College Students Are Ridiculously Infuriating Safe-Space/Mega-thread

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

The poor Yale basketball team is under direct assault from the school with press releases directly attacking their behavior. Sad! The pathetic little institution of George Bush, Ben Carson, etc. strikes again.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

The point is (and this is coming from someone who generally does speak in favour of Mr or Mrs Unpleasant coming to soeak if a society wants them is, on the rare chance I bother with student politics) is that it doesn't matter. People as a whole have never been in favour of "free speech" in the absolute form - although people as a whole probably think they are . Talking about it as if it's some crazy new anti-free speech trend perpetuated by dem PC JOOS is laughable paranoia.

Maybe, so what's the harm in us making fun of it?  I mock attacks on free speech wherever they come from.  From social conservatives in American like Al Gore wanting to censor my Anthrax or social conservatives in the Middle East that want to censor me from drawing pictures of their silly prophet.  Or whiny children that don't want anybody to hear an opinion different from theirs.  They're all wrong, they all deserve to be made fun of and everybody that favors free speech should rub whatever stupid thing they fear in their face every chance they get until these people grow up.  Al Gore is just as big of a baby as some idiot beardo in Damascus who is just as big of a baby as the hipster trying to fit in at college by joining BDS.

Not that I'm denying your bravery or anything, but lol. Of course, seeing as most anti-BDS campaigning comes in the forms of governments and authorities pressuring organisations and businesses to disavow themselves from BDS (or really any anti-Israeli activism actually), I assume you would condemn this horrid statism enroaching on the free rights of businesses and campuses?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Source with another interesting link.

Was that meant for this thread?

Yes, it was in response to the above poll, which while interesting, cannot be cited for the conclusions it is being stretched to for reasons obvious to those who can read.

[dead0man]

The point is (and this is coming from someone who generally does speak in favour of Mr or Mrs Unpleasant coming to soeak if a society wants them is, on the rare chance I bother with student politics) is that it doesn't matter. People as a whole have never been in favour of "free speech" in the absolute form - although people as a whole probably think they are . Talking about it as if it's some crazy new anti-free speech trend perpetuated by dem PC JOOS is laughable paranoia.

Maybe, so what's the harm in us making fun of it?  I mock attacks on free speech wherever they come from.  From social conservatives in American like Al Gore wanting to censor my Anthrax or social conservatives in the Middle East that want to censor me from drawing pictures of their silly prophet.  Or whiny children that don't want anybody to hear an opinion different from theirs.  They're all wrong, they all deserve to be made fun of and everybody that favors free speech should rub whatever stupid thing they fear in their face every chance they get until these people grow up.  Al Gore is just as big of a baby as some idiot beardo in Damascus who is just as big of a baby as the hipster trying to fit in at college by joining BDS.

Not that I'm denying your bravery or anything, but lol. Of course, seeing as most anti-BDS campaigning comes in the forms of governments and authorities pressuring organisations and businesses to disavow themselves from BDS (or really any anti-Israeli activism actually), I assume you would condemn this horrid statism enroaching on the free rights of businesses and campuses?

Interesting that you'd pick BDS out of all that.  I really though Al Gore was the most trolly part.  Also interesting that you seem to be defending the horrible and racist organization that has killed a lot Palestinians jobs.  But I'll play your oddly obsessed with BDS game.

No, I don't like it.  I don't like it when the same people force anti-Semetic billboards down or fight the Klan from marching in Skokie.  I think people should have the right be racist assholes if they want to be, and the rest of us should be free to call them out on it and point and laugh.  I don't look at it as a downside to free speech like a lot of people either, it's got a strong upside.  Makes it much easier to tell who the assholes are.  Like a wearing a polo or driving a PT Cruiser.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I don't like BDS, but surely a self-confessed Freedom Of Speech Warrior should be OUTRAGED when a university admin or the government clamps down on it?  (I ignored the Al Gore part, because I didn't understand what you were going on about fwiw) Oh yes, you say you are; but that's not as fun as posting vague "RE: RE RE: RE: PC gawn mad" yarns so you can continue tilting at the windmill that is political correctness and terrible college activists on a quest to destroy freedom of speech.

[Alcon]

The point is (and this is coming from someone who generally does speak in favour of Mr or Mrs Unpleasant coming to soeak if a society wants them is, on the rare chance I bother with student politics) is that it doesn't matter. People as a whole have never been in favour of "free speech" in the absolute form - although people as a whole probably think they are . Talking about it as if it's some crazy new anti-free speech trend perpetuated by dem PC JOOS is laughable paranoia.

Are you referring to the argument I've been making with this?  Because I'm not claiming that this behavior is new; people have wanted to shut up people they don't want to hear for ages.  I've said that, and that's part of why the recent trends are more bothersome to me.  I'm claiming that there's a moral warrant a lot of people in our age cohort attach to this that didn't previously exist, and I think that fuels and justifies this behavior pretty efficiently.  I've been articulating this for several pages right now, and I'm not sure why you're choosing to respond to a weaker form of the argument (I sure hope you are based on "dem PC JOOS").  If so, I don't understand why you're knowingly replying to the weakest form of an argument -- I haven't seen you do that in other threads IIRC.

Also, can you expound on your problems with the phrasing in the question in precise terms?  There's lots of good criticisms of nearly any poll phrasing, so I want to make sure I'm not presuming you're making the wrong objection.  Thanks.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The point is (and this is coming from someone who generally does speak in favour of Mr or Mrs Unpleasant coming to soeak if a society wants them is, on the rare chance I bother with student politics) is that it doesn't matter. People as a whole have never been in favour of "free speech" in the absolute form - although people as a whole probably think they are . Talking about it as if it's some crazy new anti-free speech trend perpetuated by dem PC JOOS is laughable paranoia.

Maybe, so what's the harm in us making fun of it?  I mock attacks on free speech wherever they come from.  From social conservatives in American like Al Gore wanting to censor my Anthrax or social conservatives in the Middle East that want to censor me from drawing pictures of their silly prophet.  Or whiny children that don't want anybody to hear an opinion different from theirs.  They're all wrong, they all deserve to be made fun of and everybody that favors free speech should rub whatever stupid thing they fear in their face every chance they get until these people grow up.  Al Gore is just as big of a baby as some idiot beardo in Damascus who is just as big of a baby as the hipster trying to fit in at college by joining BDS.

OW the EDGE

[Alcon]

The point is (and this is coming from someone who generally does speak in favour of Mr or Mrs Unpleasant coming to soeak if a society wants them is, on the rare chance I bother with student politics) is that it doesn't matter. People as a whole have never been in favour of "free speech" in the absolute form - although people as a whole probably think they are . Talking about it as if it's some crazy new anti-free speech trend perpetuated by dem PC JOOS is laughable paranoia.

Maybe, so what's the harm in us making fun of it?  I mock attacks on free speech wherever they come from.  From social conservatives in American like Al Gore wanting to censor my Anthrax or social conservatives in the Middle East that want to censor me from drawing pictures of their silly prophet.  Or whiny children that don't want anybody to hear an opinion different from theirs.  They're all wrong, they all deserve to be made fun of and everybody that favors free speech should rub whatever stupid thing they fear in their face every chance they get until these people grow up.  Al Gore is just as big of a baby as some idiot beardo in Damascus who is just as big of a baby as the hipster trying to fit in at college by joining BDS.

OW the EDGE

I'm not even commenting on the substance of what he's saying, but there's a lot of obnoxious dismissiveness going on in this thread.  Do you actually think that he's only making that statement to appear edgy?  If not, what are you even making fun of -- the fact that he's phrasing his sincere argument in impolite terms?  No offense, Madeline, but I've definitely seen you be pretty dismissive in debates before, so I don't really get it.

It's kind of crazymaking to be in a topic where so many people are criticizing/mocking weak arguments you aren't making, and totally ignoring your argument.  Like, what's the point?  How can you mock the tenor of the debate and then do this kind of thing?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The point is (and this is coming from someone who generally does speak in favour of Mr or Mrs Unpleasant coming to soeak if a society wants them is, on the rare chance I bother with student politics) is that it doesn't matter. People as a whole have never been in favour of "free speech" in the absolute form - although people as a whole probably think they are . Talking about it as if it's some crazy new anti-free speech trend perpetuated by dem PC JOOS is laughable paranoia.

Maybe, so what's the harm in us making fun of it?  I mock attacks on free speech wherever they come from.  From social conservatives in American like Al Gore wanting to censor my Anthrax or social conservatives in the Middle East that want to censor me from drawing pictures of their silly prophet.  Or whiny children that don't want anybody to hear an opinion different from theirs.  They're all wrong, they all deserve to be made fun of and everybody that favors free speech should rub whatever stupid thing they fear in their face every chance they get until these people grow up.  Al Gore is just as big of a baby as some idiot beardo in Damascus who is just as big of a baby as the hipster trying to fit in at college by joining BDS.

