most Americans think too many people are easily offended

[Dan '82]

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/201...-offended/

Quote:[url=http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/07/20/in-political-correctness-debate-most-americans-think-too-many-people-are-easily-offended/#comments][/url]
At a time when the appropriateness of language has become a political issue, most Americans (59%) say “too many people are easily offended these days over the language that others use.” Fewer (39%) think “people need to be more careful about the language they use to avoid offending people with different backgrounds.”

A new national survey by Pew Research Center finds substantial partisan, racial and gender differences on this question...

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/201...-offended/

[Eric the Green]

I can think of one person who posts here that is "too easily offended."

[Kinser79]

(08-03-2016, 09:05 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(08-03-2016, 02:54 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I can think of one person who posts here that is "too easily offended."

Easily offended or notices you consistently do not consider other people's feelings hmm?

Obviously isn't me.  I'd have to consider Eric's opinions worthy of consideration first before I could possibly be offended by them.  That said he has no consideration for the feelings of others or for their thoughts/values (which to me is far more important--feelings are ephemeral).

Then again Eric is a solipsist.

That being said I think the problem isn't what X-mox..fuck it Alphabet Soup...thinks it is.  I think most Americans who answered the poll are offended by the perpetually offended.  That these perpetually offended folks primarily live on what passes for a left (meaning Regressive Leftists rather than actual liberals--most people in the US are at least liberals in the sense of being classical liberals) in the US it totally explains why Republicans and Independents voted the way they did in the poll.

[MillsT_98]

(08-04-2016, 12:49 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(08-03-2016, 11:31 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(08-03-2016, 09:05 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(08-03-2016, 02:54 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I can think of one person who posts here that is "too easily offended."

Easily offended or notices you consistently do not consider other people's feelings hmm?

Obviously isn't me.  I'd have to consider Eric's opinions worthy of consideration first before I could possibly be offended by them.  That said he has no consideration for the feelings of others or for their thoughts/values (which to me is far more important--feelings are ephemeral).

Then again Eric is a solipsist.

That being said I think the problem isn't what X-mox..fuck it Alphabet Soup...thinks it is.  I think most Americans who answered the poll are offended by the perpetually offended.  That these perpetually offended folks primarily live on what passes for a left (meaning Regressive Leftists rather than actual liberals--most people in the US are at least liberals in the sense of being classical liberals) in the US it totally explains why Republicans and Independents voted the way they did in the poll.

What are the characteristics and policies of the regressive leftists? Sorry, not aware of them due to the fact I am a foreigner. Never heard of such a thing in my own country.

It's just Kinser's term for progressives. I'm pretty sure you have politicians like that in New Zealand?

[Odin]

(08-04-2016, 12:49 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(08-03-2016, 11:31 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(08-03-2016, 09:05 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(08-03-2016, 02:54 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I can think of one person who posts here that is "too easily offended."

Easily offended or notices you consistently do not consider other people's feelings hmm?

Obviously isn't me.  I'd have to consider Eric's opinions worthy of consideration first before I could possibly be offended by them.  That said he has no consideration for the feelings of others or for their thoughts/values (which to me is far more important--feelings are ephemeral).

Then again Eric is a solipsist.

That being said I think the problem isn't what X-mox..fuck it Alphabet Soup...thinks it is.  I think most Americans who answered the poll are offended by the perpetually offended.  That these perpetually offended folks primarily live on what passes for a left (meaning Regressive Leftists rather than actual liberals--most people in the US are at least liberals in the sense of being classical liberals) in the US it totally explains why Republicans and Independents voted the way they did in the poll.

What are the characteristics and policies of the regressive leftists? Sorry, not aware of them due to the fact I am a foreigner. Never heard of such a thing in my own country.

"Regressive Leftist" is a far-right buzzword meaning anyone who gives a shit about folks who are not white men.

[Kinser79]

(08-04-2016, 12:49 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(08-03-2016, 11:31 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(08-03-2016, 09:05 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(08-03-2016, 02:54 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I can think of one person who posts here that is "too easily offended."

Easily offended or notices you consistently do not consider other people's feelings hmm?

