Has political correctness actually gone mad?

I agree, but I think the context partly explains why they were on edge.
 
berbatrick said:
I agree, but I think the context partly explains why they were on edge.
Click to expand...

1960s context was far far worse, and still MLK and others could maintain their dignity and appeal to reason. That is why their movement was ultimately succesful. By having far more appealing reasoning they caused the real racists to be isolated and facing not only the opinion of the majority, but the power of the federal government that the majority can mandate (as long as not violating others' individual rights, states segregating on the base of color are no such rights).
 
ThierryHenry said:
:lol:

Surely she's been punished by the university?

And I have to admit I underestimated this trend, think I was arguing on an early page that this was little more than a few eejits on twitter. Clearly that was wrong.
Click to expand...

I feel exactly the same as you. I thought this thread was making a mountain out of a molehill, till this week. These guys have gotten one university president fired already (U/Missouri). The Yale guy may be next, apparently. This is going to get worse before it gets better.

berbatrick said:
https://medium.com/@aaronzlewis/what-s-really-going-on-at-yale-6bdbbeeb57a6

As usual, not so black-and-white. Excuse the pun.
Click to expand...

While it's sad to see that systemic racism still exists in higher education to the degree described there, I'm sure no one literally thought it was just a few BME people crying about that one email. That article does nothing to refute the central issue here - that the Yale and U/Missouri students are trying to co-opt the public space by systematically screaming and getting people fired until they get their way. It's also incredibly selective with the truth.

As shocking as the Yale incident is I think the U/Missouri one is worse, where protesting students shoved around a fellow student (himself a POC if that matters) who was working as a photojournalist because they didn't want their photo being taken in a public space. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/10/u...ers-block-journalists-press-freedom.html?_r=0

That's a professor. A tenured professor. Calling for "muscle", from amongst her students to help her physically intimidate a fellow student. It's unbelievable.
 
For starters: the protests are not really about Halloween costumes or a frat party. They’re about a mismatch between the Yale we find in admissions brochures and the Yale we experience every day. They’re about real experiences with racism on this campus that have gone unacknowledged for far too long. The university sells itself as a welcoming and inclusive place for people of all backgrounds. Unfortunately, it often isn’t.
Click to expand...

I actually understand the point they're making here, it's a pity they had to make it by screaming like a bunch of children. Could quite easily have held a meeting, discussed further courses of action (letters, protests, etc) without resorting to anti-democratic ways of making their views heard.
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
I actually understand the point they're making here, it's a pity they had to make it by screaming like a bunch of children. Could quite easily have held a meeting, discussed further courses of action (letters, protests, etc) without resorting to anti-democratic ways of making their views heard.
Click to expand...

Sorry but I don't understand the point they are trying to make. I thought this was about the professor's round email in which he calls students to look away if they are offended by whatever costume someone is wearing on Halloween?
 
IMO, I dont really think the world has gotten more politically correct..its just that the people you could mock in the past and have it be regarded as a joke now can speak up for themselves. Thats the biggest difference. Its not that people are finding more offense now, its just that they can actually air their grievances now.
 
naturalized said:
As shocking as the Yale incident is I think the U/Missouri one is worse, where protesting students shoved around a fellow student (himself a POC if that matters) who was working as a photojournalist because they didn't want their photo being taken in a public space. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/10/u...ers-block-journalists-press-freedom.html?_r=0

That's a professor. A tenured professor. Calling for "muscle", from amongst her students to help her physically intimidate a fellow student. It's unbelievable.
Click to expand...

That's odd. To me the Missouri stuff seems much more acceptable. It's just a bunch of students (and some university staff) getting a bit carried away at what seems to be a legitimate protest over a new university president who oversaw some fairly stringent cost-cutting and didn't act quick enough to address complaints of some fairly nasty (alleged) racist incidents. That's a world apart from the sort of easily offended ninnies the thread is about.

Mind you, even in that situation when you do a bit of digging you do start to wonder how real an issue this racism is. It's hard not to wonder if the age of social media means that attention-seeking activist students in safe, liberal and enlightened universities go out of their way to seek offence so they can make a very public song and dance about how they've been personally affected by the very real prejudice that affects people who live a less protected existence than they do.

It's all about the likes, retweets and favourites these days and using hashtags like #blacklivesmatter (and whatever cause is getting clicks at the moment - transphobia seems pretty trendy these days) alongside examples of people allegedly failing to "check their privilege" seems to be a great way to shout your liberal credentials from the roof-tops.
 
