Could you not just call them smug?
Do we really need to make up a word for it? Especially one that ugly and rubbish?
Has political correctness actually gone mad?
- Thread starter Pogue Mahone
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Could you not just call them smug?
Do we really need to make up a word for it? Especially one that ugly and rubbish?
Another angle:
http://www.jta.org/2017/06/07/news-...-california-university-to-cancel-faculty-hire
But even if it won't be possible to know how this really went, there are things about the Intercept article that can be criticized anyway:
For instance, they use Steven Salaita's non-appointment at the University of Illinois as an example of censorship in this article and several others. Consequently while refraining from directly referring to the content of the tweets that brought him down (also leaving out the worst), using the generic euphemisms 'critical of Israel' and 'pro-Gaza tweets' instead. Turning his hatemongering into a victim story like this gives me serious doubts about the credibility of their reporting on similar issues. It also pays to take a look at the comment sections of these articles, because reporting of that kind simply attracts a certain crowd.
The second point is that there's an irony to be found when a professor who supports BDS decries supposed supression of academic freedom. Same goes for the author and the way he uses the case of Dartmouth professor Bruce Duthu, who refrained from assuming a new post over controversy caused by his support of the BDS campaign.
Yes it has.
I used to manage a sales team of around 18 agents for sky and one man called Kiwi was a Ugandan national living in Glasgow.
I was quite ill and went to the docs first thing and called my boss who informed my team i would be late.
So anyway, as soon as i walked through the door, Kiwi said, "Oh James, you look white as a ghost so i believe you must be ill."
Now Kiwi was a lovely gent and didn't mean anything by it.
But if it was him just returning from a holiday back home and i said, "oh Kiwi, you look as black as my boot so i believe you were on holiday." - I'm pretty sure everyone including management would have branded me a racist for that and i would likely have lost my job too.
I used to manage a sales team of around 18 agents for sky and one man called Kiwi was a Ugandan national living in Glasgow.
I was quite ill and went to the docs first thing and called my boss who informed my team i would be late.
So anyway, as soon as i walked through the door, Kiwi said, "Oh James, you look white as a ghost so i believe you must be ill."
Now Kiwi was a lovely gent and didn't mean anything by it.
But if it was him just returning from a holiday back home and i said, "oh Kiwi, you look as black as my boot so i believe you were on holiday." - I'm pretty sure everyone including management would have branded me a racist for that and i would likely have lost my job too.
Compelling evidence painted there in your hypothetical scenario.
If someone's skin colour is rapidly changing, I don't see anything wrong with pointing it out. I somewhat doubt that a black person on vacation is changing his appearance as much as a sick caucasian is.
Tbh, i don't think kiwi would have thought i was being racist had i said that. But you can be sure my own colleagues and also management would have taken it the wrong way which is basically what this thread is about.
@staubsauger
Poor white people. Your life must be so tough, having to endure jokes.
When a large part of the population (black people, women, LGBT) were treated as animals just decades ago, and still are in many parts of the world, that obviously affects the sensitivity of those groups. You can't just ignore that.
You haven't actually read what i said. Nowhere did i say i took offence at all. In fact, i go out of my way to say he meant nothing by it. It just shows how easy it is to misunderstand something so cheers.
My god.
That's like a Poundland version of "You can't say anything these days."
I don't see what's wrong with that comment Ian. Asking about someone's tan after vacation is common. So he happens to be black and as the sun tan happens to make people's skin darker it is of course impossible for someone that already is black (thus the joke). What's the issue? Yes he is black. But unless you declare anything racist that links from someone's skin colour - which would make the initial remark equally racist - then there is nothing to be seen in just that statement. If you have history of making racists comments (meaning link skin colour to something derogative*) it's something completely different of course as people must assume that you are once again trying to point out that he is black and something is wrong with that. Can you point out to me what I'm missing here?
Or are you saying that there is no racism but the fact that you still would get fired shows double standards? I agree with that.
*like when he in fact wasn't on holiday at all, therefore suggesting he is lazy.
There was no racism at all but a few others thought what he said was racist. I knew him so obviously knew what he meant. But the fact that other people thought it might be is the reason I posted this at all.