Obviously isn't me.  I'd have to consider Eric's opinions worthy of consideration first before I could possibly be offended by them.  That said he has no consideration for the feelings of others or for their thoughts/values (which to me is far more important--feelings are ephemeral).

Then again Eric is a solipsist.

That being said I think the problem isn't what X-mox..fuck it Alphabet Soup...thinks it is.  I think most Americans who answered the poll are offended by the perpetually offended.  That these perpetually offended folks primarily live on what passes for a left (meaning Regressive Leftists rather than actual liberals--most people in the US are at least liberals in the sense of being classical liberals) in the US it totally explains why Republicans and Independents voted the way they did in the poll.

What are the characteristics and policies of the regressive leftists? Sorry, not aware of them due to the fact I am a foreigner. Never heard of such a thing in my own country.

This video should explain the concept in a nutshell.  For the record the narator and owner of this Channel is Irish and not American.  While they are most virulent in the US and UK they exist in Ireland, Austraila and probably do in NZ.

That said, you can just look at Odin.  He is a quentessential Regressive Lefitst. Also it should be noted that the term was coined by Sam Harris who is hardly a conservative.

@Alphabet Soup

The horseshoe theory of politics is bullshit.

[Ragnarök_62]

(08-04-2016, 08:50 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: That said, you can just look at Odin.  He is a quentessential Regressive Lefitst.  Also it should be noted that the term was coined by Sam Harris who is hardly a conservative.

@Alphabet Soup

The horseshoe theory of politics is bullshit.

Hmmm.... Rags supports assigning SJW's and radical feminists very high draft numbers so they can go be with their friends in the Mideast.   That's 'cause we need to address past discrimination against folks who had/have 2 balls and a dick on their crotch.

[Eric the Green]

Regressive liberal and regressive leftist seems like different terms. A liberal is more moderately on the left than a leftist.

Of course the sentiments expressed in my favorite rock song are familiar to me; how the new boss can become like the old boss. The despotism of liberty; the dictatorship of the proletariat; well-known phenomenon in history.

I take offense at Taramarie taking offense at me, and the way she does it. But, MY taking offense is my problem.

5. Free speech must come with no caveat. I agree. Although I tend to think there is such a thing as a hate crime.

4. I am more "regressive" in his terms, which he exaggerates. His views on this item are typically conservative, ethno-centric, and deceptive. This is Clarence Thomas nonsense. I don't want any "ethnic cleansing" against my own race and gender, of course. That is just his exaggerated view of affirmative action. To deny that there are groups that have been oppressed and still need to have opportunities opened up, is just a right-wing point of view. A preview of his #1.

3. I don't engage in this one too much, although kinser might think that I do. But he is himself a good example of #3.

2. No, not me; regulations yes; but no bans unless by consensus. But I think there's good consensus for banning "smacking a child" if it hurts the child. Child abuse should not be allowed. Some behavior needs to be illegal; sure!

1. He exaggerates liberal views into a straw man in order to knock them. On the whole, yes, I am "regressive" in his terms, though again, not to the degree that he would label me as. On the whole, he is wrong on #1, and he's just another conservative denouncing liberal positions, not an "intellectual" and certainly not a liberal denouncing "regressive" liberal positions. No, he is the regressive. SJWs would certainly have much grounds for calling him a racist. Such labels are problematic. But "Multi-culturalism is ruining The West?" That is a truly regressive idea, because there ain't no "West" anymore, and it needs to go away anyway as a separate identity. We are one people on one planet, and need to learn from all "races," peoples and traditions and not try to build walls to block out the "reality" flooding in all around us. That's "reality." This guy is probably voting for Donald Trump. No "rational intellectual" he

[Eric the Green]

(08-04-2016, 08:50 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: That said, you can just look at Odin.  He is a quintessential Regressive Leftist. Also it should be noted that the term was coined by Sam Harris who is hardly a conservative.

No, labels for people here don't fit. Knocking other posters here is not the purpose of this forum. Sam Harris though is certainly an atheist and a materialist, so he could be considered not too conscious of reality on that account. He's not dumb. But certainly I wouldn't trust any term that he coins.

Quote:The horseshoe theory of politics is bullshit.

As usual, the opposite from what kinser says is the truth. No, it's correct. Actually, it's a full circle, or a grid; adopted now by the many writers of the many online questionnaires we have shared here.

