U. of Chicago tells SJWs to shove it

[Micro-Balrog]

Now I have fairly radical right-wing views.

But I think that people who attack 'safe spaces' and oher such verbiage forget a few important things.

It's true that safe spaces have in some cases been abused both directly (by people deplyonig them to shut out disagreement) and conceptually (by arguing that a person who'd suffered some horrible abuse can't be challenged at all on their opinions, for instance - and of course some people will try to use real abuse victims as cover. As an example, I have once encountered a student in a graduate seminar who tried to use the fact that her grandfather was a victim of the Holocaust to try and preventing me from arguing with her on the topic of 'how should Holocaust survivors be interviewed by historians).

BUT.

Some manner of safe spaces have always existed.

Most people have some kind of safe space, either a physical one, or a conceptual one, where they don't tolerate some forms of rudeness or hurtful ideas. These safe spaces come in various forms - private bedrooms, personal studies, members-only clubs. Setting something like that aside for members of a group that is disadvantaged - and in real life, 'disadvantaged group' often means, 'these people are victims of abuse and harrassment etc. at a disproportionately higher rate than you are'.

If I finish my dissertation reasonably and hopefully get a job in my field, I will in a year or two be a university lecturer. It's wholly possible that I'll be discussing with my students some issue of serious contention or somehow related to horrific events. I don't see why it would not be the right things to do to - voluntarily - warn students that "we are going to be discussing some pretty grisly things in this class today, and if you find X topic to be disturbing and triggering it's totally okay to leave". It seems reasonabl.e

That said, obviously if it becomes a compulsory university policy it'll become a tool for censoring professors, especially in the liberal arts.

[Wild Zontargs]

There is a relevant XKCD comic I've seen posted on other sites whenever this topic has come up.

*snip image*

And it's still a fucking stupid comic. Huge comic-image linked instead of in-lined: RE: xkcd #1357 free speech

[Balrog]

Next up: A panel of cis dudes meet to determine if calling transgender people "trannies" should be the norm.

Give me a fucking break, that's not what's going on here and you know it.

I'm not asking you for me to "win" this debate. I really don't care at all about "winning" since both you and I know we're probably not changing our positions. I'm asking you so I know whether to take your opinion with a modicum of seriousness or not. I have no interest in listening to people bloviate on something they have absolutely no idea what the context feels like, in which Joun very much gives me that impression.

I guess it depends on how far down the essentialist rabbit hole you want to go: can someone who has experienced one type of oppression ever really be able to comment on another type of oppression?

It's not a matter of having an "appropriate reason". It's a matter of having that reason formulated by close and intimate experiences with the communities you are talking about.

Devil's Advocate: Being too close to the subject matter can impair objectivity. There's a reason people aren't allowed on the jury for a murder trial involving their family members.

Trouble is, a statistically significant portion of that 90% are the problem. And the first thing they do when you invite them to discuss the problem is deny that there is a problem or that they're the cause of it.

That problem tends to happen when, for example, the "invitation" is less conversation than an angry lecture right out the gate from a true believer about how something seemingly innocuous is actually the worst most racist oppressive thing ever and how dare you. Many peoples' exposure to this subject matter isn't necessarily with reasoned and nuanced academia but very loud and angry social media which does an excellent job of poisoning the well.

They might have empathy for the people suffering, but they don't want anything to actually change if it means they personally have to put in effort and experience disruption to make it happen.

That depends on what the "change" being argued over is and how effective it will be in solving the problem. Policing language isn't exactly working out too well and arguable never will. Forcing people to resign from their jobs because they don't support you 100% is rather self-destructive.

[Balrog]

BTW Balrog, I don't care if someone has been diagnosed or not to maybe need a safe place. That in no way says they shouldn't see a mental health professional.

Look you dumb fuck, if you're going to insult me at least don't get your arguments crossed. People who need a "trigger warning" are implying that they're suffering from psychological trauma, which is a real and serious medical condition and requires professional help, while the medicinal purposes of so-called warnings are at best inconclusive. If they're not actually suffering from a psychological condition while demanding "trigger warnings" then they are a sorry sack of shit who are appropriating a real problem for their own selfish reasons. They should be honest that what they want are graphic content warnings for every little thing in their continuing effort to Bowlderize life.

As for the issue of rape, you are a sack of shit. Most rapes go unreported due to shame. So know what you're talking about before commenting you dicksnot.

Jesus Flagg do you actually read posts or is your title an accurate description? I said "Obviously the trend of unreported rapes needs to be reversed". Was there something in that sentence you couldn't wrap you brain around?

[Alyrium Denryle]

This is a general reminder to everyone that they need to be Be Adults

[maraxus2]

Please don't be disingenuous with me. Banning someone from speaking on campus and exercising the heckler's veto over a speaker are two totally different things.

Yeah, one takes place before the speech starts, the other takes place during the middle of the speech. Same effect.

There's an even bigger difference: one takes place because the powers-that-be in a university's administration deems the speech unwelcome, while the other happens because students themselves to not want it.

