All I did was engage with a hypothetical of “what if a conservative university banned the word “abortion”?”, this does not entail I thought that “picnic” was banned by Brandeis.
Indeed if you read the rest of my comments I’m very clear that I always assume that PC articles are complete bullshit until reading the actual referenced data, and this thread is no exception.
The point was simply even if we were talking about outright avoiding words I wouldn’t give a shit.
There is no evidence that this list had not been subjected to critical thought, that it is not continually subjected to critical thought, or that it was encouraged (by whom?) only because the thoughts seem progressive.
That’s all you kind of making up a context for this that supports your belief that . . . I’m not quite sure what. That no entity that is part of a university should ever say (or make space for students to say) anything that isn’t vetted through QuickSilver’s “is this too progressive” algorithm?
An anti-violence center on campus posted a list of student suggestions for folks who might be interested in those kinds of suggestions, clearly labeled as such What is your alternative that would have made this appropriate in your eyes?
What does “racist or misogynist” content have to do with anything?
Tell me why you think racist content doesn’t belong on a university website; I’d be shocked if you could manage to explain how this content and racist/misogynist content are related, or are deserving of the same level of attention, scrutiny, or censorship.
Regardless of whether or not this list is of any use, there is nothing, um, anti-anybody? socially problematic? . . . about this list, or its suggested use. I’m still not understanding why “something on a website belonging to Brandeis university seems to me like there wasn’t critical analysis put into it” pings your “shouldn’t have said it” is somehow translating into what seems to be a position that somehow the university should do something to limit this kind of un-analyzed (according to you) language from its student body.
Which oversight body is going to comb through all content produced by all departments and organizations affiliated with a university? What is going to trigger that oversight body to step in and block this content or content like it?
What does “being responsible” for this content mean? “We, at Brandeis do affirm that students involved with Brandeis PARC made this list of suggestions for non-violent language that they thought might be helpful to some.” seems reasonable to me. Are you suggesting some kind of “We at Brandeis apologize that Brandeis PARC printed suggestions from students that not everyone agrees with. It won’t happen again, we pinky-swear”?
Bottom line “Brandeis” didn’t say anyone should or shouldn’t say anything. Students involved with PARC came up with a list of non-violent language alternatives and a little explanation about why each thing was on the list.
Who did something wrong? Who told anyone what to do? Who threatened anyone’s freedom of speech? Who indoctrinated anyone?
Given the facts, what do you suggest should have happened so that this harmful page on the website would not have ever seen the light of day?
And, how do we find all the other “well meaning but lacking in critical analysis” student voices on websites around universities and get that content taken off the web, before the Washington Examiner writes a false story on it and drives more people into the arms of Republicans?
You win. You can build strawmen …errr… vegetation based gender-agnostic non-sentient human facsimiles faster than I could possibly knock them down.
Be well.
Well, you quoted Velocity’s statement:
. . . and said “This analysis rings quite true though”.
Fine, you’re engaging in the hypothetical. But you are accepting as fact the position that some university somewhere (and Brandeis specifically) has suggested ditching the term picnic.
My whole point is that no one has shown that any university has done so.
If I called up Brandeis prior to right-wing media picking this up and writing lies as news and asked: “what is the university’s position on appropriate language, and can you give me a list of words that Brandies suggests I stop saying,” no one would have any fucking idea what I was talking about.
Accepting the idea that a "university ditched the term ‘picnic’ " even happened turns the strawman into a real boy.
I was saying that the analysis rings true; i.e. the reason why many people latch on to this stuff uncritically, and then, get genuinely angry about something with no basis in truth (like that parent crying about critical race theory). I did not mean to suggest that the idea that the University actually said that was true.
Anyway, in order to get this thread back on track let me hereby reject and/or renounce the view that Brandeis ever banned (or discouraged the use of) any words.
Woohoo! I win!
But seriously, I know I’m a wordy SOB, but bottom line, I don’t understand what you think Brandeis should have done differently. I don’t understand what you think PARC should have done differently. I don’t understand what you think the students who gave input into this list should have done differently other than some version of “be smarter”.
“We libs shoot ourselves in the foot” is only meaningful when someone has actually done something unreasonable, or presents something with an attitude problem. Who shot themselves in the foot here?