[Eric the Green]

(08-05-2016, 12:06 AM)taramarie Wrote: You are not considerate of others Eric. That is what concerns me. You want to drink and smoke etc i do not care. You want to race around in a car or believe in magical unicorns i do not care although i will think you are stupid. But if you hurt other people, i do have a problem with that. It is bullying. I stand up to bullies because i was bullied. That is the difference between me and authoritarians. You can say whatever you want but crossing the line for me is to bully or be intolerant of different tastes in music or thinking groping is ok regardless of how another feels about being touched that way. Just a couple of examples. The problem between us is the insensitivity.

There you go again. But note again you are so eager to criticize people, that you jump on me before I can have a chance to rephrase or reconsider my statement and edit it. How you manage to do that is amazing, but it just shows how fanatical you are about it.

I am not intolerant of different tastes in music. I have a different theory of aesthetics than the usual post-modern idea that you adopt in order to defend your own tastes, and I have opinions about which "music" is actually good music and which isn't, which should not offend anyone, but which others are free and entitled to disagree with.

But however you criticize me, you can depend on kinser to back you up!

[Eric the Green]

(08-03-2016, 10:11 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(08-03-2016, 12:52 AM)Dan Wrote: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/201...-offended/

Quote:[url=http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/07/20/in-political-correctness-debate-most-americans-think-too-many-people-are-easily-offended/#comments][/url]
At a time when the appropriateness of language has become a political issue, most Americans (59%) say “too many people are easily offended these days over the language that others use.” Fewer (39%) think “people need to be more careful about the language they use to avoid offending people with different backgrounds.”

A new national survey by Pew Research Center finds substantial partisan, racial and gender differences on this question...

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/201...-offended/

There is a big difference between outright offensive language and subtly hurtful exclusive language. I'm highly trained in this as part of my career. In order to effectively lead, one must use inclusive language or at worst, a neutral language that is not exclusive. This is one of the tools used to achieve high engagement. The alternative is disengagement which may range from not reaching full potential to outright working against the goals of the organization. There is an art to this. I realize many less developed people (who dominated the survey response) don't have a clue about this. That's why some of us lead and many follow.

Interesting point to consider.

[Eric the Green]

(08-04-2016, 11:29 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: Being a Stalinist, Kinser is so far to the Left he ended up on the (true) Far Right.

It does happen that way.

[Ragnarök_62]

Eric The Green Wrote:Regressive liberal and regressive leftist seems like different terms. A liberal is more moderately on the left than a leftist.

Eh, I'm not interested in either term above.  The one I am interested in is the "Social Justice Warrior" type. Folks of this specific type have the same attributes as the "regressive leftist".  A "liberal" or plain "leftist" aren't in the same set as said SJW's.

Quote:Of course the sentiments expressed in my favorite rock song are familiar to me; how the new boss can become like the old boss. The despotism of liberty; the dictatorship of the proletariat; well-known phenomenon in history.

Yes, pretty much.

Quote:Taramarie is an authoritarian, because she feels entitled to determine for everyone who hurts whose feelings, and who is entitled to take offense over what.

I'll take a pass here. I have no dog in that fight.

Quote:5. Free speech must come with no caveat. I agree. Although I tend to think there is such a thing as a hate crime.

If the definition of "hate crime" applies to any subset of humans, sure.

Quote:4. I am more "regressive" in his terms, which he exaggerates. His views on this item are typically conservative, ethno-centric, and deceptive. This is Clarence Thomas nonsense. I don't want any "ethnic cleansing" against my own race and gender, of course. That is just his exaggerated view of affirmative action. To deny that there are groups that have been oppressed and still need to have opportunities opened up, is just a right-wing point of view. A preview of his #1.

Uh, when does affirmative action end?  Can it be expanded with new technology like DNA testing?

Quote:3. I don't engage in this one too much, although kinser might think that I do. But he is himself a good example of #3.

I have no dog in this fight either.

Quote:2. No, not me; regulations yes; but no bans unless by consensus.

The 1st amendment shouldn't be abridged unless the expression thereof causes some sort of harm.  The obvious examples of shouting fire in a crowded spot, incitement to riot, slander, etc. are obvious.  Plain ad-homs shouldn't be banned, unless like this place due to group acceptance as a requisite to being here.  Stuff like "triggers" is just plain silly. Perhaps a collection should be taken for Linus blankets and binkies is warranted?

Quote:1. He exaggerates liberal views into a straw man in order to knock them. On the whole, yes, I am "regressive" in his terms, though again, not to the degree that he would label me as. On the whole, he is wrong on #1, and he's just another conservative denouncing liberal positions, not an "intellectual" and certainly not a liberal denouncing "regressive" liberal positions. No, he is the regressive. SJWs would certainly have much grounds for calling him a racist. Such labels are problematic. But "Multi-culturalism is ruining The West?" That is a truly regressive idea, because there ain't no "West" anymore, and it needs to go away anyway as a separate identity. We are one people on one planet, and need to learn from all "races," peoples and traditions and not try to build walls to block out the "reality" flooding in all around us. That's "reality." This guy is probably voting for Donald Trump. No "rational intellectual" he

What happens when "race" becomes a mish/mash?  I think both David Duke and Rev. Sharpton need to take a DNA test and make the results public, man.   Maybe I'll get lucky and the results for one or both will make 'em shut up.

[Eric the Green]

(08-05-2016, 12:36 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(08-05-2016, 12:18 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(08-05-2016, 12:06 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(08-04-2016, 11:52 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Regressive liberal and regressive leftist seems like different terms. A liberal is more moderately on the left than a leftist.

Of course the sentiments expressed in my favorite rock song are familiar to me; how the new boss can become like the old boss. The despotism of liberty; the dictatorship of the proletariat; well-known phenomenon in history.

Taramarie is an authoritarian, because she feels entitled to determine for everyone who hurts whose feelings, and who is entitled to take offense over what.

5. Free speech must come with no caveat. I agree. Although I tend to think there is such a thing as a hate crime.

4. I am more "regressive" in his terms, which he exaggerates. His views on this item are typically conservative, ethno-centric, and deceptive. This is Clarence Thomas nonsense. I don't want any "ethnic cleansing" against my own race and gender, of course. That is just his exaggerated view of affirmative action. To deny that there are groups that have been oppressed and still need to have opportunities opened up, is just a right-wing point of view. A preview of his #1.

3. I don't engage in this one too much, although kinser might think that I do. But he is himself a good example of #3.

2. No, not me; regulations yes; but no bans unless by consensus.

1. He exaggerates liberal views into a straw man in order to knock them. On the whole, yes, I am "regressive" in his terms, though again, not to the degree that he would label me as. On the whole, he is wrong on #1, and he's just another conservative denouncing liberal positions, not an "intellectual" and certainly not a liberal denouncing "regressive" liberal positions. No, he is the regressive. SJWs would certainly have much grounds for calling him a racist. Such labels are problematic. But "Multi-culturalism is ruining The West?" That is a truly regressive idea, because there ain't no "West" anymore, and it needs to go away anyway as a separate identity. We are one people on one planet, and need to learn from all "races," peoples and traditions and not try to build walls to block out the "reality" flooding in all around us. That's "reality." This guy is probably voting for Donald Trump. No "rational intellectual" he

You are not considerate of others Eric. That is what concerns me. You want to drink and smoke etc i do not care. You want to race around in a car or believe in magical unicorns i do not care although i will think you are stupid. But if you hurt other people, i do have a problem with that. It is bullying. I stand up to bullies because i was bullied. That is the difference between me and authoritarians. You can say whatever you want but crossing the line for me is to bully or be intolerant of different tastes in music or thinking groping is ok regardless of how another feels about being touched that way. Just a couple of examples. The problem between us is the insensitivity.

There you go again. But note again you are so eager to criticize people, that you jump on me before I can have a chance to rephrase or reconsider my statement and edit it. How you manage to do that is amazing, but it just shows how fanatical you are about it.

I am not intolerant of different tastes in music. I have a different theory of aesthetics than the usual post-modern idea that you adopt in order to defend your own tastes, and I have opinions about which "music" is actually good music and which isn't, which should not offend anyone, but which others are free and entitled to disagree with.

