors employed at a public university are paid by the taxpayers, however. Most of them are, except for endowed positions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 05:20
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:He was totally right that he had the right to be there and their disapproval meant literally nothing about that, and it's not his fault that other idiots used him to push an agenda. Equating that to getting aggressive is absurd. I'm not blaming him for the dumb poo poo David Simon and Jonathan Chait have been saying. I think he handled himself about as well as can be expected and he's been all class afterward. What I am saying is that the fact that his first response was "but I have a right to be here" kind of tells you where journalism is at right now. There's a distinction between law and ethics. A journalist may have a right to do something but there are plenty of situations where there professional ethics require they handle things with a little bit more delicacy than the law strictly demands. When journalists cover the cops or Congress, doing so by insisting on their rights is appropriate. When they are covering every day citizens, they don't typically lead with "I have a right to be here" because then they get told to gently caress off. I'm not making an argument about who violated whose rights. I'm making an argument about how apparently, a lot of journalists are more interested in getting cooperation because "my rights" than they are in engaging with their subjects to get the story. If a reporter is covering a potentially dangerous subject, like a mobster or a drug lord, do you think they get all "I have a right to be here and ask you questions!" ? Of course not. They play by their subjects rules to gain their trust as much as possible so they can get the story, because that's supposed to be the bottom line. The whole earning trust and cooperation thing doesn't go out the window just because this particular subject is unlikely to have you killed and dumped in the river. Journalists exist to promote the public good. That goal should inform their conduct- if jouarnlists are getting mad at subjects for not cooperating instead of asking what they could do differently, they are fundamentally failing in their duty. A protest happened, and instead of informing the public on the how's and the why's and on what led to it, many in the media are running with a ridiculous story about how they're being oppressed by college students. We can argue about whether the protestors' behavior is strategically sound (probably not) but blaming them because the journalists are abdicating their duty to report the actual story here is ridiculous. DeusExMachinima posted:Professors employed at a public university are paid by the taxpayers, however. So they probably shouldn't be in a group surrounding a minority photog pushing him along with a bunch of 20 year old (mostly white) dipshits. Eh I don't buy this. What if she was a janitor instead of a professor? Does the fact that someone is "paid by the taxpayer" on it's own make them a state agent for purposes of determining whether they violated this guy's first amendment rights? That seems pretty silly. Hulk Krogan fucked around with this message at 05:32 on Nov 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 05:28
|
|
|
"A bunch of poor disempowered university students" may be how they see themselves but thats not really the case. The journalist cited the first amendment because he was repeatedly being told that he had no right to be there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 05:30
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Professors employed at a public university are paid by the taxpayers, however. So they probably shouldn't be in a group surrounding a minority photog pushing him along with a bunch of 20 year old (mostly white) dipshits. ah yes, a presidential term: exactly the same as the cumulative effects of a couple hundred years of american history
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 05:30
|
|
|
They didn't give him time for any of that. They blindly followed the token idiot hippy faculty member and decided to get aggressive with him. There was no opportunity for him to try to engage with them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 05:32
|
|
|
Hulk Krogan posted:Eh I don't buy this. What if she was a janitor instead of a professor? Does the fact that someone is "paid by the taxpayer" on it's own make them a state agent for purposes of determining whether they violated this guy's first amendment rights? That seems pretty silly. Even at private higher ed institutions, physically threatening a student is something that can get you immediately fired no matter if you're faculty or staff.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 05:32
|
|
|
Hulk Krogan posted:I'm not blaming him for the dumb poo poo David Simon and Jonathan Chait have been saying. I think he handled himself about as well as can be expected and he's been all class afterward. I just fail to see the issue in a journalist responding to a bunch of people crowding him to bully him away saying he has no right to be there by saying 'yes I actually do'. THEY made it about 'rights' by claiming they somehow had the right to deny him access, they actually don't, this is actually a very important thing and a cornerstone of the idea of free press. This isn't some AM I BEING DETAINED freeman on the land here, this is a journalist responding to stupid rear end poo poo by saying no he actually does have the right to take pictures in a public space. I'm sorry you think he has to play by the same rules as interviewing a drug lord I guess? I would hope we hold peaceful protesters to a higher standard than we do the dudes who cut people's heads off.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 05:33
