Has political correctness actually gone mad?

berbatrick said:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/16/opinion/media-alt-right-evergreen-college.html?_r=0
Click to expand...

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.
 
Mrs Smoker said:
Click to expand...

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:
hobbers said:
"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.
Click to expand...
What so you leave with no qualification and massive debt. Ok.
 
Keeps It tidy said:
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.
Click to expand...
Guess so- the article doesn't quite make it clear that you do get the degree, but you'd have to presume so.
 
Drainy said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.


Synco said:
It
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.
Click to expand...

Surely you're not arguing for some sort of self-censorship or even political correctness.


hobbers said:
"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.
Click to expand...

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.

Jippy said:
What so you leave with no qualification and massive debt. Ok.
Click to expand...

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.
 
berbatrick said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
berbatrick said:
Surely you're not arguing for some sort of self-censorship or even political correctness.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Synco said:
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.
Click to expand...

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).
 
berbatrick said:
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).
Click to expand...
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:
19424334_1397145173708905_4525142460391976702_n.jpg
 
Mrs Smoker said:
Click to expand...


That president :lol: You do need at least an iota of authority to hold such a position, he seemed like a complete pushover.

What we are saying now is the ultra right wing backlash against the hysteria (partly drummed up, partly real) generated by media over the PC regime imposed by leftists on college campuses. What, IMO, started out as a genuine concern over liberals' lack of tolerance of diverse opinions on some campuses will now always be hi-jacked by alt-right crowd to wage a battle against 'snowflakes'. And in the process, both sides will retreat into their trenches even more. Moreover, the original issue ,which called for a much more nuanced debate, will be lost in the noise.

These students need some real world perspective. One professor speaking out against their planned event is not the end of the world or even going to matter. The person I identified the most in that video was the female student who was too afraid to even reveal her last name and said that she is terrified of expressing her opinion freely if it disagreed with the prevailing one on campus. The folks who created such an atmosphere, want to call themselves liberals or progressive. Laughable.

@berbatrick would probably come in now and point towards the nauseating reaction of alt-right crowd to this. Of course the threat and actions of right wing authoritarian crowd is much much worse but that can't insulate the students from any critique of their intolerance.
 
Making a visit to Gettysburg, PA this summer to visit the battlefield. There had been much made in the last few years about things like the Confederate flag and monuments to people who served in the Confederate Army and Government.
On the battlefield are many monuments to the various units from both sides of the battle. What's everyone's view on this? Is it wrong to have monuments to the Confederate soldiers who fought there? Is context everything, IE as long as the battle is presented in it's historical context, the monuments are ok?

In some places there are just historical markers to indicate the position of a unit others are in fact meant to honor the troops.

General Longstreet
ConfederateAve%20(101).jpg

The Virginia Monument

Virginia-4c_2183.jpg

This I believe is the Louisiana Monument
116807249.jpg


This is an example of one that is more about the facts of the battle and a units participation

2-Eaarly-Hays_4455.png
 
JustAFan said:
Making a visit to Gettysburg, PA this summer to visit the battlefield. There had been much made in the last few years about things like the Confederate flag and monuments to people who served in the Confederate Army and Government.
On the battlefield are many monuments to the various units from both sides of the battle. What's everyone's view on this? Is it wrong to have monuments to the Confederate soldiers who fought there? Is context everything, IE as long as the battle is presented in it's historical context, the monuments are ok?

In some places there are just historical markers to indicate the position of a unit others are in fact meant to honor the troops.

General Longstreet
ConfederateAve%20(101).jpg

The Virginia Monument

Virginia-4c_2183.jpg

This I believe is the Louisiana Monument
116807249.jpg


This is an example of one that is more about the facts of the battle and a units participation

2-Eaarly-Hays_4455.png
Click to expand...
Memorials to the dead in general are fine, but I guess if say Germany put up a Mengele statue, it would cause a lot of shite. Glorying individuals on the losing side seems a bit taboo, rightly or wrongly. I guess it all comes down to 'blame' as much as anything.
 
