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

[Mr. Reactionary]

I find this thread incredibly triggering. I'm physically ill from reading it, that's how much of a violent emotional assault it was. I'm reporting you to the government for harming me, much like the student at UMich in the link below.

http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/25047/

"Yet many students declared the fake Berlin Wall offensive and an example of privilege – and at least one student told organizers – Young Americans for Freedom – that the display should be reported as a “bias incident.”

Another student even pulled out his phone and reportedly called administrators to lodge an official bias complaint."

[Mr. Reactionary]

I've seen some videos where these students come across as thickheaded and stupid. Don't know if that's the case everywhere, but some of these people calling for censorship is just unreal. Freedom of speech doesn't apply only to you, you know?

I feel as though there is a big gap between what both sides are arguing about. Most of the censorship complaints are about:

Restraint on reporters/outsiders accessing
Coercion against expressing non-racist speech (such as the definition of racism and privilege)
Coercion to participate in speech
Requests to prohibit signs about free-speech from rallies
Off-campus dress codes
Racial segregation

All of the defenses I've seen have conflated the above free speech points into:

Poop swastikas and racial slurs are indefensible

I don't see why either side would disagree with the other's. They aren't mutually exclusive.

[Mr. Reactionary]

That's part of the problem. Reasonable people refuse to speak up and then the only people talking are extremists and trolls.

Yeah, I don't really get this attitude either. It just strikes me as profoundly intellectually lazy. We're not soldiers in trenches here. This isn't a video game or something. Disagreeing with one thing doesn't mean you're automatically taking someone else's side. This is a classic example of a false dichotomy. If someone perceives you as an MRA or a racism-enabler or something because you point out examples of them stepping over the line or using demonstrably bad logic then they're simple-minded, to put it charitably.

Standing ovation. Very well said.

[Mr. Reactionary]

GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY ALLOWS FLAGS TO FLY FROM DORM ROOMS — UNLESS THEY’RE PALESTINIAN

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is what happens once we start censoring some speech; other speech always follows. 

[Mr. Reactionary]

Lol. The argument that the Yale dust up was about blackface is hilariously dishonest.

First off, the initial letter from Yale doesn't just say "students please don't wear blackface". It talked about a whole host of "insensitive" costumes. The email specifically criticizes:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The email then refers students to check their costume ideas with an approved censor: https://www.pinterest.com/yalecces/costumes-to-avoid/

This website doesn't just say "Remember children, no blackface." It includes criticism of all sorts of costumes including cowboys, Steve Jobs, a human ball pit and an inexplicable picture of a Euro coin.

The email references that the costume issue is important on many other campuses. SUNY for instance, had their very own hotline to help decide your Halloween costume.http://www.nationalreview.com/article/426260/colleges-designating-official-halloween-costume-sensitivity-consultants-katherine. Clemson issued an official apology when food employees wore sombreros while serving tacos. http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=6873. A much cited Huffington Post article on "offensive costumes" includes "sexy nurse" because it totes objectifies a career, and skeleton costumes because OMG anorexia. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/offensive-halloween-costumes-ignorant_560ed210e4b0af3706e0ae3d

But lets look at the second email sent out by Christakis. Christakis didn't say, "Muh blackface is fine." She acknowledges that some costumes may be inappropriate. Her complaint however was three-fold.

1.) Policing off-campus dress codes is patronizing absent some real example of pervasive blackface parties. It's not like there was some actual need to remind the super vast majority of adult students not to wear blackface.

2.) The vague recommendations about "culturally insensitive" costumes sweeps far beyond blackface. Christakis specifically references Disney princess costumes; why is it OK for an Asian student to dress as her favorite Princess (Belle or Cinderella), but its potentially not for a blonde student to dress as her favorite Princess (Mulan or Pocahontas). P.C. policing extends well beyond obvious courtesies like don't wear blackface. As the above articles mentioned, lots of inoffensive costumes are being called unacceptable. Thus the first email is not only chilling legitimately distasteful clothes, its discouraging protected clothes (and thus ideas) as well. This is repugnant to a free, adult society.

3.) As adults in a free society, we should be be willing to tolerate a certain amount of diversity, including diversity of expression. That doesn't mean we should applaud or encourage blackface, but it does mean that assuming a certain ideology (privilege; cultural appropriation; systemic racism) as orthodox is dangerous, as it assumes that all opposing beliefs are illegitimate. Again, the first email didn't limit itself to blackface, it applied to any costume which could be offensive. Offensive to who? Everything is offensive to somebody, and by directly citing the SJW Pintrest groups, the email was implying that the cited groups were determinative of what was and wasn't offensive. This is viewpoint discrimination, and is very dangerous in an academic context. Especially when vague terms are used.