Last edited:
Pogue Mahone said:
That's odd. To me the Missouri stuff seems much more acceptable. It's just a bunch of students (and some university staff) getting a bit carried away at what seems to be a legitimate protest over a new university president who oversaw some fairly stringent cost-cutting and didn't act quick enough to address complaints of some fairly nasty (alleged) racist incidents. That's a world apart from the sort of easily offended ninnies the thread is about.
Click to expand...

I see your point, but the mood in the Yale video - however nasty - is not physically threatening. There's a world of difference between that and physically putting hands on a classmate, leaving aside the involvement of faculty. If any professor of mine ever tried to imply physical violence against me I'd have a good hard think about the kind of university I was attending.
 
Its messed up in the sense that in the current environment they should know not to do that. But I also think its messed up that people take so much offense. This narrative where somehow a Bloomingdale's ad, plus other "messages" can somehow transform a decent person into a rapist is completely unconvincing.
 
MarceloFalcon said:
Its messed up in the sense that in the current environment they should know not to do that. But I also think its messed up that people take so much offense. This narrative where somehow a Bloomingdale's ad, plus other "messages" can somehow transform a decent person into a rapist is completely unconvincing.
Click to expand...

It's not just the rape aspect, spiking your friend's drink is just really irresponsible behavior that should never be done for multiple reasons. Surprised anyone would defend it but I think people are too eager to get outraged at people getting outraged to see sense with some things.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
It's a terrible strapline but - as usual - the twitterstorm is massively hysterical and over the top.
Click to expand...

Besides the fact that you shouldn't expect anything less from social media, in what way is it massively over the top? I haven't looked myself.
 
Shamwow said:
It's not just the rape aspect, spiking your friend's drink is just really irresponsible behavior that should never be done for multiple reasons. Surprised anyone would defend it but I think people are too eager to get outraged at people getting outraged to see sense with some things.
Click to expand...

An ad that alludes to "really irresponsible behaviour"? Oh noes. Won't someone think of the children?!?
 
So are people going mental because - by spiking your best friend's eggnog - you might date rape her...or make her more pliable for other men?

Regardless - how did that get approved lol
 
Pogue Mahone said:
An ad that alludes to "really irresponsible behaviour"? Oh noes. Won't someone think of the children?!?
Click to expand...

You could deconstruct anything like that. Is it any more or less pathetic than people coming on here to complain about how Manchester United plays football? Or coming on here to complain about people complaining?

Fact is, it's a stupid thing that was done that is interesting for people to talk about - so that's exactly what will happen on Twitter.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
So Bloomingdales have been encouraging rape.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/wo...ad-suggests-men-date-rape-female-friends.html

Allegedly...
Click to expand...

The first thing it reminded me of was Robin Thicke, which was pointed out in the article. I wonder if it was done on purpose, seeing as the Blurred Lines song came under so much criticism for being rapey?

It is a shit message. Perhaps it's a small stretch to equate it to rape endorsement, perhaps not; but spiking drinks and advertising should not really belong together.

What was the context of the add? Was it christmas party themed, i.e. things parties are notorious for?
That would at least make a bit of sense.
 
You'd think businesses would have learned to avoid making any references to rape by now. How the hell does stuff like that get approved? Surely someone along the way would've pointed out that Christmas-themed rapeyness isn't a classic selling point.
 
sullydnl said:
You'd think businesses would have learned to avoid making any references to rape by now. How the hell does stuff like that get approved? Surely someone along the way would've pointed out that Christmas-themed rapeyness isn't a classic selling point.
Click to expand...

Yeah this, to be fair. How did that get past approvals?

Also I can't think of any other connotation for spiking drinks besides being rapey.
 
Mihajlovic said:
Sorry but I don't understand the point they are trying to make. I thought this was about the professor's round email in which he calls students to look away if they are offended by whatever costume someone is wearing on Halloween?
Click to expand...
I mean the broader point they allude to about institutional racism and whatnot.
 
berbatrick said:
Again, the Missouri story too - I guess their racism fears were not unfounded.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...-missouri-racism-online-threats-campus-mizzou
Click to expand...

One person... Yes, I am glad he was arrested. I'm always glad when people who commit crimes are arrested.

But for a shit swastika, some mindless hillbilly on a pickup and something else I can't remember, they demanded and got a university president to resign.