OW the EDGE

I'm not even commenting on the substance of what he's saying, but there's a lot of obnoxious dismissiveness going on in this thread.  Do you actually think that he's only making that statement to appear edgy?  If not, what are you even making fun of -- the fact that he's phrasing his sincere argument in impolite terms?  No offense, Madeline, but I've definitely seen you be pretty dismissive in debates before, so I don't really get it.

It's kind of crazymaking to be in a topic where so many people are criticizing/mocking weak arguments you aren't making, and totally ignoring your argument.  Like, what's the point?  How can you mock the tenor of the debate and then do this kind of thing?

I'm not interested in debating any of what he's saying. I just find the way in which he's saying it funny. Of course he's not saying it just to be edgy, but hilarious edginess is the (presumably unintentional) outcome of his rhetorical style.

[Alcon]

The point is (and this is coming from someone who generally does speak in favour of Mr or Mrs Unpleasant coming to soeak if a society wants them is, on the rare chance I bother with student politics) is that it doesn't matter. People as a whole have never been in favour of "free speech" in the absolute form - although people as a whole probably think they are . Talking about it as if it's some crazy new anti-free speech trend perpetuated by dem PC JOOS is laughable paranoia.

Maybe, so what's the harm in us making fun of it?  I mock attacks on free speech wherever they come from.  From social conservatives in American like Al Gore wanting to censor my Anthrax or social conservatives in the Middle East that want to censor me from drawing pictures of their silly prophet.  Or whiny children that don't want anybody to hear an opinion different from theirs.  They're all wrong, they all deserve to be made fun of and everybody that favors free speech should rub whatever stupid thing they fear in their face every chance they get until these people grow up.  Al Gore is just as big of a baby as some idiot beardo in Damascus who is just as big of a baby as the hipster trying to fit in at college by joining BDS.

OW the EDGE

I'm not even commenting on the substance of what he's saying, but there's a lot of obnoxious dismissiveness going on in this thread.  Do you actually think that he's only making that statement to appear edgy?  If not, what are you even making fun of -- the fact that he's phrasing his sincere argument in impolite terms?  No offense, Madeline, but I've definitely seen you be pretty dismissive in debates before, so I don't really get it.

It's kind of crazymaking to be in a topic where so many people are criticizing/mocking weak arguments you aren't making, and totally ignoring your argument.  Like, what's the point?  How can you mock the tenor of the debate and then do this kind of thing?

I'm not interested in debating any of what he's saying. I just find the way in which he's saying it funny. Of course he's not saying it just to be edgy, but hilarious edginess is the (presumably unintentional) outcome of his rhetorical style.

All right, fair.  Didn't mean to come on as demanding as I did, re-reading my post.  But any thoughts on the argument I'm making?

[Cory]

"Lived Experience". Lol.

I wonder what SJW's would think of the "lived experience" of every other working class demographic in relation to black people.

Let me guess, "lived experience" = life - privilege.

[afleitch]

Hans and Sophie Scholl would be hated on here.

[dead0man]

Hans and Sophie Scholl would be hated on here.

wow....just....wow....stay classy!

[afleitch]

Hans and Sophie Scholl would be hated on here.

wow....just....wow....stay classy!

Stay classy? Now we have to stay classy? Are you offended?

Campus graffiti campaigns, leafleting. How annoying it must have been for the other students and the authorities no?

[dead0man]

You're trying to compare two people that died trying to take down the Nazis from the inside versus people trying to take down a statue of a dude whose last name happens to by Lynch.

[afleitch]

No. You made the comparison.

People who moan about college students (especially if they aren't at college any more) are more infuriating as at least college student focus is short term. To be outside of that and being infuriated by student politics is stupid. It's the equivalent of caring about college sports.

College is a bubble, that's all. Worse happened in the 60's (legit violence) and in the 1800's (anarchism and the catalyst for the 1848 revolutions) all born in universities and colleges. Sometimes you get a White Rose or an Ole Miss.

[dead0man]

I'm pretty sure I didn't bring them up.

And again, I'm not "infuriated".  I'm pointing and laughing and occasionally highlighting an innocent that got hosed by the little authoritarians and the administrators that cave to them.


If anybody is infuriated it's the people complaining that we're making of the precious little snow flakes.