Jippy said:
Memorials to the dead in general are fine, but I guess if say Germany put up a Mengele statue, it would cause a lot of shite. Glorying individuals on the losing side seems a bit taboo, rightly or wrongly. I guess it all comes down to 'blame' as much as anything.
Click to expand...

Or maybe to the losing side being a bunch of slavery supporting assholes?
 
Jippy said:
Memorials to the dead in general are fine, but I guess if say Germany put up a Mengele statue, it would cause a lot of shite. Glorying individuals on the losing side seems a bit taboo, rightly or wrongly. I guess it all comes down to 'blame' as much as anything.
Click to expand...

:lol:

A Mengele statue! That would cause a whole world of crap. Do you have the right Nazi?
 
JustAFan said:
Making a visit to Gettysburg, PA this summer to visit the battlefield. There had been much made in the last few years about things like the Confederate flag and monuments to people who served in the Confederate Army and Government.
On the battlefield are many monuments to the various units from both sides of the battle. What's everyone's view on this? Is it wrong to have monuments to the Confederate soldiers who fought there? Is context everything, IE as long as the battle is presented in it's historical context, the monuments are ok?

In some places there are just historical markers to indicate the position of a unit others are in fact meant to honor the troops.

General Longstreet
ConfederateAve%20(101).jpg

The Virginia Monument

Virginia-4c_2183.jpg

This I believe is the Louisiana Monument
116807249.jpg


This is an example of one that is more about the facts of the battle and a units participation

2-Eaarly-Hays_4455.png
Click to expand...

depends on the individual and how it is presented. You can have memorials without forgetting the crimes/actions of the purpotraitors. The worId is not black and white. Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jackson,MvB, Harrison J.Tyler, Polk and Z. Tyler all owned slaves (not sure about Johson, Grant, Buchanan, Pierce, Hayes and Arthur). Yet nobody reduces them to this part of their history. Many president of the early 20th century were racist dicks, yet nobody wants Woodrow Wilson statues removed.
 
JustAFan said:
Making a visit to Gettysburg, PA this summer to visit the battlefield. There had been much made in the last few years about things like the Confederate flag and monuments to people who served in the Confederate Army and Government.
On the battlefield are many monuments to the various units from both sides of the battle. What's everyone's view on this? Is it wrong to have monuments to the Confederate soldiers who fought there? Is context everything, IE as long as the battle is presented in it's historical context, the monuments are ok?
Click to expand...

Does it not just make sense that you're seeing a lot of monuments to the losing side then.
I guess them glorifying the losing side could be an issue.
People seem to have reduced that war to one over slavery, which, correct me if im wrong, was almost a side issue picked up mid way through a long war.
I'm not an expert on American History though so what do i know.

As for the Nazi thing. Auschwitz is a monument of sorts to them.
 
Kentonio said:
Or maybe to the losing side being a bunch of slavery supporting assholes?
Click to expand...
Depends which war you're talking about. Would it be that offensive if the Germans have a Red Baron statue? Can't see a massive issue with that- helps he was obviously pre-Nazi.
Classical Mechanic said:
:lol:

A Mengele statue! That would cause a whole world of crap. Do you have the right Nazi?
Click to expand...
Tbf I think he is the only iron cross holder to be removed from the records.
I read his diaries the other year- everyone hated him- had a mutual loathing with Klaus Barbie.
 
caid said:
Does it not just make sense that you're seeing a lot of monuments to the losing side then.
I guess them glorifying the losing side could be an issue.
People seem to have reduced that war to one over slavery, which, correct me if im wrong, was almost a side issue picked up mid way through a long war.
I'm not an expert on American History though so what do i know.

As for the Nazi thing. Auschwitz is a monument of sorts to them.
Click to expand...

This will be my 5th trip in my lifetime to Gettysburg. I was just wondering about how others saw the monuments especially in light of the change in recent years with things like other monuments being taken down, the confederate battle flag being taken down, etc.

I'll PM you with further discussion of the Civil War, don't want to detail this thread.
 
@JustAFan
I was in Chapel Hill this weekend and was quite shocked that at the centre of the (very liberal) campus, there's a statue to a confederate soldier, established by the daughters of the confederacy.
College snowflakes managed to get a tiny monument made a little distance away, which points out that the university was made by slaves. It's so small I thought it was a table+bench.
 
JustAFan said:
Making a visit to Gettysburg, PA this summer to visit the battlefield. There had been much made in the last few years about things like the Confederate flag and monuments to people who served in the Confederate Army and Government.
On the battlefield are many monuments to the various units from both sides of the battle. What's everyone's view on this? Is it wrong to have monuments to the Confederate soldiers who fought there? Is context everything, IE as long as the battle is presented in it's historical context, the monuments are ok?

In some places there are just historical markers to indicate the position of a unit others are in fact meant to honor the troops.
Click to expand...

I think it's fine. Its right to question the leaders and the reasons for the battle, but as long as there were no atrocities committed you should always honour soldiers who gave their lives to fight for their country.

By and large in WW2 our soldiers had respect for the regular German soldiers on the other side. The Japanese not so much.
 
JustAFan said:
Making a visit to Gettysburg, PA this summer to visit the battlefield. There had been much made in the last few years about things like the Confederate flag and monuments to people who served in the Confederate Army and Government.
On the battlefield are many monuments to the various units from both sides of the battle. What's everyone's view on this? Is it wrong to have monuments to the Confederate soldiers who fought there? Is context everything, IE as long as the battle is presented in it's historical context, the monuments are ok?

In some places there are just historical markers to indicate the position of a unit others are in fact meant to honor the troops.
Click to expand...

I can't see a problem. It was a Civil War after all, Americans died on both sides.

I don't see that these monuments are glorifying anything, more a reminder of a terrible period in American history.
 
caid said:
People seem to have reduced that war to one over slavery, which, correct me if im wrong, was almost a side issue picked up mid way through a long war.
I'm not an expert on American History though so what do i know.
Click to expand...

This is utterly and completely wrong. The entire tensions that led to the war were between pro-slavery and anti-slavery factions (free states). It was an issue that had caused vicious assaults in congress, murders, riots and much more. Even in the articles of succession most of the confederate states explicitly stated they were leaving to protect their rights to keep slaves.

After the war when many in the south tried to rewrite that history (they called it the War of Northern Aggression) they painted over the slavery issue because they couldn't justify it and tried to imply the war was all about 'states rights'. It's bollocks, they were fighting for the right to keep human beings as property.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
So I guess this belongs here. Bugger all to do with political correctness but will create frothing outrage amongst those who have an issue with it.

I am, of course, talking about the lawyer's decision to spell her name without capital letters. WTF?
Click to expand...

My name is spelled without capital letters. People make many assumptions about why that is. Here is the story. I have always signed my name without capital letters. When I was taking a Master of Laws degree in 1990, I had letterhead designed and my name was in lower case. I liked it, so I continued it when I returned to private practice in 1992. What an uproar! Lawyers called me up to say that they had a vote in their firm about why I chose that spelling; a court rejected an Order because my name was not properly spelled; and the local queer newspaper refused for years to spell my name without capital letters.

I realized that I had a perfect illustration of how we react when someone moves even a tiny bit away from a norm of behaviour, even with respect to something that has no impact on anyone else. So I have kept that spelling, and I tell this story in unlearning oppression workshops.
Click to expand...

The 'local queer newspaper' is not oppressing her, it just prefers to stick to grammar. Companies periodically complain that we don't cap up their names, as they do, or job titles- it's called a paper's house style.

hobbers said:
Oh god that lawyers website is not a rabbit hole I want to go down.

Probably end up in convulsions from the rampant insanity.
Click to expand...

Even 'the breastless lesbian' seminar?

http://www.barbarafindlay.com/unlearning-oppression.html
 
Can I suggest we edit the topic title to read "'has PC gawn mad?!!"

We could then also have this image setup to appear if you hover over the title...

Phil-Jones-gurning-face-as-Sergio-Aguero-scores.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.