Consider what you say before you post it then. I care about including everyone and not judging their tastes or ideas (unless it hurts others). THAT is the exception. I am actually not just defending my tastes. I actually do not like all music that is posted yet i stand back and look at it objectively to find what others like in it whether it is the music or the lyrics or even a memory. Because that is being accepting and part of what we were taught to do in the degree course. I am not disputing that you should not be free to express displeasure over certain music. But to say culture is wrong/should be a certain way to your liking/noise is for boys (boise)/people should like complimentary touching (as another example) is all intolerance of those who like something you do not as well as not caring how others feel. What is wrong about simply saying i do not like it? Or with the other case ok society does not like certain touching. I should be respectful and respect that it is not acceptable? It could be because you are a boomer who wants to change the culture to your liking. But along the way is the collateral damage and those who you do not accept (unacceptable music/culture and its followers) will be pushed aside or preferably changed. Why otherwise would you say it is wrong and should sound different (does not have to sound angry) etc if you did not want to change it? I thought lefties were supposed to be accepting of all differences?

How you approach music is up to you; I have no dog in that fight, as Rags might say But you cannot impose on me your views of how to approach music.

Yes, I can say culture should be a certain way. I could only wish that I could "impose" it on anyone. I obviously can't, and fortunately I don't want to do any more than express my opinions.

You can learn to respect that I have a different opinion about music and about touching than you do. I certainly did not and do not agree with you that kinser had the right to punch someone out because he saw someone groping. That's what that earlier discussion was about.

[Eric the Green]

(08-05-2016, 12:48 AM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: Eh, I'm not interested in either term above.  The one I am interested in is the "Social Justice Warrior" type. Folks of this specific type have the same attributes as the "regressive leftist".  A "liberal" or plain "leftist" aren't in the same set as said SJW's.

A better term might be "oppressive leftist." An SJW isn't really regressive; but some of them may be oppressive in the way they behave and talk at times.

Quote:I'll take a pass here. I have no dog in that fight.

I thank you

Quote:What happens when "race" becomes a mish/mash?  I think both David Duke and Rev. Sharpton need to take a DNA test and make the results public, man.   Maybe I'll get lucky and the results for one or both will make 'em shut up.

Indeed; that's the thing. Just as "The West" is becoming irrelevant as something to defend and keep pure, the races are blending over time, and lots of Americans already have some of those "other" races in their DNA. I don't think I do myself; maybe I could have used some

[Kinser79]

(08-04-2016, 10:59 PM)taramarie Wrote: Ah that was a very interesting video. Yes we have regressive leftists here in NZ. Banning drugs, attempting to ban cigarettes (smoke free campaign), making chipping your pets compulsory, forcing us to stop using our fires unless we upgrade our fireplace to allow "cleaner smoke" whatever the hell that is. Banning smacking a child. Forcing parents to watch their kids at all times till 16. Talk of banning alcohol. Of course some Americans probably think it is crazy it is illegal to carry a gun around with you depending where in America they come from. An American on the radio said he thinks NZ is draconian and he is going back to America. To Los Angeles.

Of all of those things, I can only possibly agree with one, and that is the limitation of corporal punishment of children. Of course then again, I also support Stefan Molyneux's views on "Peaceful Parenting" as an alternative to corporal punishment.

[Odin]

(08-04-2016, 08:50 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Also it should be noted that the term was coined by Sam Harris who is hardly a conservative.

But Sam Harris IS an Islamophobic imperialist bigot who invented the term to justify his Islamophobia.

[Eric the Green]

(08-06-2016, 02:24 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(08-06-2016, 01:54 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(08-05-2016, 03:33 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(08-05-2016, 12:33 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(08-05-2016, 12:19 AM)taramarie Wrote: Wait...you tell kinser to not label someone a quintessential regressive leftist, yet isn't labeling Sam Harris an atheist and materialist essentially labeling someone too?

No, these are terms he adopts for himself.

You on the other hand label me a "bully," when that term more properly applies to yourself.