[afleitch]

Let's simplify this.

A campus is a home. That's what it is, ultimately for students who live there. Every home up and down the country has 'house rules'. Sometimes you're asked to not to swear, sometimes you're asked not to bring up certain issues. Do people bang on private homes and demand that 1st Amendment rights be protected? No. Say anything homophobic in my home and your out the front door in my home. Does that make us 'special snowflakes?' No.

Sometimes students just don't want sh-t brought through their front door, because they are concerned about people they live with. That's all it is. They will leave college and that will be the end of that. But while they are in college, they might be a little sensitive about the people they are sharing their communal space with. That's all it is. And it's not new.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Like, I don't know, with a random, representative poll that directly asks people about their attitudes toward pluralism and free speech?

This will probably strike you as deranged rambling, but...

What I'm getting at is that it isn't certain how much this would actually tell us. While, granted, it hangs onto much of its postwar prestige in North America (and amongst journalists everywhere of course), elsewhere the intellectual credibility of positivist quantitative social research has crumbled somewhat over the past third of a century for very good reason (although there were always sceptics; the famous 'rule' about statistics in British India etc).

Basically the issue is this: I might ask a hundred people for their views on a particular social question, but I cannot be sure that they will all interpret the question in the same manner. This is a problem because if they don't then I cannot be sure that the data collected is objective or even exactly accurate. Depending on the circumstances it might even be misleading and through no technical fault on my part. At its worst you get situations where, like, an awful lot of 1960s social surveys are useless as historic documents except as examples of 1960s social surveys. Apparently sending round some well-spoken Oxbridge undergrads to ask workers in a car factory what they think about about class or a bunch of farmers what they thought about the relationship between the country and the city was not the greatest of ideas.

Let's say the question is about unacceptable speech. It is obvious that I'm asking about the acceptability of speech deemed by some to be racist, homophobic etc. Someone older being polled might well give a more 'liberal' answer to the question than if they assumed it was related to the security of the state. The inverse might well be true of someone younger.

Does this render any such survey as useless or inherently unreliable? No. But it does mean that the data is not pure, that the findings should not be regarded as an objective social fact, even if they could be used as an example of something indicative.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If it feels as if we're arguing across three separate rooms and over the noise of a washing machine about to give up the ghost then I think its fair to conclude that there must be an element of mutual misunderstanding going on.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

An issue in American public discourse - as in something that people with letters after their name are prepared to defend - since the early 1990s, not a new development. I agree that it is absurd and distasteful. And generally counterproductive.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Depends on the circumstances; i.e. whose event is it, who takes decisions over speaker invites etc. ?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It isn't as your position is quite consistent and entirely constant. Does pretty clearly place you in a minority position, but then that's the life of the civil liberties advocate isn't it?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I mean the process of political rights rather than the (or 'a' or 'an') end result. It appalls you to see even a theoretical abuse, and if such a reaction is possible then morality is not far behind. You are in this respect an extremely ardent old fashioned liberal, way more so than a lot of people who use that sort of label. This is not an insult.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Curiosity, probably.

[dead0man]

Let's simplify this.

A campus is a home. That's what it is, ultimately for students who live there. Every home up and down the country has 'house rules'. Sometimes you're asked to not to swear, sometimes you're asked not to bring up certain issues.

Sometimes they ask to change the name of the stupid place they voluntarily enrolled in.  Sometimes they try and take down statues of dudes with the last name of Lynch.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Like the "you people are infuriated" complaint, I'm not understanding why you think we think this is new?  College aged people have always been and will always be whiney little bitches that think they are more important than they are.  It's biological due to evolution.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[ingemann]

Hans and Sophie Scholl would be hated on here.

wow....just....wow....stay classy!

Stay classy? Now we have to stay classy? Are you offended?

Campus graffiti campaigns, leafleting. How annoying it must have been for the other students and the authorities no?

Let's completely ignore what these young people fought against compared to what their modern "counterparts" fights against. Here's the thing Hans and Sophie was beheaded by the German state. What do their modern "counterparts" risk? A ticket for littering and vandalism at most.

[afleitch]

Sigh.

I love how sensitive people are in a thread about taking apart peoples 'sensitivity'.

[dead0man]

I love how people that claim this isn't a big deal keep posting in the thread.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I love how sensitive people are in a thread about taking apart peoples 'sensitivity'.

The curious part is the assumption that there is something wrong in being sensitive. Ah, destructive cultural norms etc.

