Students at the Emory University in Atlanta requested a meeting with the school president after being "intimidated" and feeling "genuine concern and pain" after chalk graffiti messages started appearing around campus. The message?
Free speech on campus is sort of a hobby horse of mine and I'm not remotely surprised by that story. It's always been the case that if you want to prevent people from saying things that you don't like, the easiest way to do it is to try to characterize their speech as somehow dangerous or harmful in a way that's tantamount to actually physically hurting you. Students started figuring this out a couple of years ago, discovered that it actually worked in the campus setting and now use it ad nauseum.
On a related note, this just went up today - the talk happened on Monday. Outstanding panel on these issues that's well worth listening to.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
They actually jokingly brought that up in response to one of the audience questions.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Lots of new polls out the last two days. Most Democratic National race polls show Hillary pulling away back into double digit leads, but Bloomberg has one with them tied. Trump however is seeing his lead shrink inside 10 points in a couple, and he's at around 40% in all of them. Most of the Rubio support has fallen to Cruz. Be interesting to see where things go from here for Trump, will going after Cruz now actually hurt him unlike going after others?
As to specific races, bad news for Bernie and Trump. Bernie is down 6 in Wisconsin, 7 in California and 25 in Pennsylvania. Trump tied with Cruz in Wisconsin and neck and neck with Kasich in Pennsylvania, though he does lead by 11 in California.
They actually jokingly brought that up in response to one of the audience questions.
In all seriousness, although it's not essential, I think it's usually a good idea to have someone with the minority perspective in there as long as you've actually found someone with a coherent take on the situation, and it's not just tokenism. At one point in that video one of the dudes went off about how "gays and lesbians are part of the elite if they're at university, so what's the problem?" to which I kind of just had to shake my head at.
In all seriousness, although it's not essential, I think it's usually a good idea to have someone with the minority perspective in there as long as you've actually found someone with a coherent take on the situation, and it's not just tokenism. At one point in that video one of the dudes went off about how "gays and lesbians are part of the elite if they're at university, so what's the problem?" to which I kind of just had to shake my head at.
Why do you shake your head? You don't think being among the 5 per cent wealthiest people on the planet makes you part of the economic elite?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
In all seriousness, although it's not essential, I think it's usually a good idea to have someone with the minority perspective in there as long as you've actually found someone with a coherent take on the situation, and it's not just tokenism.
These are people with legal opinions. Being black or gay would not make their opinions more or less valid. This is a telling statement - I don't know if you actually watched the thing, but after that joke was made, it was pointed out that there's actually a fair bit of diversity of legal opinion on that stage - even Volokh and Lukianoff, who are about as aligned as is possible among constitutional law specialists, completely disagreed about the impact of one of the major recent decisions on the first amendment.
Diversity of opinion is the only thing that matters. It may occur as a result of other forms of diversity, but those aren't an end in themselves, and if they're treated as such tokenism is the only thing it CAN be.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
Not a big fan of Cenk, but this was an excellent interview, especially talking about how the media has handled Bernie and treated him vs the establishment candidate Hillary..
Trying to find the clip - Don Lemon had two female conservative pundits on last night, and one woman really let Trump's mouthpiece have it on Trump's misogyny . . .
These are people with legal opinions. Being black or gay would not make their opinions more or less valid. This is a telling statement - I don't know if you actually watched the thing, but after that joke was made, it was pointed out that there's actually a fair bit of diversity of legal opinion on that stage - even Volokh and Lukianoff, who are about as aligned as is possible among constitutional law specialists, completely disagreed about the impact of one of the major recent decisions on the first amendment.
Diversity of opinion is the only thing that matters. It may occur as a result of other forms of diversity, but those aren't an end in themselves, and if they're treated as such tokenism is the only thing it CAN be.
Dude, it's term paper season, plus I'm in charge of all the grad festivities this year, and I also work. I don't have two hours to dedicate to YouTube. I skipped around a bit and found a couple of different points to digest and I might watch the whole thing after the semester is over. If this is purely legal argument, that's separate from the political (lol) then fine whatever, but if the discussion touches on the impacts of policies on minorities then it's usually beneficial to have someone who's felt those impacts speak to them, IMO.
To me it's analogous to a discussion about cancer. Yes, I want the expert knowledge on what cancer does to the body from doctors, etc., but if I want to know what having cancer is like and the emotional toil, financial and personal burdents, etc., that goes with it, I'd rather talk to someone who's lived through it. It's like Holocaust historians and. Holocaust survivors (I'm not comparing campus free speech issues to the Holocaust). I think both are essential for getting a true understanding.
Of course - I wasn't suggesting you HAD to listen to it, I was just saying that if you had that would have been apparent. And I think it's well worth a listen but I'm obviously a law nerd so what the hell do I know.
And yeah when it comes to constitutional law there really is no separating legal argument from the political, and there are plenty of purely philosophical points about the role of universities etc etc etc so I wasn't trying to suggest they were just parsing case law. If they were I probably wouldn't suggest non-lawyers watch it.
I'm just not sure what additional useful perspective could be added on this subject matter by having, for example, a lesbian up there (I have no idea, maybe one of the panelists IS gay, matters not at all from what I can tell from the discussion).
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
I mean, I guess I worded that poorly; there is SOME separation in so far as in a purely legal sense, the question of whether a law requires X doesn't extend outside the law itself - e.g. Canadian residents have to file a Canadian tax return, that's the law. But any substantive discussion beyond that, it's hard to separate the two modes of thought.
For example, if the question is "can the Canadian government pass a constitutional law that forbids newspaper articles discussing statements made by members of the Liberal Party of Canada", the answer is no, and it's a purely legal answer with no real political aspect. But those are never the interesting cases.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
I just read that Anonymous is threatening to out Cruz's connection to prostitutes unless he drops out. Not sure if it is real or not though. Sorry if it was mentioned already.
And before someone dismisses the claim simply due to the source, recall that they broke the John Edwards mistress and baby story, among a few others (detailed here: http://mentalfloss.com/article/24291...ally-got-right)
Cruz is a nutcase, and an unlikeable idiot. He is less presidential than Trump, and that takes some doing.
But I have to admit I don't care if he has had extramarital affairs. That is none of my business and (in my view) is not relevant to the question of his suitability for office.
