Obama Slams PC Culture in Academia

[Ultimate Paragon]

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/09/obama-political-correctness-college-campus

I wonder how the wingnuts are going to spin this.  Or how many moonbats are going to accuse him of having "internalized racism".

[Ironchew]

I wonder how the wingnuts are going to spin this.

So do I. Your spin is sorely needed in this latest scandal.

[Sigmaleph]

Not fond of 'coddled' rhetoric, to be honest. I don't think it quite captures what's going on.

I mean yes, to some extent listening to people with opposing viewpoints can be an unpleasant experience, but that's not the driving force behind protests. It's more of political purity thing? The idea that those people are tainted and cannot possible have anything worth saying, and if you give them a platform / hear them out / react in any way other than unmoderated condemnation you are implicitly agreeing with them.

I don't think college students protesting conservative speakers (etc.) are afraid to be challenged, as a class. I think they have a set of norms and standards for discourse that are unhealthy and not at all useful, and that needs to be addressed on those grounds.

How? I haven't the faintest. But at least better identifying the problem might help.

[Ultimate Paragon]

I wonder how the wingnuts are going to spin this.

So do I. Your spin is sorely needed in this latest scandal.

You think I'm a wingnut because I believe in free speech and dissenting ideas?  Because I believe Academia should be a place of facts rather than feelings?  Because I recognize the harm political correctness causes?

Really, Chewy, I never thought you of all people would guzzle the Kool-Aid so readily.  I thought atheists were supposed to be skeptics.

[mellenORL]

This is almost surreal. Understand that Liberty University mandates that undergrads attend major guest speaker's events in their huge auditorium. Nevertheless, without it being mandatory, though, the same thing should be allowed at all campuses so that dissenting opinions can be heard in person like this.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5ZB8Lg1tcA" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5ZB8Lg1tcA</a>

Not fond of 'coddled' rhetoric, to be honest. I don't think it quite captures what's going on.

I mean yes, to some extent listening to people with opposing viewpoints can be an unpleasant experience, but that's not the driving force behind protests. It's more of political purity thing? The idea that those people are tainted and cannot possible have anything worth saying, and if you give them a platform / hear them out / react in any way other than unmoderated condemnation you are implicitly agreeing with them.

I don't think college students protesting conservative speakers (etc.) are afraid to be challenged, as a class. I think they have a set of norms and standards for discourse that are unhealthy and not at all useful, and that needs to be addressed on those grounds.

How? I haven't the faintest. But at least better identifying the problem might help.

^^^

[TheUnknown]

Not fond of 'coddled' rhetoric, to be honest. I don't think it quite captures what's going on.

I mean yes, to some extent listening to people with opposing viewpoints can be an unpleasant experience, but that's not the driving force behind protests. It's more of political purity thing? The idea that those people are tainted and cannot possible have anything worth saying, and if you give them a platform / hear them out / react in any way other than unmoderated condemnation you are implicitly agreeing with them.

I don't think college students protesting conservative speakers (etc.) are afraid to be challenged, as a class. I think they have a set of norms and standards for discourse that are unhealthy and not at all useful, and that needs to be addressed on those grounds.

How? I haven't the faintest. But at least better identifying the problem might help.

This might be a reason why callout culture has become so popular among liberal social circles like tumblr (along with other, more malicious reasons).  There's a sincere belief that if a person doesn't immediately and aggressively call out problematic behavior with the intent to stop it completely, they are just as guilty and culpable as the bigots are, especially if they're already part of a privileged group.

[Sigmaleph]

Indeed.

There's a lot to be said about how some kinds of SJ treats privilege as original sin that has to be atoned by loudly proclaiming that you are not like all those other [white/straight/cis/abled/male] people, and if you don't viciously attack the bigots how will we know you are not one of them etc.

[Even Then]

Well, to be fair, I can sort of see where they're coming from? Inviting, say, a virulent racist to hold a panel at your school sort of sends the message "hey, virulent racists of the world, we embrace you, here you are welcome".

Indeed.

There's a lot to be said about how some kinds of SJ treats privilege as original sin that has to be atoned by loudly proclaiming that you are not like all those other [white/straight/cis/abled/male] people, and if you don't viciously attack the bigots how will we know you are not one of them etc.

Aye. People who crow about how they're a good man/cis person/able person/white person/etc. are missing the point; it's not about your image, it's about the things you actually do. Stop begging for e-cookies and start examining your own biases and your impact on the world. That's how to be a good ally, not public masturbatory self-flagellation or elevation of the self as one of the good ones, for real guys, why won't you believe me, waah the discriminated classes are being meeeeeeeeeeeean, why can't they see I'm one of the good ones.

[Svata]

My opinion on the whole thing. People are people are people. 'S all there is to it.

[I am lizard]

Not fond of 'coddled' rhetoric, to be honest. I don't think it quite captures what's going on.

I mean yes, to some extent listening to people with opposing viewpoints can be an unpleasant experience, but that's not the driving force behind protests. It's more of political purity thing? The idea that those people are tainted and cannot possible have anything worth saying, and if you give them a platform / hear them out / react in any way other than unmoderated condemnation you are implicitly agreeing with them.

I don't think college students protesting conservative speakers (etc.) are afraid to be challenged, as a class. I think they have a set of norms and standards for discourse that are unhealthy and not at all useful, and that needs to be addressed on those grounds.

How? I haven't the faintest. But at least better identifying the problem might help.

This might be a reason why callout culture has become so popular among liberal social circles like tumblr (along with other, more malicious reasons).  There's a sincere belief that if a person doesn't immediately and aggressively call out problematic behavior with the intent to stop it completely, they are just as guilty and culpable as the bigots are, especially if they're already part of a privileged group.

Are they wrong? I mean, aside from the aggressive part I don't see the problem here.

[Sigmaleph]

Well, to be fair, I can sort of see where they're coming from? Inviting, say, a virulent racist to hold a panel at your school sort of sends the message "hey, virulent racists of the world, we embrace you, here you are welcome".

I think there's a distinction to be made here. If you invite someone because they are a racist, sure, that sends the wrong message. But if you invite someone to talk about something entirely unrelated to racism, it's not obvious to me that whether or not they are a racist should matter.

I don't accept "you believe X, therefore you must become a pariah". About any X (I'm happy to discuss why, but it would be something of a derail).

[Even Then]

Aren't derails sort of the style of this forum? At least according to Zygarde and ironbite.

Anyway, I see where you're coming from, but I still think there's a difference between "this person's a huge racist, therefore we don't want them to speak at our school because it will send the message that we're implicitly welcoming huge racists as a whole" and "this person's a huge racist, therefore they must be completely excommunicated from everything like a pariah".

[TheUnknown]

Not fond of 'coddled' rhetoric, to be honest. I don't think it quite captures what's going on.

I mean yes, to some extent listening to people with opposing viewpoints can be an unpleasant experience, but that's not the driving force behind protests. It's more of political purity thing? The idea that those people are tainted and cannot possible have anything worth saying, and if you give them a platform / hear them out / react in any way other than unmoderated condemnation you are implicitly agreeing with them.

I don't think college students protesting conservative speakers (etc.) are afraid to be challenged, as a class. I think they have a set of norms and standards for discourse that are unhealthy and not at all useful, and that needs to be addressed on those grounds.

How? I haven't the faintest. But at least better identifying the problem might help.

This might be a reason why callout culture has become so popular among liberal social circles like tumblr (along with other, more malicious reasons).  There's a sincere belief that if a person doesn't immediately and aggressively call out problematic behavior with the intent to stop it completely, they are just as guilty and culpable as the bigots are, especially if they're already part of a privileged group.

Are they wrong? I mean, aside from the aggressive part I don't see the problem here.

As I've seen some people on tumblr point out, a big problem with this is that it ignores serious situations that the tumblr justice community doesn't take into consideration or just doesn't care about.  Would you call out your boss if your job security was on the line?  Maybe if you're single, but what if you needed to support someone?  What about minors with controlling or abusive parents?  Calling them out could cause actual harm.  And what about people with crippling anxiety?  Are they suddenly bad people because they can't "will their mental problems away" enough to put themselves in the spotlight when calling someone out?  And this isn't just about calling out actual harassment or threats; it can be about calling out things like offensive jokes or opinions.

The problem is that, like everything else, it's treated as a purely black and white issue when it's a bit more complicated, and that people are lumped as just plain good or bad depending solely on what they do and don't do in this situation.

[Sigmaleph]

Aren't derails sort of the style of this forum? At least according to Zygarde and ironbite.

Yes, but the topic we are on right now is interesting and I want to keep talking about it :)

Anyway, I see where you're coming from, but I still think there's a difference between "this person's a huge racist, therefore we don't want them to speak at our school because it will send the message that we're implicitly welcoming huge racists as a whole" and "this person's a huge racist, therefore they must be completely excommunicated from everything like a pariah".

What does "welcoming huge racists as a whole" mean?

Does it mean "we want more people here talking about how non-white people are inferior"? Or does it mean "we will not turn you away from here just because you are racist"?

Because I endorse the second message. Indeed, I don't think you can not endorse the second message and still have a claim to not be treating people as pariahs based on their beliefs.

[Even Then]

It means that inviting, say, Donald Trump to speak at your thing (about anything, really) means that you are cool with inviting people like Donald Trump to speak at your things. If you have other feasible speakers to choose from for that topic than Donald Trump, and you're choosing Donald Trump, then that says questionable things about your moral integrity.

And there's a huge difference between choosing not to provide a platform for someone and treating that someone like an actual pariah. It's the Reddit Coontown discussion all over again.

Let's just agree to disagree? It's not that I can't see where you're coming from, but I can't share your attitude. And I don't want to alienate someone on this forum who I even remotely feel like I can relate to, on a viewpoint level.