[Alcon]

This will probably strike you as deranged rambling, but...

What I'm getting at is that it isn't certain how much this would actually tell us. While, granted, it hangs onto much of its postwar prestige in North America (and amongst journalists everywhere of course), elsewhere the intellectual credibility of positivist quantitative social research has crumbled somewhat over the past third of a century for very good reason (although there were always sceptics; the famous 'rule' about statistics in British India etc).

Basically the issue is this: I might ask a hundred people for their views on a particular social question, but I cannot be sure that they will all interpret the question in the same manner. This is a problem because if they don't then I cannot be sure that the data collected is objective or even exactly accurate. Depending on the circumstances it might even be misleading and through no technical fault on my part. At its worst you get situations where, like, an awful lot of 1960s social surveys are useless as historic documents except as examples of 1960s social surveys. Apparently sending round some well-spoken Oxbridge undergrads to ask workers in a car factory what they think about about class or a bunch of farmers what they thought about the relationship between the country and the city was not the greatest of ideas.

Let's say the question is about unacceptable speech. It is obvious that I'm asking about the acceptability of speech deemed by some to be racist, homophobic etc. Someone older being polled might well give a more 'liberal' answer to the question than if they assumed it was related to the security of the state. The inverse might well be true of someone younger.

Does this render any such survey as useless or inherently unreliable? No. But it does mean that the data is not pure, that the findings should not be regarded as an objective social fact, even if they could be used as an example of something indicative.

That's not rambling or incoherent at all...it's just not a remotely effective rebuttal of my argument, if it was intended to be one.

Your argument, as far as I can tell, is that the phrasing of questions, and the context in which those questions are asked, can affect the answers given.  Yes.  You're pointing out that the way this answer was framed might capture those who are willing to restrict free speech based on harm caused to individuals (often younger people), but fail to pick up those who are willing to restrict free speech based on more conservative concerns about the state or moral decency (often younger people).  Yes.  And?  How does that negate my argument in any way, shape, or form?  Unless you have a reason to believe that the question-asking or question-answering process here is flawed in a way that negates the point I'm making, this is logically irrelevant.  The fact that other cohorts would abuse restrictions on political speech is not a rebuttal of my argument; it is part of my argument.

If it feels as if we're arguing across three separate rooms and over the noise of a washing machine about to give up the ghost then I think its fair to conclude that there must be an element of mutual misunderstanding going on.

I'm genuinely not sure what you're on about.  You have not identified a single part of your argument I've misunderstood or failed to respond to.  As far as I can tell, the only "misunderstanding" I had is when I assumed you were responding to me in a post where you were quoting lines of my post.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

An issue in American public discourse - as in something that people with letters after their name are prepared to defend - since the early 1990s, not a new development. I agree that it is absurd and distasteful. And generally counterproductive.

This may not be new.  It wouldn't surprise me if this was a rather old idea in academia and student life.  People who feel their belief systems or way of life are "threatened" tend to exercise control over whatever space they can, even if it's a tiny slice of the world.  My concern is that people in our age cohort tend to be unusually sympathetic to the idea that institutional restrictions (including by government) can often be warranted because some political speech is too offensive to certain oppressed groups; because power structures mean that pluralism "stacks the deck" against oppressed groups; and because certain ideas are too "offensive" or "destabilizing" of tolerant society.

I do not think all of those beliefs are limited to this generational cohort (especially the last one -- a big thing among the right for years, obviously) but I think a lot of people in the cohort have ideological beliefs that push them toward those beliefs, or are at least very sympathetic to them.  Like I say, I don't think that's totally unique to this generation (even if the form is a little new), but it's pretty damn troubling to me.

Depends on the circumstances; i.e. whose event is it, who takes decisions over speaker invites etc. ?

I'll address this in my next reply to Andrew, since I think we're getting at a similar issue.

I mean the process of political rights rather than the (or 'a' or 'an') end result. It appalls you to see even a theoretical abuse, and if such a reaction is possible then morality is not far behind. You are in this respect an extremely ardent old fashioned liberal, way more so than a lot of people who use that sort of label. This is not an insult.

It's not that I'm insulted.  It's that I'm confused about how this observation adds anything that my argument itself doesn't.   Like, you seem to be saying that I vest moral value in "the process" in the sense that I think it's a bad idea to selectively compromise "the process" of deciding who can talk based on an inherently political standard.  That's true...but you're basically just paraphrasing my argument, no?