You know what feels like “libs shooting themselves in the foot”? When presented with a semi-fabricated story from right-wing media that makes a mountain out of a bump on the side of a mole hill, a swarm of left-of-center people jump on the “liberals are too crazy for their own good” train, assuming that the problem is the mole hill and not the mountain.
This story turned quickly into a thread of liberals talking about how dumb liberals are, based on facts mis-represented in the original story.
If we don’t stop and firmly refute any attempt to view the story as true, then it becomes one other example of “liberal universities policing language.” Which did not happen. We allow this story to become that when we spend time talking about how this document shouldn’t have been printed, or that in a hypothetical where universities police language in a way lied about by this article, they shouldn’t do it.
The appropriate answer to this article is: “It claims things that are easily refutable and wildly untrue,” not “here liberals go again, shooting themselves in the foot.”
We are never going to figure out a way to be in the world that right-wing media won’t be able to come up with convincing lies about. We should fight the lies, not complain that in a country of 300+ million people someone somewhere said something harmless but maybe not well thought out.
This is demonstrably wrong. People (myself included) took time to review the BU PARC site and criticize the content they found there WHILE also criticizing the news article.
I understand why. It’s about class, and cultural power, but I don’t know how to explain it so you’ll understand.
Insults now? What the hell?
That wasn’t supposed to be an insult. I’ve tried to explain before and it didn’t work, so I’m not optimistic about my ability to do it.
Well, obviously we’re going to agree to disagree on this (and @Mijin as well), but I’m not trying to pick a fight, so I’ll leave it be, with one last clarification about my thoughts:
I believe that the line between “criticizing the content” and “criticizing the decision to make the content public” is hopelessly and inappropriately blurred in most of the opinions put forth in this thread.
I also believe that every opinion piece and article I’ve read on this issue tell the lie that Brandeis “wants” its student body to adopt all of the language suggestions because it makes it easier to use this as to support the “truth” that liberals, as epitomized by the university, are out of touch with reality. (also, it’s quite convenient that not a single “reporter” reached out to PARC or Brandeis about this page or its intent. All quoted material I can find is just lifted from the page itself).
And, lastly, I believe that it is 100% appropriate for PARC to have created and shared this list, which is a living document that “is meant to be a tool to share information and suggestions about potentially oppressive language,” not a proscriptive set of instructions about what people should or shouldn’t say Here’s a little more context about this document. The conversation happens when people and organizations are transparent about their processes and their thoughts, which is exactly what sharing this document accomplished. It’s appropriate, and I’d even say an implied element of this document, that not everyone will agree with everything on it, and that it should change with critical input. It is inappropriate to suggest that PARC should not have opened up this tool until the list met some unstated standard of correctness. That shuts down the conversation before it is allowed to begin.
It’s easy to understand.
They consume media that lies to them, and they believe the lies.
Now, that gets down to why they have made the choice of media that is known to lie to them, and why they believe those lies, but that’s less about class and cultural power, and more about a need to feel vindicated in their self martyrdom.
I appreciate the thoughtful and considerate conversation.
I also hope that the BU PARC students and staff will hear the constructive criticism they’ve surly received in the spirit that it is meant and will course correct in future updates of their advocacy.
Surely you mean surely.
I told you not to call me that!
The moderators on this very board have recently mod-noted posts for casually using the words “thug”, “Greaser”, and “Gypsy”. A while back, we had the much debated banning over the word “harpy”.
I’ll be all over the mods when they start banning “picnic” instead of banning hate speech. And, the banning wasn’t over the word “harpy” – that’s utter bollocks.
Technically, it was. It’s just that “harpy” was the last straw in a long series of straws. The guy wouldn’t have been banned if harpy were the first offense.
Power over language is power over thought. Those in power are keen to keep it by the control of language. Why do you think silly and disingenuous actions and accusations are employed over certain language? Why do you think we are seeing an increase in illiberal rhetoric among the left? It’s part of a long game to undermine individual rights.
I hear it used in sports, usually to describe dirty players, regardless of race. (Especially in hockey.) Like, “Tom Wilson is a total thug.”
I also had a cat named Gypsy – I named her after a character on MST3K.