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Even at private higher ed institutions, physically threatening a student is something that can get you immediately fired no matter if you're faculty or staff. Which is right and good. I still don't think that qualifies as the government restricting speech.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 05:34
|
|
|
Hulk Krogan posted:Which is right and good. I still don't think that qualifies as the government restricting speech. It's just a state paid employee restricting the press' access to public, state sponsored, land, that's all. Like, no she didn't tackle him and smash his camera I guess, but I think this is nothing but a state employee restricting the first amendment rights of a journalist. And again, she herself agrees with that, she says she was in the wrong. This isn't some crazy projection thing, she also has said she actually didn't have any right to impede the dude.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 05:37
|
|
|
Legally speaking if you are comfortable with the way those students and faculty were acting then you had better be comfortable with literally any other organization acting the same way. Just imagine klan robes instead of backpacks and remember that there is no legal distinction between the two.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 05:39
|
|
|
This country is racist and p hosed up imo
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 05:39
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Even at private higher ed institutions, physically threatening a student is something that can get you immediately fired no matter if you're faculty or staff. Correct. Also reminder, the leaders of the protest have apologized for the incident and issued guidelines to the people in the tent city to not do that again. Oh all things going on around the situation, this is likely the least important of them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 05:45
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:It's just a state paid employee restricting the press' access to public, state sponsored, land, that's all. Like, no she didn't tackle him and smash his camera I guess, but I think this is nothing but a state employee restricting the first amendment rights of a journalist. I guess I need to be clearer that I don't think she was in the right, at all. I don't think the students were right to be aggressive or to get physical. I believe I've mentioned all those things but hey, sometimes that gets lost in the shuffle. I'm glad she apologized/was fired and I'm glad the students have since decided to let the press in. My only point is that there are plenty of situations where journalists face much greater/more dangerous obstacles to reporting a story, and the way they usually get around that is by trying to sympathize with the subject and earn a measure of trust, not by arguing legality. Which, I think it's important to point out, the photographer in this case has sort of done - he's spoken out against students in the video receiving threats and has lamented the fact that other journalists have made him the story instead of the issues the students are protesting. The Kingfish posted:Legally speaking if you are comfortable with the way those students and faculty were acting then you had better be comfortable with literally any other organization acting the same way. Again, I'm not comfortable with the way the students were acting, but I think the reasons they acted that way (distrust of the press due to its handling of issues facing black Americans, for example) are the kind of thing journalism exists to explore, and when a large segment of the press utterly ignores that story in favor of "a reporter got shoved and also this is an example of creeping fascism" we're all the poorer for it. Hulk Krogan fucked around with this message at 05:49 on Nov 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 05:46
|
|
|
What I don't get is, that mean-rear end professor lady who was hassling the reporter stepped down, right? And the heads of #ConcernedStudent1950 have specifically told the protestors to be more welcoming towards the media, remember the First Amendment, etc.? AND the guy holding the camera has said that he doesn't want to be the center of the story, he wants the "systemic racism in higher ed institutions" to be the focus? So... why is that still the main subject of conversation?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 05:47
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:ah yes, a presidential term: exactly the same as the cumulative effects of a couple hundred years of american history You completely missed the point as usual. Someone's who's actually vulnerable may not be able to afford even four years of President Master Shake's concept of whose free speech is acceptable. As bad as things can be, they can always be worse. Don't open that Pandora's Box.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 05:49
|
|
PUGGERNAUT posted:What I don't get is, that mean-rear end professor lady who was hassling the reporter stepped down, right? And the heads of #ConcernedStudent1950 have specifically told the protestors to be more welcoming towards the media, remember the First Amendment, etc.? AND the guy holding the camera has said that he doesn't want to be the center of the story, he wants the "systemic racism in higher ed institutions" to be the focus? Because having to actually think about racism is hard.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 05:49