Schools have de facto bans on speech all the time. Getting caught drawing swastikas or racial slurs on school property does, and should, come with serious repercussions. Neo-Nazis are not, nor should they be, welcome on campus. This is a fair abridgment of free speech rights because the speech incites harm, but also because it's not as though people are unaware of neo-Nazi beliefs. Just the same with having de facto, or even explicit, bans on paid speakers. The idea that allowing repugnant speech on campus stifles student learning seems very hypothetical and not well-supported by evidence. And I really fail to see why having a policy of refusing to pay people who blame rape victims is a bad one.

It's not an abridgment of free speech rights to pressure an institution to uninvite a speaker because of their disgusting views, or the perception thereof. Public figures still have the right to be heard and disseminate their views in public, but they do not have the right to hold speaking engagements wherever they please with no consequences from their previous speech.

Yes, they have a right to protest such a decision and should exercise that right. But it can have a chilling effect when overused.

Again, I see a lot of hypothetical harm but nothing particularly concrete. That Cole article was ridiculously easy for people to tear apart, mainly because there's: A. not much evidence that students now support "free speech" any less than their parents and B. those restrictions are specificallynot against "expressing political views that are offensive to others."

What do we try to solve by banning trigger warnings or otherwise loosen free speech? As far as I'm concerned, the anti-speech restriction viewpoint remains a solution in search of a problem.

For example, I see absolutely no problem with George Will getting uninvited from speaking at Scripps College for saying that sexual assault victims are lying because " mak[ing] victimhood a coveted status that confers privileges, victims [will] proliferate.

Would you say the same thing about when Alice Walker was disinvited from speaking at the University of Michigan because of her views on Israel? Or is that fair game as well?

I think there's a moral distinction to draw between banning someone for pointing out Israel's bad human rights record, and banning someone for saying that rape victims covet their victimhood because that's the cool thing kids do these days. But for the purposes of free-speech in the abstract, yes. I'd say that's fair game as well.

I beg to differ. Whether students give a shit is the definition of whether it's important.

So a natural right is only worth protecting as long as people think it is? That's a very dangerous mentality to have.

No, the natural right is still preserved because they can freely disseminate their speech. Fuck's sake, George Will is literally paid to have bad opinions in hundreds of newspapers across the country. You just can't do it on campus with public resources. Particularly not in light of how most universities have utterly failed to deal with rape and rape culture in an effective way.

Again, we abridge free speech rights all the time. What harm have we suffered from not allowing neo-Nazis to profit from speaking on campus? Does that somehow endanger natural free speech rights any more than, say, widespread public distrust of the media and institutions? That's something that strikes me as much more dangerous.

Yeah, just look at all the rampant anti-Semitism in this country. Our long-term experiment with making anti-Semitism socially, politically and legally unacceptable hasn't put a dent in our ugly history with the Jews.

Perhaps you ought to clue in President Obama on how anti-Semitism is no longer a problem then. Meanwhile in Europe, where governments actually do legally restrict hate speech, that has not stopped a rise in far-right or outright Nazi political parties.

Oh come on. Obama was giving a speech at the Israeli embassy on Holocaust Remembrance Day. He was clearly giving a speech designed to show empathy with an often-uneasy ally. That's political speech, and appropriate at that. A lot of claims of anti-semitism on campuses aren't really anti-Semitism as conventionally understood, but criticisms of Israel or Israelis. My point there being that, compared to the 20's and 30's when there really was rampant anti-Semitism, Jews don't really face much oppression, contra Black and Brown people. Whatever anti-Semitism exists on campus doesn't seem particularly likely to change that any time in the near future.

Those hate speech restrictions wouldn't stop the rise of the far-right because the forces that brought the far-right to power are far stronger than some abstract free speech rights. Of course hate speech laws wouldn't stop Le Pen; it took a global financial collapse and widespread social and religious change to bring her into existence. Those restrictions aren't designed to stop the rise of far-right movements, but to proscribe specific hateful actions that obviously have no benefit to society.

I'll grant you that muzzling ALL public dissent is bad for governance in the long-run. I see no particular reason why that applies to this situation.

Because today's annoyance can become tomorrow's serious problem, and when Pew shows
40% of Millennials favor the government banning offensive speech against minorities that is already a dangerously high number: it's one thing to make it socially unacceptable to make bigoted speeches, it's another for a government to literally police ideas with some vague standard of what is or isn't offensive. If they grow older and their views become more mainstream with greater acceptance, it will have a damaging effect on freedom of speech.

There doesn't seem to be much evidence that millennials (how I hate that term) are any less supportive of free speech rights than people were in the 1970's. If anything, Americans have become more comfortable with most speech, as shown here. The only thing that hasn't budged much is racist speech; people continue to oppose racist speech in their communities at about the same rate as they did in the 70's.

And that's the thing about using this "dangerously high number" argument; it doesn't specify what kind of free speech restrictions. I wholeheartedly support free speech restrictions, but for specific kinds of speech injurious to the community. I do not see how this policy preference translates into damaging effects on freedom of speech in the future. Racist speech should be banned from campus. Safe spaces should exist. Trigger warnings should be utilized on a voluntary basis by the instructors. Reactionaries who hate these things should go find something more productive to do with their lives.

I am not a free speech absolutist, but I'm willing to see where you're coming from. If you have any evidence that any of the above-mentioned restrictions currently damage free expression on campus, I'd like to see it.

[Flagg]

BTW Balrog, I don't care if someone has been diagnosed or not to maybe need a safe place. That in no way says they shouldn't see a mental health professional.