The onus of proving widespread racism is still on the protesters, I sincerely remain unconvinced. Plus, the university president has no power to punish people who are not faculty or students for any transgressions. In fact, in the case of the truck hillbilly nor does the police. If the speech was not threatening, rather just racist, its still protected by the First Amendment. The shit swastika is probably some form of damage to other's property.
 
There's a summary below that touches on the institutional racism issue a little. I highlighted it in purple. The baffling thing is that there seems to be an allegation of a black girl being turned away from a party which hasn't caused the storm.

https://www.thefire.org/yale-students-demand-resignations-from-faculty-members-over-halloween-email/

Tensions at Yale University hit a boiling point yesterday after an email about Halloween costumes created a week-long controversy on campus.

Students called for the resignation of Associate Master of Silliman College Erika Christakis after she responded to an email from the school’s Intercultural Affairs Council asking students to be thoughtful about the cultural implications of their Halloween costumes. According to The Washington Post, students are also calling for the resignation of her husband, Master of Silliman College, Nicholas Christakis, who defended her statement.

FIRE President and CEO Greg Lukianoff recorded video of students confronting Nicholas Christakis yesterday in the courtyard of the Silliman College dormitory complex at Yale. Lukianoff was on Yale’s campus to speak at a conference on issues related to free speech in higher education.

As FIRE’s Alex Morey wrote just last week, we see campus controversies over Halloween costumes every year. But these developments at Yale show just how intense those controversies have become.

Yale students have every right to express their anger and frustration with Yale faculty. But FIRE is concerned by yet another unfortunate example of students who demand upsetting opinions be entirely eradicated from the university in the name of fostering “safe spaces” where students are protected from hurt feelings. Practicing free speech does not merely entail the right to protest opinions you object to—it also means acknowledging people’s right to hold those opinions in the first place.

Recall that Yale is the source of one of the most glowing statements in support of free expression in higher education. The statement, based on the university’s 1975 Woodward Report, demonstrates the need to be free to “think the unthinkable, discuss the unmentionable, and challenge the unchallengeable.” It even goes so far as to inform Yale students that “when you agree to matriculate, you join a community where ‘the provocative, the disturbing, and the unorthodox’ must be tolerated. When you encounter people who think differently than you do, you will be expected to honor their free expression, even when what they have to say seems wrong or offensive to you.”

The Intercultural Affairs Committee’s Halloween Email

On Wednesday, October 28, Yale Dean Burgwell Howard sent an email to Yale’s entire undergraduate student body from the university’s Intercultural Affairs Committee, a 13-member group of administrators from the Chaplain’s Office, campus cultural centers, and other campus organizations. The email, titled “Halloween and the Yale Community,” implored students to be thoughtful about the cultural implications of their Halloween costumes and how they might offend or degrade others, pointing to costumes such as feathered headdresses, turbans, “war paint,” and blackface as examples of inappropriate “cultural appropriation and/or misrepresentation.” Howard sent a similar email to the Northwestern University community in 2010 when he was the dean of students there.

While the committee’s email acknowledged that students “definitely have a right to express themselves,” the committee hoped they would “actively avoid those circumstances that threaten our sense of community or disrespects, alienates or ridicules segments of our population based on race, nationality, religious belief or gender expression.”

The committee then provided a list of questions students should ask themselves before deciding upon a costume, as well as links to websites educating students about common racial stereotypes. The committee even linked to several Pinterest boards curated by Yale’s Community & Consent Educators—one with a collection of acceptable, school-sanctioned costume ideas and the other with a collection of “costumes to avoid.”

Erika Christakis’ Response

Just after midnight on Friday, October 30, Erika Christakis sent an email to the Silliman community in response to the Intercultural Affairs Committee’s Halloween email. Christakis explained that she and her husband Nicholas had heard from a number of students who were frustrated by the committee’s email. Although the email was allegedly supposed to serve as a recommendation rather than a formal policy, to some, its length, tone, content, and the list of 13 signatories seemed to indicate otherwise.

Christakis drew on her experiences as a child development specialist to question whether a university should dictate what students should and shouldn’t wear on Halloween:

I don’t wish to trivialize genuine concerns about cultural and personal representation, and other challenges to our lived experience in a plural community. I know that many decent people have proposed guidelines on Halloween costumes from a spirit of avoiding hurt and offense. I laud those goals, in theory, as most of us do. But in practice, I wonder if we should reflect more transparently, as a community, on the consequences of an institutional (which is to say: bureaucratic and administrative) exercise of implied control over college students.

