I am trying to recall when the words "feeling unsafe" and "feeling uncomfortable" seeped in and have become acceptable means of allowing or not allowing discussions on general (i.e. non-personal) topics? It's an insane, downward spiral of free thinking disintegration.
__________________
"An idea is always a generalization, and generalization is a property of thinking. To generalize means to think." Georg Hegel
“To generalize is to be an idiot.” William Blake
The Following User Says Thank You to CaptainYooh For This Useful Post:
[QUOTE=Dion;6468181]Those university reps in the video are a cancer to society and should be removed from their positions.[/QUOTE]
you mean the position of:
"For the record, her other two adversaries were Herbert Pimlott, a tenured associate professor in communications studies, and Adria Joel, who holds the unwieldy title of acting manager of gendered violence prevention and support at the university's diversity and equity office"
in fairness to mr. joel it maybe a busy time at the office and perhaps he was distracted by numerous other projects and impending deadlines and whatnot
__________________
If I do not come back avenge my death
It’s interesting, as there are numerous examples of this happening but I don’t believe the extreme is indicative of the actual university experience. For the most part, good discussion and competing beliefs are fostered quite substantially (A painfully obvious example, but in a introductory course I took we had a debate assignment where we were given competing views on social issues, and had to convincingly defend opposite sides despite our personal beliefs).
This sort of thing is ridiculous, but what is most concerning to me is that it gives credence to the Trumpian “rise of the simpleton,” where higher education, media, and even facts themselves are being demonised and discredited by the uneducated right to further embolden and comfort the ignorant. Less education certainly makes people easier to manipulate.
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
I am trying to recall when the words "feeling unsafe" and "feeling uncomfortable" seeped in and have become acceptable means of allowing or not allowing discussions on general (i.e. non-personal) topics? It's an insane, downward spiral of free thinking disintegration.
It’s even scarier that these schools will, as a matter of policy, refer someone to a psychologist or counselling (presumably with the condition that attending is mandatory to remain enrolled) if their opinions or comments don’t comply with whatever acceptable position the school has decided upon.
Jonathan Haidt is one of the clearest thinkers on moral psychology, period.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
It’s interesting, as there are numerous examples of this happening but I don’t believe the extreme is indicative of the actual university experience.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepsifree
This sort of thing is ridiculous, but what is most concerning to me is that it gives credence to the Trumpian “rise of the simpleton,” where higher education, media, and even facts themselves are being demonised and discredited by the uneducated right to further embolden and comfort the ignorant.
These are two important points that shouldn't go overlooked in the moral outrage that rightly accompanies stories of campus lunacy of this sort.
First, as much as it may baffle you that this sort of thing could occur at all, it should be kept in mind that these cases are the exception, not the rule. They garner attention because they are absurd and ridiculous, not because they're common. Of course, the caveat is that they shouldn't happen at all, and though rare, there are a large and ever-growing number of examples of this stuff happening. It speaks to an underlying broken campus system of homogeneity of moral thought that, on occasion, bubbles up and results in events like this one. It's dead dogmas and tyranny of the majority in action - basically a sociological case study proving Mill right.
But as with many concerning trends, it's not like you step onto a campus and into bizarro world, which is both important to remember from a "calm the #### down, this isn't an existential threat to society" perspective while simultaneously important to remember from a "don't look at the relatively normal daily experience and convince yourself there isn't a problem at all" perspective.
Second, this is just ammunition for the populist right. Tucker Carlson puts this stuff on his show specifically to get a rise out of people. That doesn't mean it isn't important to fix the problem. Just the opposite: this needs to stop, because it's doing serious political damage and providing influence to people who absolutely should not have it. Bret Weinstein was right to be pissed off about what happened to him, and he was right to speak out about it, but the actual consequences of going on Carlson were probably negative. Hence my enjoyment of Alice Dreger (author of this piece of utter brilliance - http://www.chronicle.com/article/Tak...y-Tower/241304) and her response to the offer to appear on his show and talk about this stuff.
Spoiler!
That is perfect. Do not let people use these incidents for nefarious ends.
This is essentially the right wing edition of police abuses of power as a topic, only less common and less severe in importance. Such incidents occur rarely in the grand scheme of things and certainly aren't the daily routine in interactions between officers and citizens, but they are still too common and speak to underlying problems with the system. Certain egregious examples are hyperbolized, treated as "yet another example of how bad things are everywhere" and used to paint the entire police force and all officers everywhere as power-crazed lunatics out to kill minorities. The errors of critical reasoning, extrapolating anecdotal examples, the way people argue and think about these issues, it all comes out of more or less the same overly simplified playbook.
__________________ "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
Last edited by CorsiHockeyLeague; 11-21-2017 at 01:37 PM.