What a baller.
Alexa providing some thread material this morning:
Teen's Trump T-shirt censored in yearbook photo
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...mp-t-shirt-censored-yearbook-photo/387244001/
If it were a simple dress-code violation, we'd probably have heard by now.
Taking it as read, the act in this case should run contrary to any liberal message. And so far as the individual is concerned, such censorship is only likely to engender further resentment.
Teen's Trump T-shirt censored in yearbook photo
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...mp-t-shirt-censored-yearbook-photo/387244001/
If it were a simple dress-code violation, we'd probably have heard by now.
Taking it as read, the act in this case should run contrary to any liberal message. And so far as the individual is concerned, such censorship is only likely to engender further resentment.
I really feel that this is nonsense:
Cambridge University examiners told it is sexist to use the word 'genius' to describe students:
'Cambridge University examiners have been warned against using words such as “flair”, “brilliance” and “genius” when assessing students’ work because they are associated with men, an academic has revealed.'
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/e...m-row-genius-lecturers-students-a7787401.html
Cambridge University examiners told it is sexist to use the word 'genius' to describe students:
'Cambridge University examiners have been warned against using words such as “flair”, “brilliance” and “genius” when assessing students’ work because they are associated with men, an academic has revealed.'
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/e...m-row-genius-lecturers-students-a7787401.html
Last edited:
You are correct. This is in fact nonsense
The right will deliver us from political correctness and Cultural Snowflakes
So the student who wrote this basically agrees with the teacher's version of what he 'did wrong' then (at least from what he said on the Joe Rogan Podcast).
He spoke out against the new hiring policy. His view was that the university diversity hiring policy would be damaging, as the structure is less formal than other universities and having to justify why a hire is increasing diversity would lead to limiting the talent pool they could choose from.
He then raised concerns about a change from people choosing to not attend to people being told they should not attend because of their race. His position was that this is a far different prospect and as a Jewish man he was extremely uncomfortable with the idea of being told where he could or could not go on the campus based on his race.
He actually said on that podcast that he was having very civil conversations with some of the students until some of the more radical people turned up and then it became more heated - which is what went viral - and now he has been told that he can't go in due to threats to his safety. So the part about it making them all look like violent thugs is just misrepresenting what he's been saying.
It's hard to assess such a situation from a few articles and videos, but this one seems to be really bad. And that president is totally unfit to deal with the situation. The fact that Nazis are now targeting that place makes the mess complete.
It's also ironic that the interviewed student can utter a sentence like 'Hopefully, long-term we can weed out people like Bret' about a Jewish professor without noticing. Sure, she didn't mean it that way, but - besides that being Stalinist rethoric - it's telling for someone who is surely claiming to value sensitivities highly in her political work.
Last edited:
"Students at Evergreen, founded in the progressive fervor of the 1960s, have no majors or grades and study in small groups, taking interdisciplinary classes where a marine biologist, for instance, might team up with a philosophy professor and a music professor."
So not a respectable higher education institute. More of a book club x group therapy.
So not a respectable higher education institute. More of a book club x group therapy.
What so you leave with no qualification and massive debt. Ok.
Much more important to become woke.
Matt Groening is an alumni so they do have that going for them.
I wonder how their scholarship programs work.
As long as they give you a Bachelor's degree. Plus it is a public college so it will be a little cheaper for in state residents.
Actually that is pretty cool tbf.
Guess so- the article doesn't quite make it clear that you do get the degree, but you'd have to presume so.
Without a major i'd guess it would just be the typical kind of general degree that primes you for pouring coffee.
A lot of times you just need to get the degree. I have plenty of friends with theater degrees with steady office gigs.
I somehow think he wouldn't have gone on Fox if he wanted to keep things going smoothly. And I must suspect his motives if he protested this year's day of (white) absence and not the decades which had days of (black) absence.
Surely you're not arguing for some sort of self-censorship or even political correctness.
I thought this thread was to document the horrific threat to western values and free speech caused by college students. Here we have an example of mass trigerring of (not-so)young snowflakes who couldn't take all the concentrated free speech and couldn't sort things out in a debate but responded with doxxing and threats of mass murder. And yet we're discussing the education methods of a college.