Look you dumb fuck, if you're going to insult me at least don't get your arguments crossed. People who need a "trigger warning" are implying that they're suffering from psychological trauma, which is a real and serious medical condition and requires professional help, while the medicinal purposes of so-called warnings are at best inconclusive. If they're not actually suffering from a psychological condition while demanding "trigger warnings" then they are a sorry sack of shit who are appropriating a real problem for their own selfish reasons. They should be honest that what they want are graphic content warnings for every little thing in their continuing effort to Bowlderize life.

As for the issue of rape, you are a sack of shit. Most rapes go unreported due to shame. So know what you're talking about before commenting you dicksnot.

Jesus Flagg do you actually read posts or is your title an accurate description? I said "Obviously the trend of unreported rapes needs to be reversed". Was there something in that sentence you couldn't wrap you brain around?

It's really simple when it comes down to it, despite your callousness: It's easier to warn someone that has had traumatic events that may be triggered than it is to deal with the after effects.

[Dragon Angel]

Next up: A panel of cis dudes meet to determine if calling transgender people "trannies" should be the norm.

Give me a fucking break, that's not what's going on here and you know it.

lol. You're the one who brought up OH NOEZ IDENTITY POLITICS and I followed it up with a logical extrapolation from your reasoning. If you can't handle the result, I'm sorry?

I mentioned that thing about spending your life or such with a family of color for a reason too by the way but don't let that get in the way of your outrage.

I guess it depends on how far down the essentialist rabbit hole you want to go: can someone who has experienced one type of oppression ever really be able to comment on another type of oppression?

...

Devil's Advocate: Being too close to the subject matter can impair objectivity. There's a reason people aren't allowed on the jury for a murder trial involving their family members.

Being oppressed in another category gives me great empathy for people in a category I'm not part of. It does not give me rights to make decisions or judgements for them. This is not a hard concept to grasp.

Just because I'm trans does not mean I have the right to talk about black people with any level of authority. Oppression isn't some scale where being black is one point or being LGBT is x points where x is how many letters you are under.

Also, that devil's advocate is utterly laughable. With that, you cast doubt on all marginalized people's activism efforts in relation to their own oppressions. No one should listen to gay people about homophobia, they are too close and not objective enough! Straight people are the only people you should listen to on homophobia! Unless you intended to make this implication, I recommend you retract that.

That problem tends to happen when, for example, the "invitation" is less conversation than an angry lecture right out the gate from a true believer about how something seemingly innocuous is actually the worst most racist oppressive thing ever and how dare you. Many peoples' exposure to this subject matter isn't necessarily with reasoned and nuanced academia but very loud and angry social media which does an excellent job of poisoning the well.

It's becoming somewhat obvious you are either biased or have little to no idea of what you're talking about because while people making absurd declarations is a problem, those declarations are not spread nearly as far and wide as you believe and many are often mocked. Take the recent "Daddygate" for example; it was mocked by almost every leftist I know as the overly woke shit that it was. If you really believe this is the most common thing then you're deluded.

[Elfdart]

Read the thread and agree with most major points, except for the notion that labeling someone an SJW is somehow an 'alt right' thing. Plenty of left, left leaning, and centrists, along with the right, use the term. Generally speaking, it is usually used to describe people who have gone a bit over the top on far left ideals on a few specific issues, a bit like the label 'gun nut' for right wing gun lovers. Whether or not the label is accurate is a matter of who uses it in regards to whomever is espousing a certain idea, like most labels.

But to assume anyone using it is some sort of Alt Right (why is this a new term? These people aren't new nor is their ideas and their ideas are now mainstream within the right so it's not an alternative anymore.) is laughable.

I've used "SJW" before, mostly out of laziness. Like "political correctness" it's a megalosaur, a convenient place to dump a bunch of things that often bear no relationship to one another. That said, there are left-wing nutters who remind me of the People's Front of Judea, are an embarrassment to lefties like me, and they deserve every bit of ridicule people like Phil "Thunderf00t" Mason wants to heap on them in his long-winded videos.

Personally, I find the term "dorm commissar" or "the PFJ" better descriptive for those who get angry when others don't have time to support their absurd fantasies.

[Flagg]

Read the thread and agree with most major points, except for the notion that labeling someone an SJW is somehow an 'alt right' thing. Plenty of left, left leaning, and centrists, along with the right, use the term. Generally speaking, it is usually used to describe people who have gone a bit over the top on far left ideals on a few specific issues, a bit like the label 'gun nut' for right wing gun lovers. Whether or not the label is accurate is a matter of who uses it in regards to whomever is espousing a certain idea, like most labels.

But to assume anyone using it is some sort of Alt Right (why is this a new term? These people aren't new nor is their ideas and their ideas are now mainstream within the right so it's not an alternative anymore.) is laughable.

I've used "SJW" before, mostly out of laziness. Like "political correctness" it's a megalosaur, a convenient place to dump a bunch of things that often bear no relationship to one another. That said, there are left-wing nutters who remind me of the People's Front of Judea, are an embarrassment to lefties like me, and they deserve every bit of ridicule people like Phil "Thunderf00t" Mason wants to heap on them in his long-winded videos.

Personally, I find the term "dorm commissar" or "the PFJ" better descriptive for those who get angry when others don't have time to support their absurd fantasies.