In addition to expressing concerns about how policing students’ costumes can limit the exercise of imagination, free speech, and free expression, Christakis asked:

Is there no room anymore for a child or young person to be a little bit obnoxious… a little bit inappropriate or provocative or, yes, offensive? American universities were once a safe space not only for maturation but also for a certain regressive, or even transgressive, experience; increasingly, it seems, they have become places of censure and prohibition.

The Aftermath

The response to Christakis’ email was explosive. More than 740 Yale undergraduates, graduate students, alumni, faculty, and even students from other universities signed on to an open letter telling Christakis that her “offensive” email invalidates the voices of minority students on campus.

Christakis and her husband have since invited all Silliman signatories of the open letter, as well as any other Silliman students who might disagree with her email, to a lunch this Sunday. The invitation was sharply rejected by some, including one student who, in a Yale Herald piece published today, criticized the invitation and argued that Nicholas Christakis “needs to stop instigating more debate.”

On Wednesday, more than 350 Yale undergraduates, graduate students, and faculty gathered in the Afro-American Cultural Center to attend an open forum on allegations of institutional racism on campus. The forum, which lasted more than two hours, addressed the daily experiences of Yale’s minority students and centered around two controversies: Christakis’ email, and allegations that members of Yale’s Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity had turned away black women from a fraternity party on Friday night.
Click to expand...
 
The next day, shortly after a three-hour-long impromptu confrontation on Cross Campus with Yale College Dean Jonathan Holloway about the lack of administrative response to the week’s events, around 100 students gathered in the courtyard of Silliman College to protest Christakis’ email. Nicholas Christakis, who decided to meet with the student protesters, was soon encircled and accused of racism and insensitivity, with many demanding an apology for his wife’s email.

Christakis engaged with the students and listened to their concerns for several hours. Finally, Christakis told the crowd, “I apologize for causing pain, but I am not sorry for the statement. I stand behind free speech. I defend the right for people to speak their minds.”

This was not the “apology” the students were demanding. As you can see from the footage below, which was taken by Lukianoff while on campus, the confrontation quickly escalated into a shouting match.

We encourage you to watch the footage in full, along with the other videos taken by Lukianoff while observing the protests.

In the above video, a student demands an apology for Christakis’ e-mail, saying she feels like Yale was no longer a “safe space” for her and other students, especially incoming freshmen.

“t’s not a home. It is no longer a safe space for me. And I find that incredibly depressing,” she says. “This was once a space that I was proud to be a part of because of the loving community.”

According to the Yale Daily News, nearly half of the students left when they realized Christakis was not going to give them what they considered an “appropriate” apology.

One student pressed Christakis on whether he was going to give an apology.

“So, my question is: are you going to say that? Or not?” she asked. “Cause then, I could just leave if you’re not gonna say that.”

In another video, below, a student in the crowd tells other students to just “walk away” because “He [Christakis] doesn’t deserve to be listened to.”

One of the stronger accusations the students make is that Christakis’ refusal to apologize for his wife’s email makes him unfit to be master of Silliman.

“As your position as master, it is your job to create a place of comfort and home for the students that live in Silliman,” one student says. “You have not done that. By sending out that email, that goes against your position as master. Do you understand that?”

When Christakis disagreed, the student proceeded to yell at him.

“Who the feck hired you?” she asked, arguing that Christakis should “step down” because being master is “not about creating an intellectual space,” but rather “creating a home.”

This student is not alone. Many other students are going so far as to demand that Christakis and his wife resign from their roles as master and associate master. According to the Washington Post, students were drafting a formal letter Thursday evening, calling for the removal of Christakis and her husband from their roles in Silliman.

At the gathering with Dean Holloway earlier that day, Silliman students expressed similar concerns and voiced their unwillingness to receive their diplomas from Christakis at graduation.

The Implications for Freedom of Expression and the Marketplace of Ideas

Are the students’ protests against the Christakises protected speech? Of course.

But the students’ demand that the Christakises lose their jobs for their dissident opinions represents another strong example of the phenomenon Lukianoff and social psychologist Jonathan Haidt talked about in their September cover story for The Atlantic, “The Coddling of the American Mind.” In their article, Lukianoff and Haidt argue that students are increasingly engaging in a culture of “vindictive protectiveness” that seeks to control campus speech in a way that not only limits free expression and chills candor, but that can also promote distorted ways of thinking.