Ok so you have been editing your posts. Eric, you are a bully. It is a label based on truth. A person who would rather we change to suit you whether it be to prefer what you deem is music or ok touching. Someone who knows he cannot physically force people to change culturally to suit him so he berates till it sticks. If anyone is upset that they are being berated it is the wrong attitude and they are in the wrong....apparently. Classic bully tactic. That is why i call you one. Sad part is i genuinely think you really do not think it is wrong. Do not inappropriately touch people. They do not like it and we should be sensitive to how they feel. It is their body so respect it. Likewise, culture should not change just because you do not like it. The world does not revolve around you. It includes many people and we should be respectful of that. There will be differences and those differences can allow us to see or hear in a way we never had considered before.

It is ludicrous to consider me a "bully." I merely am frank with my opinions. If you call people names like that, it is you who are the bully. pot kettle black. And you are a gangster, because you try to get support from others for your bullying. I do not approve of kinser punching someone out who he thinks is groping someone, and groping should not be illegal unless harrassing or violent. End of story. That is not bullying; it is my opinion. So, stop bullying people Taramarie. I've a right to express my opinions. I will continue to do it.

I cannot help it if people agree with me.It would be gangster behaviour if i deliberately tried to get people on my side.

YOu do, and it's reprehensible behavior.

Quote:They post of their own free will. Nice how you turn it around though. I am not the one who is not considerate of how EVERYONE feels.

Quote:You are the one. You are proving it again now.

[quote]
I am not the one who thinks inappropriate touching without prior consent is ok.

I don't advocate it. I don't people punched and thrown in jail over it. That you failed again to grasp my point shows that you are a bully.


I am not the one who says insensitive shit bashing what people clearly love nor wanting to see it and understand it through their eyes and i am not narcissistic enough to think my culture is better and that others should change because gosh darn it i cannot force them to change to suit me so i will speak out for it instead in the hopes they will follow my lead. That is not inclusive. That is not accepting.

I am free to express my opinions. You keep trying to shut me up. You are the bully.

Quote: That is cult leader behaviour if anything as well as in many cases insensitive to others feelings. Btw i never said groping should be illegal. But it should be common human decency to respect a man or a woman enough to not touch them that way unless you know it is ok with them. I do hope you do not go around doing that to people. Kinser had every right to punch him when he had given him several warnings beforehand.

so you believe in taking tha law in your own hands and you believe in violence. You are one angry girl, and really stupid.

Quote: If you do have a solution to get someone off someone when they will not listen i am all ears. But sometimes force is needed when someone is clearly not listening and is being forceful. Trust me i know as a victim of sexual assault. I certainly did not think it was complimentary for someone to be touching me that way. It is not bullying for someone to step in and tell you to consider the feelings of others.

Your sexual assaults were too bad, and I'm sorry about it for you but they have no relationship to this discussion. You are just expressing your resentment over your past by insulting me. You are a bully; period. You have no business trying to change my behavior. Mind your own f**king business, creepy girl.

Taramarie, you are the best example of someone who is too easily offended. More than that, you are a gangster and a bully, who carries grudges forever.

I will go back to ignoring your posts until you change your behavior towards me.

[Ragnarök_62]