I prefer the term "PTC" or "Power Tripping Cunt" and those occure in all spectrums. The problem is people with agenda's using examples of power tripping cunts to try and paint people with similar views as such.

[TithonusSyndrome]

Part of the issue with bothering to designate these people a special term of contempt of any kind is that it presumes some substantial impact on the dilemma on their part, which just isn't true. They are at worst an outspoken fringe part of campus and social media life, many of whom have suffered past traumas which may impair their ability to be cool and impartial. Essentially, while they may be somewhat contrary to an ideal, model academic discourse on this issue, a special term of contempt implies that they're contrary in similar measure to the literal thousands of alt-righters, reactionaries and SQWs who congregate on many different platforms with the explicit intention of participating in this discussion in bad faith. In the grand scheme of things, the "SJW" who fits the description that all the baggage the term commonly carries is a phenomenon on the order of White Russians, Juggalos or Posadists. Unpalatable, maybe, but barely worth remarking on otherwise.

The other term used pretty much as a synonym for SJW is Regressive left. You might be more familiar with that one. If not, there are plenty of self identify liberals on YT who use regressive left as a perjorative. For example David Pakman (the David Pakman show), Dave Rubin (The Rubin report) and these are just people who have their own shows rather than just some random guy or girl running their own youtube channel. And I believe these guys also have used the term SJW, although they prefer to use the term regressive left. Sounds more descriptive than SJW.

So even if you personally haven't seen its there on other platforms than ones you might usually be exposed to.

I reference the term "Regressive left" in my response to Dragon Angel, I'm quite familiar with it. Again, never seen it being used by anyone other than a Sam Harris devotee who is outraged that you're not as willing to nuke Mecca as he is, or dilettante libertarians and free speech fundamentalists who've never even grappled with elementary dilemmas like shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater.

[Flagg]

I just don't see a negative of a course having what is effectively run before American TV shows, including HBO with a quick descriptor of the content contained. Especially on issues of rape and abuse.

[TithonusSyndrome]

There really isn't; there just happens to be a certain subset of the population who sees other people's needs as an opportunity to make unsolicited and unwarranted boasts about how strong and manly they must be if they don't need them.

Really, I doubt that a lot of the people who are up in arms about "college coddling" or whatever have sincere convictions about it one way or the other; they're just constantly coiled and primed to jump on any opportunity to engage in macho signalling.

[Flagg]

There really isn't; there just happens to be a certain subset of the population who sees other people's needs as an opportunity to make unsolicited and unwarranted boasts about how strong and manly they must be if they don't need them.

Really, I doubt that a lot of the people who are up in arms about "college coddling" or whatever have sincere convictions about it one way or the other; they're just constantly coiled and primed to jump on any opportunity to engage in macho signalling.

Seems that way.

[Balrog]

There's an even bigger difference: one takes place because the powers-that-be in a university's administration deems the speech unwelcome, while the other happens because students themselves to not want it.

In which case a decision ought to be made about who should have the power to decide what is allowed on campus, the administration or the students?

Schools have de facto bans on speech all the time. Getting caught drawing swastikas or racial slurs on school property does, and should, come with serious repercussions. Neo-Nazis are not, nor should they be, welcome on campus. This is a fair abridgment of free speech rights because the speech incites harm, but also because it's not as though people are unaware of neo-Nazi beliefs. Just the same with having de facto, or even explicit, bans on paid speakers. The idea that allowing repugnant speech on campus stifles student learning seems very hypothetical and not well-supported by evidence. And I really fail to see why having a policy of refusing to pay people who blame rape victims is a bad one.

I find it interesting that you and others keep lumping everyone disinvited from speaking on campus under the "rape apologist" label as though they are all synonymous. Are you saying what Christine Lagarde had said or was going to say was equally repugnant as George Will?

Again, I see a lot of hypothetical harm but nothing particularly concrete. That Cole article was ridiculously easy for people to tear apart, mainly because there's: A. not much evidence that students now support "free speech" any less than their parents and B. those restrictions are specificallynot against "expressing political views that are offensive to others."

And yet two-thirds of college students want to ban 'intentionally offensive' speech. Which is fine except when the definition of what is or isn't "intentionally offensive" moves beyond something as simple and blatant as wearing a Swastika and yelling "Kill the Jews!" Especially when what is being defined as offensive can be almost comically broad.

What do we try to solve by banning trigger warnings or otherwise loosen free speech?

Well first of all UC isn't banning trigger warnings, they just aren't giving them "force of law" if you will.

Secondly, "loosening" free speech can only be a good thing. Students should not fear for their academic future if they choose to exercise their right to speak on a controversial/offensive subject, whether it be another Piss Christ or another Muhammad cartoon.

I think there's a moral distinction to draw between banning someone for pointing out Israel's bad human rights record, and banning someone for saying that rape victims covet their victimhood because that's the cool thing kids do these days. But for the purposes of free-speech in the abstract, yes. I'd say that's fair game as well.

Despite that distinction though both speakers were caught up in the same drive to ban or disinvite speakers deemed controversial or offensive by a few.

No, the natural right is still preserved because they can freely disseminate their speech.

On the whole yes, but in cases such as Alice Walker, Christine Lagarde, and yes even George Will, it serves as a symbol that the institution considers certain opinions verboten, which can have a chilling effect on people currently at that institution who might worry that their expressing their opinion on, say, Israel could have similar consequences.

Again, we abridge free speech rights all the time.

For good reasons though, and within a limited framework which errs on the side of free speech. You are free to kick anyone out of your home for anything they say that you might find disagreeable. A movie theater is free to kick someone out of their business for being disruptive, but not for being of a certain race or creed. An educational institution should not be run like a private home or a public business though, if only for the sake of being an open place of learning.

Does that somehow endanger natural free speech rights any more than, say, widespread public distrust of the media and institutions? That's something that strikes me as much more dangerous.

You act as though one can't believe both are dangerous and should be combated as a preventative measure to a greater evil.

Oh come on. Obama was giving a speech at the Israeli embassy on Holocaust Remembrance Day. He was clearly giving a speech designed to show empathy with an often-uneasy ally. That's political speech, and appropriate at that. A lot of claims of anti-semitism on campuses aren't really anti-Semitism as conventionally understood, but criticisms of Israel or Israelis. My point there being that, compared to the 20's and 30's when there really was rampant anti-Semitism, Jews don't really face much oppression, contra Black and Brown people. Whatever anti-Semitism exists on campus doesn't seem particularly likely to change that any time in the near future.

Except it wasn't through the complete systemic banning of anti-Semitism which brought about an improved situation for Jewish-Americans; a public business can't fire an employee or refuse to serve someone simply for being a Jew but at the same time Neo-Nazis are still free to hold rallies, distribute media and generally express their opinion on the subject. It was by changing the public at large's opinion through the free exchange of idea, and ultimately it is the public's continued opinion on the subject which is keeping those laws on the books.

Those restrictions aren't designed to stop the rise of far-right movements, but to proscribe specific hateful actions that obviously have no benefit to society.

With the ultimate goal of eliminating hateful speech with no benefit to society, no? Yet they continue to be committed, and will continue to be committed.

There doesn't seem to be much evidence that millennials (how I hate that term) are any less supportive of free speech rights than people were in the 1970's. If anything, Americans have become more comfortable with most speech, as shown here. The only thing that hasn't budged much is racist speech; people continue to oppose racist speech in their communities at about the same rate as they did in the 70's.

And that's the thing about using this "dangerously high number" argument; it doesn't specify what kind of free speech restrictions. I wholeheartedly support free speech restrictions, but for specific kinds of speech injurious to the community. I do not see how this policy preference translates into damaging effects on freedom of speech in the future. Racist speech should be banned from campus. Safe spaces should exist. Trigger warnings should be utilized on a voluntary basis by the instructors. Reactionaries who hate these things should go find something more productive to do with their lives.

"Injurious to the community" in what way, assuming the community is able to come to an agreement about what is and isn't injurious to itself? It's easy to define punishments for stealing goods from someone or committing bodily harm on them, and we already have restrictions on "fighting words" in the US but what should be the legal punishment for being rude to someone? Should you get two years in jail because your "microaggression" was just the last straw for someone?

I am not a free speech absolutist, but I'm willing to see where you're coming from. If you have any evidence that any of the above-mentioned restrictions currently damage free expression on campus, I'd like to see it.

I would point to professors and other administrative personnel who were forced to resign or fired for expressing their views, such as the Yale professor.

[Balrog]

lol. You're the one who brought up OH NOEZ IDENTITY POLITICS and I followed it up with a logical extrapolation from your reasoning. If you can't handle the result, I'm sorry?

No, it was torturous reasoning based on a strawman assumption. Arguing a school shouldn't disinvite a controversial speaker is not in the same damn ballpark as arguing a bunch of dudes should be able to decide if tranny is a pejorative. I'd say you're straying into Flagg debating territory and ought to check yourself.

I mentioned that thing about spending your life or such with a family of color for a reason too by the way but don't let that get in the way of your outrage.

Funny, didn't you just admit below that you have no authority to talk about black people? Yet you're trying to set a standard about what constitutes being "woke" enough to talk about black issues. Interesting.

Being oppressed in another category gives me great empathy for people in a category I'm not part of. It does not give me rights to make decisions or judgements for them. This is not a hard concept to grasp.
Just because I'm trans does not mean I have the right to talk about black people with any level of authority. Oppression isn't some scale where being black is one point or being LGBT is x points where x is how many letters you are under.

You might not have "authority" to speak about the experiences of being black in America, but when the conversation turns towards how society can fix these issues, then as a member of said society I assume you would be willing to speak your mind on the subject? Or would you feel that whatever solution the "black community" (insofar as such a thing exists) decided is best to resolve the problem you would support, regardless of personal feelings?

Also, that devil's advocate is utterly laughable. With that, you cast doubt on all marginalized people's activism efforts in relation to their own oppressions. No one should listen to gay people about homophobia, they are too close and not objective enough! Straight people are the only people you should listen to on homophobia! Unless you intended to make this implication, I recommend you retract that.

Again with the Flagg-like bullshitting. No, gay people shouldn't not be listened to regarding homophobia. But if "the gays" decided that the best response to combat homophobia was something objectively worse, I should hope non-gay people would stand up and say "woah, that might not be a good idea."