|
|
|
PUGGERNAUT posted:So... why is that still the main subject of conversation? Because people agree that the students have a legitimate grievance against the administration and that their demands are reasonable. Generally debate and discussion focuses on where there might be a disagreement.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 05:52
|
|
|
PUGGERNAUT posted:What I don't get is, that mean-rear end professor lady who was hassling the reporter stepped down, right? And the heads of #ConcernedStudent1950 have specifically told the protestors to be more welcoming towards the media, remember the First Amendment, etc.? AND the guy holding the camera has said that he doesn't want to be the center of the story, he wants the "systemic racism in higher ed institutions" to be the focus? Because going after students and crying "PC CENSORSHIP" is the hip, clickbait thing to do these days.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 05:52
|
|
|
PUGGERNAUT posted:What I don't get is, that mean-rear end professor lady who was hassling the reporter stepped down, right? And the heads of #ConcernedStudent1950 have specifically told the protestors to be more welcoming towards the media, remember the First Amendment, etc.? AND the guy holding the camera has said that he doesn't want to be the center of the story, he wants the "systemic racism in higher ed institutions" to be the focus? Again it's like the one dude who took a poo poo on a cop car at OWS, it's easier to say "AHA WE FOUND A BAD THING YOU DID ERGO NOTHING YOU SAY MATTERS" than acknowledge that a protest run by fuckin 18-21 year olds MAY be a little chaotic at times and sometimes have slips that the leaders have to say 'yea, stop that, idiots' to.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 05:52
|
|
|
Hulk Krogan posted:Police are agents of the state, college students protesting are not. Journalists are supposed to be adversarial with those in positions of authority, not people opposing authority. Also it's a journalists job to be adversarial to anyone. Nor should they automatically side with someone on the basis, alone, of them opposing nebulous authority. By your metric, the tea party shouldn't be critically looked at, in particularly their funding sources, because they're opposing people in power. Disinterested posted:Because having to actually think about racism is hard. Yup. Joementum posted:Because people agree that the students have a legitimate grievance against the administration and that their demands are reasonable. Do we all generally agree?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 05:53
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Do we all generally agree? I was speaking about D&D and, yes, I think there's general, though not unanimous, agreement that the students demands are reasonable here.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 05:56
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Because people agree that the students have a legitimate grievance against the administration and that their demands are reasonable. I'm not talking about here, I'm talking about in the actual media. Most articles I've seen reposted on Facebook have been all about Melissa Click, or how racism has never been officially proven to exist on campus because no one got pictures of anyone burning any crosses last night.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 05:56
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:You completely missed the point as usual. no, you misrepresented reality, as usual, so you could keep goin with your impassioned speech about the first amendment, since your thread died so you couldn't keep pretendin to want debate there also as usual your misrepresentation includes some "ah but the REAL oppressors" bullshit because god forbid you don't make an argument that involves the potential of oyu being the victim
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 06:09
|
|
|
Joementum posted:In which Mark Levin repeats the Drudge wig headline to Donald Trump and then Drudge links to an audio clip of it. Gotta include the image.  Drudge really prides himself on having the least flattering images of Hillary in existence.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 06:09
|
|
|
also considering you made a couple posts in the FREE SPEECH thread straight up saying "liberals are the real fascists" why don't you just come out and say that you're really worried about your rights as a white man
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 06:11
|
|
|
There's been racial incidents at the campus. In many of the cases involving students that were caught they were presumably punished for their actions. Recently there's been some racial incidents, one may not have involved students at all because it's not easy to track down a random group of guys pickup when that's all you have to go on. Then there was the incident where somebody drew a swastika on the wall with poop. Unless somebody saw something that's pretty hard to investigate as well. If anything people should feel sorry for the weird idiot who thought that this was their big statement. This is only notable because they brought the football team in and forced the president to resign. College sports are awful and have really hosed up academia in this country.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 06:12