http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/28486/

collegefix Wrote:William Nardi - Roger Williams University •August 15, 2016
   
Oregon State University is developing an online course centered on “social justice” that new students will soon be required to take.
The course will debut as a pilot program during the fall term, which starts in late September, and the full roll-out will happen toward the beginning of winter term, which starts in January, a university official told The College Fix via email.
The new program “is intended to provide all students entering Oregon State University an orientation to concepts of diversity, inclusion, and social justice and help empower all OSU students to contribute to an inclusive university community,” campus documents state.
“Social justice” is largely a progressive phrase mainly used to tout left-leaning agendas such as environmentalism, socialism, feminism and gay rights. Oregon State would not be the first public university to mandate such a curriculum. At UMass Amherst, students are required to take two “social justice” classes to earn diploma, for example.
Oregon State’s course, as proposed, would consist of five online modules that include a primer on “social justice efforts in Oregon and at OSU,” instruction on how campus diversity advocates define “an inclusive and equitable university community,” details on how students can “incorporate the pursuit of social justice within their university experiences,” and information on how to “explore opportunities for engagement in ongoing social justice learning.”
Oregon State is no stranger to social justice training. Last year, the public university spent $11,500 on three racially segregated social justice retreats for students that examined topics such as white privilege, racism and oppression, according to financial records obtained by The College Fix through a public records act request.
Training: ‘How to identify bias incidents’
As for OSU’s new online course, the modules will remain under development through the fall, an effort led by a committee of students and faculty who have worked throughout the spring and summer to gather feedback on content from campus community members to finalize the finished product, according to Angela Batista, Oregon State University’s interim Chief Diversity Officer, in an email to The College Fix.
Asked to expand on the “expectations for an inclusive and equitable university community,” Batista said the committee is still finalizing these guidelines, but that in general, “we feel that every student has a role to play in creating and sustaining an equitable and inclusive university community – one that is defined by shared respect for diverse backgrounds, perspectives, ideas and the ways that individuals live.”
Asked how Oregon State defines social justice, Batista said that is also a work in progress.
As proposed, the course will aim to teach students that “systemic and local inequities exist and that we all play a role in creating an OSU community that resists and corrects injustice,” according to the university’s website. It will also explain “how to identify bias incidents and learn how to interrupt bias in in our daily lives.”
The university maintains a large Bias Response Team, consisting of seven high-ranking campus administrators who decide how to respond to reports of perceived harassment. Their responses might include “involvement of campus safety offices, providing access and referrals to campus resources, investigation of the incident, and coordinating a community response,” the team’s website states.
‘Oppression Studies’
Batista told The Fix the bias response protocol does not hinder free speech or tough conversations.
“The goal of our bias incident response isn’t to stop or prevent anyone from exercising their right to engage in free speech within social media channels or elsewhere. Instead, we seek to educate community members about the harmful impacts of bias incidents, and to provide care and support to community members who may be hurt or negatively affected,” Batista said. “It’s not about avoiding hard conversations or difficult ideas, but promoting and creating a safe and inclusive community where everyone has the ability to fully participate in these conversations.”
But the new program has garnered at least one critic, who points out online courses can be intimidating for students who don’t want to challenge their campus administration.
“A student has no method of dissenting during an online training session on the necessity of complying with the university’s diversity dictates. Indeed, students might reasonably fear that agreeing with the ideology of the trainers is a precondition of coming to campus,” noted Robby Soave, an associate editor at Reason.
“Students are no longer merely required to grapple with leftist ideas in the classroom—they increasingly must live, sweat, and breathe ‘oppression studies,'” Soave wrote. “It is no wonder that so many of them have developed a healthy disrespect for the principles of the First Amendment. They are being trained — not taught, but trained — to think everything that offends them is a bias incident.”

Geez, what a fucking waste of time and money.  OK, anyone who majors in Oppression Studies deserves a huge student loan boat anchor and a minimum wage job for life.   Oh, and may all "special snowflakes" land in Hel and so their tender hearts melt in the heat blast.


What is collegiate life coming to?  It sure ain't about getting smart or broadening horizons anymore. 

Here's to you Oregon State:


SJW's  : Phhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhtttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Ragnarök_62]

(08-16-2016, 04:10 AM)taramarie Wrote:

Rags Wrote:Geez, what a fucking waste of time and money.  OK, anyone who majors in Oppression Studies deserves a huge student loan boat anchor and a minimum wage job for life.   Oh, and may all "special snowflakes" land in Hel and so their tender hearts melt in the heat blast.


What is collegiate life coming to?  It sure ain't about getting smart or broadening horizons anymore. 

Here's to you Oregon State:


SJW's  : Phhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhtttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Tara Wrote:I see no problem in this as long as it is balanced in inclusion etc. Seems to me the whiners are the insensitive folk who are whining because they are the crybabies. Is it not an irony.....someone is always crying about something. Whether it is the said "crybabies" or those taking the time out of their lives to draw a picture whining about the whiners.

That's an interesting take. It is of course as valid as a POV that such illustrations are meant to mock something others of us find utter ridiculous. I think SJW's are ridiculous because it seems to me they are invading my thought space with assorted "concerns" that are overblown at times. In the US they waste their time yelling at others who don't ascribe to their narrow interests.  I think if you go back far enough, almost anyone can find something some other group said/did about/to whatever group(s) those anyone's belong to.