It's becoming somewhat obvious you are either biased or have little to no idea of what you're talking about because while people making absurd declarations is a problem, those declarations are not spread nearly as far and wide as you believe and many are often mocked. Take the recent "Daddygate" for example; it was mocked by almost every leftist I know as the overly woke shit that it was. If you really believe this is the most common thing then you're deluded.

Said the pot to the kettle. Because it's not like overblown problems like "manspreading/mainsplaining" or ridiculously broad "microaggressions" weren't and still aren't things being taken seriously by professional media outlets and educational institutions.

[Dragon Angel]

No, it was torturous reasoning based on a strawman assumption. Arguing a school shouldn't disinvite a controversial speaker is not in the same damn ballpark as arguing a bunch of dudes should be able to decide if tranny is a pejorative. I'd say you're straying into Flagg debating territory and ought to check yourself.

Excuse me, who are you talking to here? Are you crossing my arguments with maraxus? Because I was under the impression we were speaking of a term and what rights people have in deciding its usage. Can you point to where in this conversation I was arguing about disinviting? Am I maraxus? I'd like to know, it's hard to tell which identity I am these days.

Take your own advice, bud.

Funny, didn't you just admit below that you have no authority to talk about black people? Yet you're trying to set a standard about what constitutes being "woke" enough to talk about black issues. Interesting.

Okay you're being intentionally dishonest now.

You might not have "authority" to speak about the experiences of being black in America, but when the conversation turns towards how society can fix these issues, then as a member of said society I assume you would be willing to speak your mind on the subject? Or would you feel that whatever solution the "black community" (insofar as such a thing exists) decided is best to resolve the problem you would support, regardless of personal feelings?

As a member of society I could speak my mind with whatever knowledge I have, but I would defer to people who have experience on the front lines. It's like someone trying to be a lawyer or doctor on the Internet but in a sociological sense. There is not much difference and to think you have as much knowledge of black oppression as a black person does when you're not black is hubris absolute.

Again with the Flagg-like bullshitting. No, gay people shouldn't not be listened to regarding homophobia. But if "the gays" decided that the best response to combat homophobia was something objectively worse, I should hope non-gay people would stand up and say "woah, that might not be a good idea."

Please erect your strawman properly. Are you trying to imply now that "the gays" are setting standards too high or cumbersome for you to accept? Could you provide examples? Cite sources and statistics? I'd absolutely love to know where this comes from.

Your bullshit comparison matched what I said because tell me what else you can get out of "family members shouldn't be allowed on juries for murder of family members" stated in relation to activism? Which, I'll let you know, sometimes involves campaigning against murder! Did you just not realize where that would go?

Said the pot to the kettle. Because it's not like overblown problems like "manspreading/mainsplaining" or ridiculously broad "microaggressions" weren't and still aren't things being taken seriously by professional media outlets and educational institutions.

If you'd been paying any attention instead of constructing ridiculous strawman caricatures of what I'm saying you'd know I do not entirely agree with parts of this activism either. Liking the concepts does not mean I blanket like every single thing said about them.

The sooner you get this straw representation of social justice out of your head the better, yo.

[Dragon Angel]

Funny, didn't you just admit below that you have no authority to talk about black people? Yet you're trying to set a standard about what constitutes being "woke" enough to talk about black issues. Interesting.

Okay you're being intentionally dishonest now.

Expanding on this since the edit window is over: The lesson I've been trying to pound into you (and Joun, by extension, if he is still listening) is whether you're black, mixed race, etc. having personal experience of racism against yourself if you're marginalized, or witnessing racism against fellow human beings around you all of your life and knowing the damage it causes, is what allows me to take anything you say about this subject seriously. If you have no experience then you're most likely spouting absolute nonsense, and with most people it's something I'm sure they aren't aware of, and with some, it's intentional malice.

I've been repeating this in various wordings throughout this thread and either you aren't reading my posts or you are just this obtuse. If the latter, then it really shows just how much this is out of your league.

Also it's really cute how you think I'm dictating standards, as if I haven't said enough that I've learned what I know from real life black people. Who is the one talking shit about being prevented from contributing at all?

[Knife]

Expanding on this since the edit window is over: The lesson I've been trying to pound into you (and Joun, by extension, if he is still listening) is whether you're black, mixed race, etc. having personal experience of racism against yourself if you're marginalized, or witnessing racism against fellow human beings around you all of your life and knowing the damage it causes, is what allows me to take anything you say about this subject seriously. If you have no experience then you're most likely spouting absolute nonsense, and with most people it's something I'm sure they aren't aware of, and with some, it's intentional malice.

Which is why a wide variety of opinions is necessary. People who have a perceived advantage not to change but also people affected might also have a bias as well. Anyone affect by the fix to the situation should have input.

[Simon_Jester]

Expanding on this since the edit window is over: The lesson I've been trying to pound into you (and Joun, by extension, if he is still listening) is whether you're black, mixed race, etc. having personal experience of racism against yourself if you're marginalized, or witnessing racism against fellow human beings around you all of your life and knowing the damage it causes, is what allows me to take anything you say about this subject seriously. If you have no experience then you're most likely spouting absolute nonsense, and with most people it's something I'm sure they aren't aware of, and with some, it's intentional malice.