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:why don't you just come out and say that you're really worried about your rights as a white man Mmm no. For that to be the case, I'd have to think hate speech laws have a snowball's chance of ever existing in America.  It is fun to call them dumb as poo poo though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 06:22
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Mmm no. For that to be the case, I'd have to think hate speech laws have a snowball's chance of ever existing in America. surprising nobody, DEM doesn't actually want to debate free speech, just preach about commie fascists who want to take it away (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 06:24
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Because people agree that the students have a legitimate grievance against the administration and that their demands are reasonable. It's pretty remarkable that D&D has a consensus on this, because most Missourians I've talked to firmly believe the demands are unreasonable. Edit: To phrase this in a way D&D will understand, I'm making a comment about the overton window.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 06:26
|
|
|
Casimir Radon posted:There's been racial incidents at the campus. In many of the cases involving students that were caught they were presumably punished for their actions. Recently there's been some racial incidents, one may not have involved students at all because it's not easy to track down a random group of guys pickup when that's all you have to go on. Then there was the incident where somebody drew a swastika on the wall with poop. Unless somebody saw something that's pretty hard to investigate as well. If anything people should feel sorry for the weird idiot who thought that this was their big statement. This is only notable because they brought the football team in and forced the president to resign. College sports are awful and have really hosed up academia in this country. Reread this post and just look at all the arbitrary assumptions you've made here
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 07:38
|
|
|
stinkles1112 posted:Reread this post and just look at all the arbitrary assumptions you've made here A pickup truck speeds by and an occupant screams a racial slur at you. You don't have time to get a license plate number so at best you remember make, model, color, and possibly what the occupants looked like. No one else saw what happened. It's reasonable to assume that unless you happen to see it parked around school that finding the culprits is going to be largely impossible. Someone paints a swastika on the wall with poo poo. No one saw it happen, and the culprit wasn't caught on camera. Do you have any idea how often items stolen on a college campus are recovered, more often then not they aren't and the thieves aren't caught for the same reasons that the racists above weren't caught.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 08:05
|
|
|
Casimir Radon posted:The Yale one is basically idiots blowing up about hypothetical offensive Halloween costumes, never saw anything about actual costumes. A faculty member sends an email stating that maybe we could try actually talking to each other and perhaps learning from each other in college instead of instantly wrangling together a Twitter outrage mob at the first glance of a perceived slight. So they demand she and her husband be removed from their advisory posts, and probably lose their jobs. Cause who actually wants to learn anything in college? So are you just pulling this completely out of your rear end? I'm sorry, but what part of a university email suggesting that students think about Halloween costumes and avoid the kinds of racist costumes/parties that end up in Gawker every year counts as "idiots blowing up about hypothetical offensive Halloween costumes?" Here's the completely absurd, over-the-top email that the university sent that was clearly just a bunch of idiots blowing up on Twitter. http://pastebin.com/TLGSdaTg And Erika Christakis' email was hardly a reasonable plea for everyone to talk about racism and learn from each other. It essentially says that it's okay to be just a little racist at Halloween because kids will be kids, that racist costumes (the Yale email specifically mentions blackface) should just be ignored, and is massively disingenuous in how it presents a perfectly reasonable call for students to not be racist shits as some sort of diktat from above. Oh, and also she's really good at doing Indian accents! http://pastebin.com/egSQGfgK It's fine to say that Christakis' lovely, whiny email shouldn't be a fireable offense, but it's kinda silly to pretend that all she did was question some sort of evil Twitter mob.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 09:12
|
|
|
Naked Lincoln posted:So are you just pulling this completely out of your rear end? I'm sorry, but what part of a university email suggesting that students think about Halloween costumes and avoid the kinds of racist costumes/parties that end up in Gawker every year counts as "idiots blowing up about hypothetical offensive Halloween costumes?" Here's the completely absurd, over-the-top email that the university sent that was clearly just a bunch of idiots blowing up on Twitter. http://pastebin.com/TLGSdaTg There aren't any reports of actual offensive costumes at Yale, just people blowing up about the idea of them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 09:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 02:36 |
|
|
You are very dumb. It was a general thing and it got "blown up" because people got mad someone said maybe spend two seconds considering others and did the pc gone mad act.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 09:55
|
|