Quote:At least the "Crybabies" are addressing what needs addressing....although i think they could be more balanced about what needs to be addressed as well as they should realize also that the more they go on the more push back they will get.

I do think their are more logical "groupings" in some cases though.  I think economic class would be one of those. Casting concerns based on economic class rather than ethnic type is more functional due to the direct correlation between lower classes and assorted minorities.  Economic class of course is something fat cats here would prefer to keep buried because any question about the lot of lower classes in the face of neo-liberalism/gobalization shows how awful those economic memes really are. The other problem of using what I think are divisive groupings is that , let's say about slavery, is that there are lots of folks who have no family history of being a part of that.  There is also the butt in other folks' business angle. I know I'd question having to spend $ on tuition to take "sensitivity, Oppression Studies, whatever" because my family didn't do that stuff and being mixed race myself makes it just weird. Likewise, I don't expect everyone to pander to let's say Native American stuff. Yes, bad stuff happened, but it isn't something I dwell on.  I also don't get worked over sports Teams named Red Skins, Braves, etc.

Quote: So teaching the young is a good approach.

It's OK to have generic stuff like "just because someone is different, doesn't make them inferior or scary" sort of thing.

Quote: Hey the religious warp minds that way too!

No argument here. Fundamentalists of all stripes, not just Christian ones are likewise narrow minded and wish to foist their version on others even if others do not want it. They also want to rule over others' lives and though patterns , when they should butt the fuck out. Believe me, here in Bible Belt, I see lots of this nonsense.  I really don't think I should have to follow them on what I choose to put in my body.  If I want to use weed, I should be able to. I do use nicotine and caffeine and since I use those substances in a manner that does not harm others' health, I demand a right to use those substances and others like THC even if it hurts others feelings or whatever.

Quote:p.s. I feel this way due to the fact we were already being taught all of this without needing a course on this. That is why we are ahead in some respects culturally compared to America.

Yes, that could be cultural or something. I'm not hip to what's going down in NZ. Some stuff like race moves slowly due to inter marriage, especially wrt Hispanics. I think over time the Hispanic thing will sort out. Other stuff like LGBT is more problematic. Of course wrt LGBT, the question is also easy:  How the fuck does someone elses' partner preference interfere with your well being?  I think in the vast majority of cases, it doesn't do a damn thing. That means that folks can partner with others in any way that doesn't involve someone who is vulnerable, say kids.

Quote:We could improve though on cannabis (govt fault as the public loves cannabis.....nz is one of the top countries in the world that uses it)

I share the pain here.  The DEA here just nixed weed.  That agency is clueless wrt science to say the least. Politics is used instead of rational science on a fucking plant.

Quote: and we could improve on pollution.

Yeah, like planting hemp [low THC] weed plants for fiber instead of cotton.  However, getting assorted government agencies/people to see that is another question.

Quote:Given how i was raised it scares me to see how insensitive America is becoming. I hope it does not spread. Not giving a fuck about others is if anything a lack of civic attitude.

Again, it goes back to the fact, as a culture, Americans don't like being told what to do. That is why prohibition crashed. Banning this or that just creates black markets.

Quote: We should care about others. How awful the world would be if we did not.

I think for the US, the better thing is to point out who is butting into others' business and work to stop that. That also goes to wars of choice. Crusades to make other nation states is quite the arrogant attitude wrt foreign policy.  We've been doing that and it's a Neocon project.  That is why I think Neocons are just evil. It is not our place to stand in judgment of how other nations are run. Mind you , that does not preclude helping other nation states when it comes to natural disasters or some sort of famine. With that in mind, using $ wasted on wars of choice on rebuilding our 3rd world infrastructure needs to be a major priority.

Quote: If we didn't here our SVA would not exist.

I don't know what a SVA is.

Quote: Kiwi millies pulling together, helping others in need. Saving the lives of many. Helping each other. We need to care. If we don't....I am scared of that future. If that makes me a SJW for caring about others so be it. I am proud to actually care.

Caring isn't the issue.  SJW's are those who care to the point of conflating it to the point they condemn all who do not care about their pet concern. Different people have different concerns and how they prioritize them.  I care about say dogs, but I don't condemn others who care about cats.