Which is why a wide variety of opinions is necessary. People who have a perceived advantage not to change but also people affected might also have a bias as well. Anyone affect by the fix to the situation should have input.

Thing is, if you give equal weight to the opinions of everyone affected... Imagine discrimination that affects 10% of the people very strongly, and 90% weakly. It is extremely harmful to the 10%, but mildly beneficial to the 90%.

So if you poll the population and ask one hundred people, ten say "We need to stop discriminating against members of the 10%. It's really important. This discrimination hurts." Then another bunch people from the majority, say thirty of them, say "Uh, yeah, we should probably stop discriminating against those guys I guess? I mean, um... they're still getting discriminated against, right?"

Then sixty people all say "Don't change anything! The system is working juuuust fine!"

So you have a situation where ten people strongly favor change, thirty people weakly favor change, and sixty people strongly oppose change. If we count noses, that means "no change, keep discriminating against the ten-percenters." If you weigh everyone's opinion equally, then the conclusion is "keep discriminating."

But it's ridiculous to weigh the opinion of people who have no comprehension of the harm they're doing, and who directly benefit from doing the harm, as being equally valid compared to the people who are getting kicked in the teeth.

Foxes and hens do not deserve equal say in whether the henhouse gets raided.

No, the natural right is still preserved because they can freely disseminate their speech.

On the whole yes, but in cases such as Alice Walker, Christine Lagarde, and yes even George Will, it serves as a symbol that the institution considers certain opinions verboten, which can have a chilling effect on people currently at that institution who might worry that their expressing their opinion on, say, Israel could have similar consequences.

The big problem with this picture is that it can very easily culminate in, say, complaining that if I am not allowed to mock gays publicly, it will exert a "chilling effect" on my opinion, so I should get to keep doing it.

The chilling effect that my own actions have on the people being slighted is ignored. Because when an institution does it to one person, it's a chilling effect, but when 10% of the population feels license to do it to 1% of the population while the other 89% does nothing... that's just business as usual.

Except it wasn't through the complete systemic banning of anti-Semitism which brought about an improved situation for Jewish-Americans; a public business can't fire an employee or refuse to serve someone simply for being a Jew but at the same time Neo-Nazis are still free to hold rallies, distribute media and generally express their opinion on the subject. It was by changing the public at large's opinion through the free exchange of idea, and ultimately it is the public's continued opinion on the subject which is keeping those laws on the books.

Thing is... that change of the public's opinion resulted in anti-Semites experiencing, well... a chilling effect. People who, in 1935, would have publicly trashed Jews and blamed them for all sorts of social problems, know that if they do so today, they will become pariahs. They will lose the respect of the community, they will lose opportunities socially and professionally, and they will gain little or no sympathy when all this happens to them. Because trashing Jews is no longer a socially acceptable act, and people who do that are thought of as among the lowest of the low.

Sure, Neo-Nazis are free to hold rallies. But for all intents and purposes, nobody's going to be marching in those rallies except for demented morons who joined the Aryan Brotherhood in prison after getting thrown in jail for blowing up their trailer trying to make meth. Expressing outright anti-Semitism against Jews in open forums is enough to demote you, socially, to the level of that sort of garbage.

This is in fact an example of a chilling effect. And it's a good thing, too. Anti-Semitic opinions very much deserved to be chilled, and indeed frozen solid. Because they are a direct expression of hatred and the desire to marginalize people for perceived 'crimes' that they are innocent of.

We can reasonably extend the same reasoning to gay people, and to rape victims, and so forth. It's not unreasonable to imagine living in a society where if you verbally pick on vulnerable targets, people start to see you as a thug or a bully, and stop wanting you around.

[Dragon Angel]

Expanding on this since the edit window is over: The lesson I've been trying to pound into you (and Joun, by extension, if he is still listening) is whether you're black, mixed race, etc. having personal experience of racism against yourself if you're marginalized, or witnessing racism against fellow human beings around you all of your life and knowing the damage it causes, is what allows me to take anything you say about this subject seriously. If you have no experience then you're most likely spouting absolute nonsense, and with most people it's something I'm sure they aren't aware of, and with some, it's intentional malice.

Which is why a wide variety of opinions is necessary. People who have a perceived advantage not to change but also people affected might also have a bias as well. Anyone affect by the fix to the situation should have input.

Simon is saying what I think. I'll add a real world example to it, but deviating into trans matters: It is still widely believed that transgender people can be "convinced" to be "more comfortable" with their birth gender and not transition to what gender they desire. We have doctors like Kenneth Zucker, who only last year had his clinic that practiced this shut down, still promoting this form of reparative "therapy".

We also still have old-ass theories such as autogynaephilia (that a trans woman only transitions because she has a fetish for herself inside a woman's body) floating around, that should have been discredited long ago but occasionally pop out of the woodwork again and again.

The former, I would hope people would be capable of seeing it as similar to homosexual conversion. The latter, I would hope people would be capable of seeing it as the destructive assassination of personal identity that it is. However, they are, quite unfortunately, still out there and very much still in the mainstream. I still see trans individuals being given a hard time by doctors who still believe in these theories. Yet, if one took every single person's opinion with equal weight, these theories will remain in the mainstream and cause even more transgender deaths, and we already have one of the highest death rates thanks to suicide and murder.