This morning, Dean Holloway wrote an email to all Yale students addressing the week’s controversies. In that email, he wrote that he “will enforce the community standards that safeguard you as members of this community.”

Among those standards FIRE hopes Dean Holloway will enforce is the university’s standard for freedom of expression, which demands that when student and faculty members “encounter people who think differently than you do, you will be expected to honor their free expression, even when what they have to say seems wrong or offensive to you.”

As always, the best response to speech one disagrees with is more speech, not censorship.

FIRE will continue to monitor the situation as it unfolds.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
adexkola said:
I'm still at the stage of wondering what state of mind you have to be in to draw a swatstika with shit. What, did a marker or chalk not suffice?
Click to expand...

Someone who's nazi side comes out only when taking a dump.

Plus, there's no public evidence of the Mizzou poopstika.
 
sullydnl said:
You'd think businesses would have learned to avoid making any references to rape by now. How the hell does stuff like that get approved? Surely someone along the way would've pointed out that Christmas-themed rapeyness isn't a classic selling point.
Click to expand...

In the context of some of the adjoining images from that catalogue, it looks as though it might have been part of series of images/lines about the "kerazzy" stuff people do during the festive season. Out of context and beside a photo of a rapey looking dude leering at a woman it's incredibly crass.

Nobody in their right mind could assume that Bloomingdale actually intended to suggest people should start raping their friends though. It was clearly a silly error. Nothing more than that though. Nonetheless, the twitter hordes are demanding boycotts and that they send all their profits to rape charities.

Not that anyone should feel sorry for Bloomingdale but it feels as though there's an awful lot of people out there with a constant burning desire to be outraged about something, anything, all the fecking time.
 
Last edited:
Pogue Mahone said:
In the context of some of the adjoining images from that catalogue, it looks as though it might have been part of series of images/lines about the "kerazzy" stuff people do during the festive season. Out of context and beside a photo of a rapey looking dude leering at a woman it's incredibly crass. Nobody in their right mind could assume that Bloomingdale actually intended to suggest people should start raping their friends though. It was clearly a silly error. Nothing more than that though. Nonetheless, the twitter hordes are demanding boycotts and that they send all their profits to rape charities.

Not that anyone should feel sorry for Bloomingdale but it feels as though there's an awful lot of people out there with a constant burning desire to be outraged about something, anything, all the fecking time.
Click to expand...

Surely the dude leering at the woman is the context?

Also I think you are inflating the "Twitter hordes" into a larger issue than it actually is. We're talking about a website with hundreds of millions of users - how many people have actually demanded a boycott?
 
Shamwow said:
Surely the dude leering at the woman is the context?

Also I think you are inflating the "Twitter hordes" into a larger issue than it actually is. We're talking about a website with hundreds of millions of users - how many people have actually demanded a boycott?
Click to expand...

That's a standard response to this sort of thing and impossible to answer. You don't expect me to give an actual number, do you?

Suffice is to say it's blown up enough to be widely reported on in most (if not all?) major media outlets. Which obviously reflects some sort of critical mass in terms of outraged masses. It's sufficiently poorly judged that you'd expect it to blow up a little. Something along the lines of "oops, what were they thinking?" wouldn't bother me at all. It's the fact so many people (and it's clearly a lot of people) that take it so damn seriously which makes me die inside a little.

Re context. There's a bit more in this image (and probably even more in the actual catalogue)

0ymFfCh
 
MarceloFalcon said:
One person... Yes, I am glad he was arrested. I'm always glad when people who commit crimes are arrested.

But for a shit swastika, some mindless hillbilly on a pickup and something else I can't remember, they demanded and got a university president to resign.

The onus of proving widespread racism is still on the protesters, I sincerely remain unconvinced. Plus, the university president has no power to punish people who are not faculty or students for any transgressions. In fact, in the case of the truck hillbilly nor does the police. If the speech was not threatening, rather just racist, its still protected by the First Amendment. The shit swastika is probably some form of damage to other's property.
Click to expand...
An idiot wants to go on a hunger strike and vows to die unless the university president loses his job. Mind-blowing isn't it? Sounds like his biggest oversight was not getting out of a car to address a mob of students who surrounded his car.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.