That was what Christakis argued. The idea that this is somehow entirely a defense of blackface is incorrect, ignorant, and dishonest. But it's not surprising. This is the same thing that happened during the other college protests. SJWs demanded automatic sanctions on arbitrarily defined "hate speech" which apparently included signs invoking the first amendment. http://dailycaller.com/2015/11/13/amherst-activists-demand-reeducation-for-students-who-celebrated-free-speech/. Mizzou protesters condemned the President as racist when refused to parrot back their Intersectionality 101 definition of "systemic racism", which assumes that merely disagreeing with their concept is "racist hate speech" worthy of a ban. Dartmouth protesters engaged in violence and intimidation to try and coerce students into participating in their protests. Reporters were forcibly blocked from public locations at Mizzou and Smith. Plus the complaints about unconstitutional off-campus dress codes. These are all legitimate first amendment concerns, and yet to hear the SJWs, the only First Amendment arguments being made are those trying to defend poop swastikas and blackface. Its incredibly deceitful or incredibly ignorant to say that that is what the First Amendment arguments are about.

OK, now that that is out of the way, feel free to discriminate against my viewpoints on the basis of my race.

[Mr. Reactionary]

http://www.scribd.com/doc/293326897/Oberlin-College-Black-Student-Union-Institutional-Demands

Here is their full list of demands. It's almost entirely illegal and unconstitutional. It calls for racial quotas (illegal under Regents v. Bakke), discriminatory hiring practices (illegal under CRA Title VII), exclusive monetary benefits to only 1 race (illegal under CRA Title VI), mandatory segregated housing (Illegal under CRA Title III), and a bunch of other stupid demands. They demand that black protesters (but only black protesters) actually be paid for protesting. They draw up a list of favorable professors who should be given tenure outside of the normal process, and also a list of heretics who should be immediately fired without regard to their contracts. They demand that ALL students MUST take a class called Intro to the Black experience, but demand that NO class in any department that focuses on western civilization be mandatory.

Even the demands which could be reasonable are cloaked in bigotry. For example:

"We DEMAND an online database that outlines the deadline, dates, and forms critical for the successful academic journey of Black students.

We DEMAND that Black students be able to supplement their primary academic advisor with an advisor outside of their department or major.

We DEMAND financial aid workshops for Black students by Black financial aid officers so that students can fully understand the contents of their financial package and how it will change throughout their time at Oberlin College and Conservatory."

I mean, if you strip the bolded words out, these demands seem OK, but as written they are blatantly and  disgustingly racist.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Most students are studying under the pall of five-figure debt, marginal job prospects at graduation, and parents whose retirement remains totally unsecured. Nearly half of them won't finish their degrees, and increasingly large shares attend "schools" that we wouldn't recognize as institutions of higher learning in the first place. Many are "non-traditional" students, which usually entails balancing one's studies with menial service sector work, child care, or elder care.

Reminds me of the story of the Occupy Wall Street Puppet Master who was shocked he couldn't find a good job in his field.

https://reason.com/blog/2011/11/03/underemployed-puppeteer-joins

[Mr. Reactionary]

A group at Cal State-LA is hosting an event called  “When Diversity Becomes a Problem" was going to be about the left and it's hatred of free speech.  You know where this is going.  After an Assistant Prof threatened to beat up anybody that was for the event, the Dean canceled the event because there wasn't someone from the other side there to debate the invited guest.  Nevermind that the day before this event the Uni has a lecture by Angela Davis and Tim Wise, the subject? “the U.S.’s uncritical embrace of individualism, myth of meritocracy, unchallenged white supremacy, and entrenched institutional inequity in our society,”.  Do you think they are going to have someone on the other side to debate?

They should get Melissa Click. Seriously though, what a bunch of babies.

[Mr. Reactionary]

(like a lot of the people crying foul about a lot of this studenty nonsense are quite happy to have State crackdowns on speech in other contexts. Which... er... many of those students are not happy with. Lawd).

bull sh**t

[Mr. Reactionary]

Honestly they really should consider not putting on The Producers if that's their attitude. Or The Sound of Music.

Or learning about WWII.

Unless its only about how privileged Americans bombed poor people and minorities.

[Mr. Reactionary]

"After meeting with our students, I cannot dismiss their expression of feelings and concern as motivated only by political preference or over-sensitivity. Instead, the students with whom I spoke heard a message, not about political process or candidate choice, but instead about values regarding diversity and respect that clash with Emory’s own.

...

On the heels of work begun by students last fall and advanced last month through the Racial Justice Retreat and subsequent working groups, Emory is taking a number of significant steps: ...


• A formal process to institutionalize identification, review, and addressing of social justice opportunities and issues"

These infants are not prepared for the real world if contested elections hurt their feelings.

[Mr. Reactionary]

...

I think this is a video of what you tried to post. It's from 2014.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWqMYqFI2tg

[Mr. Reactionary]

I loved how being an atheist made you under-privileged compared to someone who went to church every week on that quiz. Something tells me that Redditors are doing fine in the privilege department.

Another gem: "I don’t know what “Sallie Mae” is."

I know what it is despite never having used it. How does mere knowledge of the existence of something qualify as a privilege?

[Mr. Reactionary]

I took that Buzzfeed privilege test. My family was always poorer than dirt and my father left early. Still thought I'd be more privileged. Only got a 38 out of 100. Kinda disappointing.

Nice fellow poor southerner. I also got 38 out of 100. What a bogus quiz. I totally have "Never been a bartender privilege" and "hair never touched by strangers privilege" to feel guilty about though.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Here's a fun list of annecdotes, although much of the blame is leveled at colleges rather than just the college students.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/04/20/jefferson-muzzles-go-to-50-colleges-and-universities/?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_volokh

[Mr. Reactionary]

“I shouldn’t be reminded every time I leave my dorm room of how easy my life can be taken away ..."

So now if anything reminds someone of their own mortality, as a human, that is "emotionally triggering". Everyone dies. That is fact. These kids really seem to want to regress to being 5 all over again.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Trigglypuff may replace AIDS Skrillex as the face of the SJW movement.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Pearl Harbor happened 75 years ago. The only arguably justifiable war we've had since then has been Afghanistan.

Korea? Gulf War I? Operation Just Cause? The conflict with ISIL?

Literally none of the above conflicts were/are worth it.

It's not like we were at fault in Korea though.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Not sure if anyone's posted this yet, but here's basically a compiled list of all the demands initiated by college groups:

http://www.thedemands.org/

*gags*

Awesome. I imagine there will be a lot of blatantly unconstitutional stuff in here.

[Mr. Reactionary]

The President agrees with us.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's a really, really good quote. Hopefully it gets broadcast more, because he is 100% right and this is the attitude liberals everywhere should take.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Now, to be fair, of the millions of people to throw square hats in the air after getting a degree in something, at least 3 have been hurt...and one even sued the school (it was thrown out of court).  So maybe the school is just being super extra double careful.  They are more aware at how soft the heads of their graduates are than we are.

Law graduate hats are Octagonal.

 

[Mr. Reactionary]

At what point does the FBI step in and stop this madness? It is descending into domestic terrorism.

Some college students get mean emails and you think it's a federal crime? People who can't cope with a few mean words without demanding a safe space are so ridiculous. I'm sorry that College Republicans are such snowflakes and get triggered so easily, but they're gonna have to learn to deal with the real world.

How are Republicans snowflakes?  They aren't the ones being coddled and protected from other people's views.

Yeah. Basically a few years ago certain activists on the left started complaining that certain neutral, non-targeted conduct  was "triggering" and had to be actively supressed.  Things like Mark Twain books or halloween costumes. These things were deemed subjectively offensive even if the original intent was not to cause offense and specific persons were not targeted. Critics of this mentality used snowflakes as an insult because many of these neutral things don't offend the vast majority of our society.

Now a lot of edge lords who may have been sympathetic to the "triggering" argument are specifically targeting certain persons with intentionally offensive comments, and somehow think this is equivalent to the first case.

An assignment saying everyone must read Huck Finn is not specific. A protest singling out a particular living person for ill treatment is specific. Wearing a Sombrero on halloween is not directed at anyone. Punching someone in the face is directed at that person. Basically you have one group saying "dont tread on me", and another group pointing fingers saying "tread on them!" You aren't a snowflake for complaining about another person's active attempts to cause you harm or grief.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Killing people is bad. Free speech is good. These ideas do not conflict at all.

but but but...if we don't kill them now, they'll kill us later!

Its just preemptive self defense against literal Nazi fascists.

[Mr. Reactionary]

"In those exceptional cases where this review indicates significant risk to the community, the president and senior administration will work with event sponsors to determine measures to maximize safety and mitigate risk. Only in cases of imminent and credible threat to the community that cannot be mitigated by revisions to the event plan would the president and senior administration consider canceling the event."

I would need to know more about what they interpret an imminent and credible threat as.