From the introduction in the wiki:
Evergreen offers a Bachelor of Arts in Liberal Arts and Bachelor of Science, Master of Environmental Studies, Master of Public Administration, and Master in Teaching.
Also from wiki:
According to U.S. News & World Report's 2017 college rankings, Evergreen is ranked #32 in Regional Universities West, and #4 in Best Undergraduate Teaching.
From the same link, it seems to cost half of the 1st 3, so probably less debt too.
Having said that, I absolutely think he shouldn't be fired and the students' language was vile (edited as it may have been by a journalist with a long-standing agenda). But I'm a PC person so what do I know.
On your second point. The 'day of absence' was a historic tradition based on a theatre production of a story where black residents of a village chose not to turn up for work one day to show their value to a community after being taken for granted. That is members of a community demonstrated of their own choice.
For the organisers to turn around and say that other people of a different race shouldn't turn up this year is a completely different prospect and one that he says he felt uncomfortable with. The two things are completely different so he is fully entitled to take a view on it without being accused of being a racist.
On the first point, as he said on the Joe Rogan Podcast he was being accused of being a racist at the school and was told by another member of staff not to expect a venue to defend himself against the accusation. Then due to the cowardice of the senior management and other faculty members it escalated to the point where the police told him that students were inspecting cars as people were entering the school to track him down and there were credible threats made against him so they couldn't guarantee his safety and he couldn't even return to his job.
Things weren't exactly going smoothly were they?
If you were accused of racism and noone was giving you a venue to defend yourself- would you just accept the accusation or would you defend yourself on whatever venues presented themselves to give you a voice?
Well, I have argued against the anti-PC hysteria in this thread and several others, and I think 'political correctness' is mainly a populistic combat term of the right to target the protection of minorities and the elimination of privilege. So I think you may have a misconception about my position on this issue.
But there can be authoritarian and regressive tendencies among factions of the left too, this has always been the case historically. And since I try not to decide my position regarding an issue along political affiliations, but the content of what people say and do, I may end up criticizing leftists, as I did here.
So to answer your question: I have indeed argued against hugely problematic language and authoritarian practices here. I wouldn't use the terms you used (for the reason stated above), but I'm sure you wouldn't either when you are not being sarcastic.
Fair enough.
I am incredibly annoyed (understatement) with most of identity politics, even for the selfish reason that it is self-defeating and futile for the left to pursue that kind of thinking too much.
But I don't see it as a singular (or even credible) threat, outside of campuses, in serious politics. While the 4chan candidate rules the world, the tumblr candidate doesn't exist (and can never exist, because s/he will be called out on some privilege with bitter infighting).
In general, yes. It's more a problem for the left than the rest of society at this point (but that kinda makes it important too). Although in the age of shitstorms and ritualized outrage it seems to have gained some mainstream relevance beyond that.
And it is a campus we are talking about here, after all. Harassing other students or teachers - and that does happen - is shitty anyway, unless it's about directly stopping them from harrassment of others. (Which is what the students are claiming here, but I'm not buying it.) So there is a case for defending open debate on campus and I think the prof's arguments are plausible, Fox News or not.
Another point that gives importance to this issue is that, in my opinion, left tendencies towards identity politics are just a symptom of a much larger (I guess: global) tendency towards identitarian ideology and tribalist self-affiliation in all parts of society. If one wants to act against that development, the first step must be not to assist it. And I'm afraid that's where a significant part of the left goes wrong atm.
Having said that, I still may have a more ambivalent attitude towards some forms of identity politics than you, as I think emancipation within the framework of the existing society must necessarily take on this form to an extent. (I wrote a few lines on that in this thread: Harvard University to have black only graduation ceremony.) But I'm with you in that I think its perspectives are limited (as are those of reform-oriented emancipation in general), and a more fundamental criticism of inequality and its roots is necessary.
-------------------
[Edit] And just in case I haven't made it clear enough: I also agree with you that the threat from the various right wing authoritarians is infinitely higher on every level.
Last edited:
