So in other words, mildly racists comments are OK, as long as the N word is not used. Is there really anything left to say between you and I?
Really? Says who? And who is the arbiter, in a debate, of seriousness?
Your definition lets anyone off the hook by a simple declaration of “oh, but I was only joking”.
If peer pressure were enough, the problem(s) wouldn’t exist, would it? (Do you follow my logic?)
Not once have I said that they’re ok. Not once. So since you refuse to debate what I’m actually saying, then no, there isn’t really anything left to be said between us.
So what is the difference between not doing anything about a problem and thinking it is ok. I mean, in terms of results.
Micro aggression is the next logical step in devaluing claims of actual bad behavior. Similar to calling everything under the sun racism, sexist, or some other bullshit for no reason, it weakens claims of actual bad behavior in a race to become the latest victim.
Mockery is what is called for.
Rush Limbaugh uses that excuse all the time…and then goes right on making serious accusations.
It’s like many other aesthetic distinctions: only you can make the decision. Where does erotic art stop and pornography begin? The fact that no one can define the boundaries doesn’t prove that the two are the same.
You’re falling into the logical error of “drawing the line.” Exactly how many hairs may a man have on his head and still be accounted a “bald man?”
True. And thus, the problem will probably always exist, or at least as long as freedom of speech exists.
Your attempts to paraphrase or restate another’s position are really poor, dude. Like terribly bad. So bad they seem disconnected from anything at all, much less reality. Just, the worst.
You’re being too literal here. Mockery is not a strawman argument. That was what LhoD was engaged in. Who decides? The reader does. And since he explicitly said he wasn’t seriously attributing an argument to ITR that wasn’t made it’s easy enough to take it at face value.
It’s also easy to take it at face value because I talked about students with pitchforks and torches. The idea that I was seriously attributing fears of being impaled by a three-pronged farm tool to ITR is beyond ludicrous.
It’s heartening, I guess, that this is the strongest opposition John can make to what I say–just as it’s heartening that ITR’s response is to say, confronted with the absurdity of blaming today’s college students for violence by referencing decades-old splashes, that technically it falls under the legal definition of violence.
Fuck that technical legal definition. It was a terrible description of what happened, and I believe you know that.
I agree with the title of the thread.
Today’s college campus libs and progressives are not interested in free speech, only approved speech. We approve of what you say, then you can say it. If not we will shut you down any way possible. This whole micro aggression bullshit is just another way to do so.
The main problem here is with your attribution of the phenomenon to liberals. The real offenses are perpetrated by powerful Republicans.
Or take this example:
I know about these ones because they’re in my state. I certainly hope that my state’s Republicans are way shittier than Republicans elsewhere, that this sort of attempt to shut down critics and to stifle academic freedom is only happening here. I’m not much of an optimist.
So you think objecting to the following examples is “bullshit”:
“You are a credit to your race.”
“Wow! How did you become so good in math?”
A White man or woman clutches his/her purse or checks wallet as a Black or Latino person approaches.
A store owner following a customer of color around the store.
Someone crosses to the other side of the street to avoid a person of color.
Continuing the theme of “you’re after the wrong assholes,” look at Arkansas State Senator Jason Rapert of Arkansas:
Lest someone point out that state senators are always crazy motherfuckers, let me remind you: so are college students. The difference is that state senators have some actual power.
It’s a long list. Some things on it are offensive, some are annoying, some are understandable preconceptions, some are idiotic and some are bullshit.
I agree that some/many of the examples are hard to comprehend/agree with, but, I still try to be sensitive and aware of issues that people say bother/offend them. There are people who see racism “behind every corner” but it’s not really my place, I think, to determine which complaints are valid and which are not. I’m not saying I approve of people exaggerating claims of racism, I’m just more focused on the claims that I feel are valid, which, I feel are the majority of the claims. In other words, to focus on a few outlying examples when there is so much that is legitimately offensive is really an indication that people want to try to dismiss the issue as a whole.
All of the situations I read of the college campus speech police are situations of libs/progressives shutting down conservatives. My apologies Left Hand on not keeping up with the news concerning North Carolina college campus’s and was not aware of the examples you speak of.
To me free speech applies to all and the ones who not like it, on the right or the left, can choose to walk away and not hear it.
It’s important to note that the “speech police” you’re talking about have no actual power, and don’t actually succeed in shutting down conservatives. The reason that’s what you read about is because it’s especially faddish to attack college kids now, and it props up the stupid narrative of college kids threatening free speech, a narrative that’s been ongoing for at least a quarter century.
The real threats to free speech on campus don’t come from undergrads. They come from legislators.
Isn’t that basically all we can do?
Most of these issues come from people being ignorant about what some ‘category of other’ find offensive. Usually just because they haven’t had any social intercourse with them before.
The ‘purse clutching’ category is hurtful but what can you do?
Charge the woman that crosses the street, when a man approaches? With what?
With being afraid?
Actually, we do seem to live in a society that seems to have grown more afraid, and of more things, than before.