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
If I were grading the apologies, the President would get a C, but barely.
The professor would get an F.
The president still gets an F for me.
First, she claims it was only through the media that she had a chance to hear the entire transcript? Uhh, no. That's basically just code for "oh crap, this became a big story in the media". Then the empty apology. Then the attempt to claim that the university and her staff are actually the victims. Then the "we're not actually like this, really" argument, despite the evidence showing that yes, they are.
The professor's letter was just garbage.
The Following User Says Thank You to Resolute 14 For This Useful Post:
Location: A simple man leading a complicated life....
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Resolute 14
The president still gets an F for me.
First, she claims it was only through the media that she had a chance to hear the entire transcript? Uhh, no. That's basically just code for "oh crap, this became a big story in the media". Then the empty apology. Then the attempt to claim that the university and her staff are actually the victims. Then the "we're not actually like this, really" argument, despite the evidence showing that yes, they are.
The professor's letter was just garbage.
Letters of resignation would have been more appropriate.
It’s interesting, as there are numerous examples of this happening but I don’t believe the extreme is indicative of the actual university experience. For the most part, good discussion and competing beliefs are fostered quite substantially (A painfully obvious example, but in a introductory course I took we had a debate assignment where we were given competing views on social issues, and had to convincingly defend opposite sides despite our personal beliefs).
It's difficult for someone not in school to gauge how common this sort of thing is. But some observers have tried. Jonathan Haidt and other professors at the Heterodox Academy have done empirical studies into the ideological beliefs of American university professors. They're far outside the distribution of America as a whole, and the gap is getting wider. And while it's tempting to say that's simply because conservatives tend to be less educated than liberals, the studies show that while liberals outnumbers conservatives 4:1 in the sciences and engineering, in the humanities and social sciences they outnumber conservatives 16:1. Are psychology and anthropology professors more intelligent, more discerning than biologists and physicists? Probably not. It seems more likely that in those social circles, ideology has hardened into dogma.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
This sort of thing is ridiculous, but what is most concerning to me is that it gives credence to the Trumpian “rise of the simpleton,” where higher education, media, and even facts themselves are being demonised and discredited by the uneducated right to further embolden and comfort the ignorant. Less education certainly makes people easier to manipulate.
I don't watch those networks, read those blogs, or have friends on social media how make those sorts of remarks. And yet I see anger at the apparent dogmatic conformity of North American colleges all the time, from educated and liberal people who are dismayed that attitudes and tactics they once associated with the religious right - sanctimony, conformity, piety, shaming - have now been embraced by academics on the left.
This has nothing to do with Trump, populism, or anti-intellectualism. The intellectual principles of post-secondary institutions are being threatened by a kind of moral panic sweeping left-wing culture. Anti-intellectualism outside the campus isn't anywhere near as dangerous as ideological orthodoxy within it.
This really just screams that it was the University trying to aviod a media ####storm and instead creating another. I don't see any dogmatic behavior just bad management screwing up. There anwsers are specious and feel like people trying to justify shallow answers because they can't say the truth; quit rocking the boat we don't want the trouble. They have now gotten basicaly the very thing they wanted to avoid.
It's unfortunate to see this being used by some to rail against the "left".
First, as much as it may baffle you that this sort of thing could occur at all, it should be kept in mind that these cases are the exception, not the rule. They garner attention because they are absurd and ridiculous, not because they're common. Of course, the caveat is that they shouldn't happen at all, and though rare, there are a large and ever-growing number of examples of this stuff happening. It speaks to an underlying broken campus system of homogeneity of moral thought that, on occasion, bubbles up and results in events like this one.
Do you listen to the CBC? The hectoring pieties of those professors in the transcript could have come straight from the mouth of Carol Off, Michael Enright, or Anna Maria Tremonti.
So while I agree that identarian moral panic isn't widespread in Canada (I doubt more than 10 or 15 per cent of Canadians subscribe to its dogma) its concentration in academia and the media give it outsized power to suppress dissent. People are getting fired and forced to resign all over Canada's cultural landscape for transgressions against the dogma. And many more are keeping their heads down, their mouths shut, and trying to avoid attracting the attention of the mob.
__________________
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.
Last edited by CliffFletcher; 11-21-2017 at 02:51 PM.
Let's not forget the students who complained to department heads and senior administrators. They are just as much to blame for this because it's their reaction to this material that caused the University to feel like they need protection.
One of my favourite classes in university was a low level philosophy class where the prof would just arrive and make outlandish claims and it was up to us to persuade him otherwise.
"I'm going to masturbate on the bus tonight"
"I'm going to kill my cat. Don't worry, I'll be quick"
I'm assuming he may have adjusted his teaching style.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Russic For This Useful Post:
