Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Having read both stories I'm pretty certain that these professors were not disciplined merely because they disagreed with the students. They were disciplined on account of their unnecessary (and somewhat hostile) elaborations on their decisions. It wasn't necessary for either of them to mount a soapbox. One would think that a university professor should be smarter than that -- but what seems to pass for "smart" these days is delivering a snappy comeback.
Come on. Even if their responses were the most polite and humble - that would't change anything. The fact is that students aren't expected to hear a 'NO' when they make any demand however ridiculous it is.
And professors know better not to anger students by disagreeing with them on any topic deemed important.
And they can do their best choosing words - but if any one of a loud mouth student gets offended - the mob is ready to demand that professor's head. And those people loovvveeee to feel offended and will always find a word or a phrase that can be twisted to look like an offence.
I understand your point, and I think we could try to make a case for every single incident wherein the "victim" was unfairly maligned by "popular" opinion. My point was that social media technologies have altered society to the extent that people who exhibit an obvious and destructive bias with respect to people of color, gays, women, etc, will be swiftly admonished for their trespasses. Your question regarding the Professors experience with student demands only points out the fact that while people can be organized around the fact of social injustice, they can also be terribly unfair. Are your examples a telling of an unfair incident? Yes, they are, but we're talking about human interaction here, and unfairness in that space is unfortunately all too common.
I don't think we will ever see a time in which all human endeavors will include an absolute fairness, but, that doesn't mean we need to condone unfair acts, the pendulum of social change swings back and forth, and while most hope for a centering, they also understand that the dynamics of social justice demands often brings it's own injustices to the party. Social condemnation through the use of social media will now be part of our everyday lives, and we will undoubtedly see some instances of unfairness, and in that vein, it would be unfair to characterize all of organized condemnation as a total negative.
What you are advocating is a mob rule. If you let those zealots decide who to punish and who to spare - that will never stop. Because the mob will be always looking for transgressors because their primary motive is not to make a world a better place, but to feel superiors. There was a study in Germany where 92% of left wing activists live with their parents. I think the number in US is very close. Those people are [mod edit] and they subconsciously know they are [mod edit]. That's why it is imperative for them to feel superior and they will always look for someone inferior who needs to be punished. And lets' imagine that everyone is nice tomorrow: do you think those [mod edit] say 'mission accomplished' and sign off? No way. They will find a 100 new things that shouldn't be said and find another 100 things that are unfair - and will start a new crusade. It will stop eventually when they will cancel each other (like they are already doing to their liberal professors) until no one is left, but in the process they will destroy this country. That was built based on freedom of speech.
That's why this nonsense of inmates running an asylum need to be stopped now before it gets any worse.
That's why Freedom of speech so important. 1st Amendment should be expanded to include corporations, media platforms (like Twitter, Facebook, etc). If the government is not allowed to discriminate based on the speech, why the hell a corporation is allowed? Freedom of association? There is nothing left of that freedom since pretty much every group except white males is a protected class now.
I opened a topic a while ago about making illegal firing employees based on their speech made in their free time. And if someone gets offended - tough luck.
Last edited by Rachel NewYork; 08-04-2020 at 07:02 AM..
What you are advocating is a mob rule. If you let those zealots decide who to punish and who to spare - that will never stop. Because the mob will be always looking for transgressors because their primary motive is not to make a world a better place, but to feel superiors. There was a study in Germany where 92% of left wing activists live with their parents. I think the number in US is very close. Those people are [mod edit] and they subconsciously know they are [mod edit]. That's why it is imperative for them to feel superior and they will always look for someone inferior who needs to be punished. And lets' imagine that everyone is nice tomorrow: do you think those [mod edit] say 'mission accomplished' and sign off? No way. They will find a 100 new things that shouldn't be said and find another 100 things that are unfair - and will start a new crusade. It will stop eventually when they will cancel each other (like they are already doing to their liberal professors) until no one is left, but in the process they will destroy this country. That was built based on freedom of speech.
That's why this nonsense of inmates running an asylum need to be stopped now before it gets any worse.
That's why Freedom of speech so important. 1st Amendment should be expanded to include corporations, media platforms (like Twitter, Facebook, etc). If the government is not allowed to discriminate based on the speech, why the hell a corporation is allowed? Freedom of association? There is nothing left of that freedom since pretty much every group except white males is a protected class now.
I opened a topic a while ago about making illegal firing employees based on their speech made in their free time. And if someone gets offended - tough luck.
[mod edit] The entirety of this issue occupies very little of my world, and that's the message I've left for the [mod edit] types here that seem profoundly disturbed--By every damned thing they hear on TV. I've tried to make the point that these "problems" are simply part and parcel of modern living, coupled with the fact of youthful arrogance, and made worse by the hair on fire responses from those who should know better. I've been going to Seattle and Portland lately because I'm into photography, both cities are stunningly beautiful, but the [mod edit] seem to want to hear my outrage about both cities--but I have no interest in escalating the pitch of fear and loathing that seems to fuel the minds of the [mod edit] posters who really need to get out and enjoy life.
Like those who have come and gone in our lives, we will either learn to live with those we oppose, or not, it's simply democracy in action, the freedom thing ya know. So get out and grab your sign, protest the protesters, cancel the cancelers, shout your convictions, type till ya drop, me..I'll be living my life of peaceful coexistence, no need to agree or disagree. Good luck..
Last edited by Rachel NewYork; 08-04-2020 at 07:03 AM..
A reminder to all here to keep the discussion civil. The use of pejorative terms to describe those who are on the other side of this debate from you is unacceptable.
Think about how it was in times past when someone said or did something others felt was an offense to god they were considered guilty of heresy and their lives were ruined or worse. Some communities and countries are using people’s words as a crime for offending others with those convicted facing loss of jobs, fines, and in some cases even time in prison. People struggled to be free from government enforced heresy laws so they may be free to express themselves without fear of punishment and now it isn’t religion but a social movement that is leading the charge for such draconian controls over the speech of others wanting to ruin people’s lives for something they said or did even decades ago and some even believe such words and actions either are a crime or should be a crime punishable by prison.
Very good analogy. When someone can't win a debate they execute, prosecute or nowadays "cancel." One cannot debate issues such as climate change, Covid lockdowns or President Trump in a rational manner. If you take a contrary position to the popular one, one is screeched at or worse. Emotions rather than facts rule the day.
I am ashamed of the behavior of my fellow leftists on this score.
Actually, this is not exactly, what should happen.
Sonic, as example, a person steps out and accuses YOU of crime.
Accusation: a charge or claim that someone has done something illegal or wrong.
Maybe you had an enemy, that believes you wronged, without you even knowing about it.
Does that mean, YOU should go to jail?
Surely not, you will say. Yet, it is exactly what you just said. Going to jail is normally what should happen when you are accused of crime. See above. That is your words.
But no, that is not exactly, or normally, what should happen.
What should happen is called presumption of innocence.
POI is a Holy Grail of American justice.
One of the most sacred principles in the American criminal justice system, holding that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty. In other words, the prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, each essential element of the crime charged
That in mind, going to jail happens ONLY after person is tried in the court of law, in just and legal manner, and every aspect of the crime charged is proven beyond any doubt.
Thus, "cops" you referring to, should be tried first and their crime proven as, otherwise, until then, they are NOT GUILTY in the eyes of law. Or, it is not American justice, it is Wild West where brutal force rules or, even worse, it is lynching as mob does not have sense of justice. Not in its civilized form.
I do not mean "thrown in prison for an extended period of time without a trial."
I mean arrested, booked, taken to jail, maybe they make bail, they have the whole trial thing... You know, just like any person who has charges brought against them?
If you've ever had a situation where the police were involved, and they asked you, "Would you like to press charges?" like what do you think would happen?
But police have that wall of support thing, they likely would not arrest and hold one of their own like they would a non-cop, who, in the words of a cop who was a friend-of-a-friend I had the misfortune of having to listen to over a dinner one night, are all "scumbags" anyways.
He admitted in conversation, with one of his best buddies AND those of us who were barely his acquaintances, to having committed crimes against civilians. As though he thought that we'd all think he was cool for the things he had done.
When the police do criminal things, they should be handled as criminals, because they ARE criminals. Period.
But I don't want to get sidetracked, because this here...it's not really a cancel culture thing. Getting "cancelled" is too good for people who feel entitled to prey on society from behind the shelter of a badge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbgusa
Very good analogy. When someone can't win a debate they execute, prosecute or nowadays "cancel." One cannot debate issues such as climate change, Covid lockdowns or President Trump in a rational manner. If you take a contrary position to the popular one, one is screeched at or worse. Emotions rather than facts rule the day.
I am ashamed of the behavior of my fellow leftists on this score.
Funny. Because every news article with comments out there, has conservatives weighing in and what I see more than anything, is name calling and bully-talk. What I mean by that, is an "argument" comprised of nothing but "Gonna make them libs cry hurr hurr" and if that's not "screeching" I don't know what is.
Frankly I've wasted enough of my time that I recognize that not every conversation with someone who disagrees with me, is worthy of the term, "debate." A debate implies something considerably more constructive and intelligent than most of what I see in engagements between the left and the right online. LOL I am reminded of Monty Python's Argument Clinic...
Palin: An argument isn't just contradiction.
Cleese: Well! it CAN be!
Palin: No it can't! An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
Cleese: No it isn't!
I amend my previous utter dismissal of any vexation over cancel culture with this:
I believe that actions taken significantly in the past, should be judged in the context of the times. Punishing a living person for something done by an ancestor, or punishing someone for something that they did 10, 20, 30 or more years ago WHEN THE THING WAS MORE ACCEPTED THEN as we know from popular media, writing, and witness of the culture of the times... That should not happen.
(Though I apply this only to LIVING people. I am all for the Confederate statues coming down in Richmond, I see no need to glorify those individuals or celebrate them, I think the statues should be put into a museum instead. Particularly since that is the majority opinion of the citizens of the city itself, and they have to live there - I don't.)
I also do think that it can go too far. Choosing not to support someone's business is a right that I have. Talking crap about them to my friends is also a right that I have (free speech)... But doxxing them, threatening their safety or exposing them to threats against their safety? Violating their privacy trying to dig up dirt on them? Things like that I think are too far. Way too far.
But your basic boycotts? You and everyone who is part of your social circles saying "Boo!" to a thing and calling it crap and not buying it? Are you even serious having a problem with that? It was conservatives who were all about censorship of popular music not so very long ago at all, and who are wigging out over that WAP song now (God I would pay so much money to see a video of Ben Shapiro reacting to music by the Genitorturers, GWAR, or Lords of Acid....)
And no, I do not have to put up with people whose views I find repugnant, unless by my own choice. I don't care if you think that there's some sort of learning opportunity for anyone involved. It is not my job to educate a racist, unless I CHOOSE to put my time and energy there and make that attempt. I don't owe anyone my attention. I am allowed to turn off the TV, block users on social media, and choose not to interact with former friends or relatives who have nothing to say that I want to hear. They're not entitled to a piece of my life. Nobody is.
And knowing what Chick Fil A supports is a good enough reason for me not to eat there, but they also soak their chicken in pickle juice. That's just nasty. Funny how just about everything I've "cancelled" from my own life, I really don't miss.
And if they were really worth it to me, I probably would have given them more time and consideration.
Much like a lot of Rowling's fans actually tried to engage with her on the subject of her statements about trans people, a lot of her fanbase did not want it to be so. But, she doubled down. So everyone who cares more about trans people than they do a fictional story (that honestly lost a lot of its magic IMO towards then end when it pivoted from whimsical to apocalyptic)...abandoned her. I support their right to do so, and to deprive her of income from THEIR pockets. What I do not support, is if she's had death threats or anything like that. And it wouldn't surprise me, because there are crazy lunatics in the world. But I'd bet money that 95% or better of those boycotting her work, would not approve of anyone threatening her life.
There are lines ya just don't cross. I won't eat at Chick Fil A, but I'm not gonna try and bomb or shoot up their nasty pickle-chicken establishments. Unlike some folks have done with regard to, say, Planned Parenthood.
Or that one gay nightclub.
Or women who don't want to date them.
Or the odd black church or synagogue or temple now and then.
Or their high school.
But hey, "cancelling" people in a hail of bullets? No big, thoughts and prayers ya'll. Just don't anybody dare criticize someone on the internet, or refuse to buy their products, or interfere with their ability to make money!! (Ya know I'm starting to see a theme, where interference with money and property are the main source of all the consternation and hand-wringing...)
Funny. Because every news article with comments out there, has conservatives weighing in and what I see more than anything, is name calling and bully-talk. What I mean by that, is an "argument" comprised of nothing but "Gonna make them libs cry hurr hurr" and if that's not "screeching" I don't know what is.
I am definitely not a conservative, an epithet used against me on these boards. But I never talk that way.
No worries. Epithets may not be used against anyone participating in the Great Debates forum.
I am referred to as a "conservative." Isn't that an epithet?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