There are people who say that if transgender people are accepted into society it will cause heavy burdens onto the government, onto private organizations, onto even individual people. Just our existence causes trouble to them! Will you be as accepting of their opinions as well?

If not, then you exactly understand what Simon and I are saying. If yes ... uh, you have problems beyond the scope of this conversation, I'm afraid.

[Knife]

Oh, I understand what you are saying and you seem to have every reason to think the way you do. What I am saying, in no uncertain terms, is you may be too close to this and not unbiased about the issue. Shitty people have their opinion, non shitty people who don't think like you have an opinion, non shitty people like you have an opinion, and people like you have an opinion. Yet every fix that affects all the above needs input. Ultimately, unbiased people need to interview all those involved to understand the perspective of the situation from all and then make determinations based on all data.

[Dragon Angel]

Oh, I understand what you are saying and you seem to have every reason to think the way you do. What I am saying, in no uncertain terms, is you may be too close to this and not unbiased about the issue. Shitty people have their opinion, non shitty people who don't think like you have an opinion, non shitty people like you have an opinion, and people like you have an opinion. Yet every fix that affects all the above needs input. Ultimately, unbiased people need to interview all those involved to understand the perspective of the situation from all and then make determinations based on all data.

Someone doesn't have to be "shitty" to have an opinion that is actively destructive to a marginalized community. I've known plenty of people who were not malicious and yet still had beliefs of transgender people that were actively gross, and the only way they learned otherwise is by me and possibly others telling them they were wrong.

How do you determine someone who is "unbiased"? You're entering the same problem I have with Balrog's devil's advocate. Anyone who is involved in a marginalized community, by this thought process, shouldn't have as much weight in thoughts of their own oppressions because they are members of that marginalized community and therefore "biased". Black people are too "biased" to really have an opinion about police brutality! Gays, lesbians, and bisexuals are too "biased" to really have an opinion about same sex marriage!

People who aren't part of these communities are also not "unbiased" in one way or another. Society has already taught us--something we are slowly overcoming, but it has not actually happened--that LGBTs are second-class citizens. Otherwise, why are we still having discussions over homophobic bakeries not willing to provide cakes to same sex couples? Why do we still have discussions over whether or not the F-slur is nice and proper while the N-slur is accepted as the domain of utter shitcakes?

This is an incredibly dangerous thought process to consider marginalized people as too "biased", because then you not only exclude them from talking about what they experience, but then give much more weight to people who are operating on outdated and destructive information.

...

I'll be honest too, I'm also restraining myself from exploding on you because you are far from being the only person who has told me that I'm too "biased" to think of what I experience as a trans woman. I'm too "biased" to know what the real world is like in treating trans people. I'm too "biased" to know I'm trans in the first place. I'm too "biased" to realize that the world is already so very accepting of trans people and I should just accept everything the bigots are trying to do like banning us from using bathrooms.

I've heard all of this before. It's an excuse for more shit and letting the status quo survive.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Glad the slaveowners ignored all those abolitionists, then. Since, apparently, abolitionists were all just biased from being too close to the issue, and should have asked the slaveowners what they thought about the issue first.

[Simon_Jester]

Oh, I understand what you are saying and you seem to have every reason to think the way you do. What I am saying, in no uncertain terms, is you may be too close to this and not unbiased about the issue.

Does that make her factually wrong? If so, go right ahead and address whatever she's saying on its own merits.

If not, why should she be expected to recuse herself from representing HERSELF?

Shitty people have their opinion, non shitty people who don't think like you have an opinion, non shitty people like you have an opinion, and people like you have an opinion. Yet every fix that affects all the above needs input. Ultimately, unbiased people need to interview all those involved to understand the perspective of the situation from all and then make determinations based on all data.[/quote]Good luck finding unbiased people, as distinct from people who just happen to randomly parrot whatever biases are floating around in popular culture.

The whole point here is that when the default state of society is "bias against a tiny minority group," giving equal weight to the people against the group and the people defending it results in the group being brutally crushed and destroyed. If that was the goal all along, you could save time by just spray-painting "to hell with minorities" all over the place.

And if (as is more likely) your goal is some kind of fair and equitable arrangement... That cannot possibly happen as long as 95% of the voter base is hearing a giant echo chamber full of bigotry. The minority's voices will always be marginalized and suppressed in an environment like that, they will never, ever get even whatever minimum of things they in fairness deserve.

So before there is any hope of even having a meaningful conversation about what is and is not fair, you have to at least exclude from the discussion those who are so biased against the minority that they would (wittingly or unwittingly) act to destroy the minority.

You cannot have a meaningful conversation about race relations as long as "black people are stupid thugs by nature" is an acceptable, represented position at the negotiating table.

You cannot have a meaningful conversation about gay rights as long as "burn the queers" is an acceptable, represented position at the negotiating table.

You cannot have a meaningful conversation about transgender rights as long as "they're freaks who should admit what they really are" is an acceptable, represented position at that table.

The countervailing positions ("we should be protected from racists/homophobes/transphobes," respectively) may reflect the 'biased' opinions of people who have suffered decades of humiliation, degradation, and denigration. But they came by those experiences honestly, at the hands of our society, and they have every right to ask that the beatings stop. The person you just got done kicking is not "biased" if they demand that you stop kicking them.