Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
Did people really expect him to recant all of his ideas because of hurt feelings? Do they ever actually engage with other human beings or have the most basic understanding of human psychology?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Racial tensions at Yale lead to angry confrontations
- Thread starter philz
- Start date
- Status
A Link to the Past
Banned
Why hurt feelings as opposed to, say, finding a viewpoint the University holds to be sufficiently problematic to raise a stink about it?
Seriously, if you're on the right side of this debate, you should not need to reduce the protesters' issues to "their feelings were hurt."
What specific viewpoint is that?
RevengeOfDoh
Banned
I can't remember if it was in the thread that was closed, but someone said something to effect of "free speech" being the argument for those that already have a disproportionate voice that don't want to make more room for marginalized voices.
Now I don't believe that safe spaces exist or that they ever will, but I'm not against efforts to try and make them.
Now I don't believe that safe spaces exist or that they ever will, but I'm not against efforts to try and make them.
While I can see merit behind the protest, that girl in the video did it no favors by screaming and getting emotional, arguing that a university is "not an intellectual space" but "a home."
What is a safe space though--somewhere where you will never be offended by anything?
A Link to the Past
Banned
Basically, "I believe in free speech" in the context of the Halloween costumes. That comment either means that it's open season for horribly offensive costumes, or that there is a point that that person would stop believing in free speech to punish someone for wearing a horribly offensive costume.
and saying shit like "BE QUIET! WHO THE FUCK HIRED YOU?!" to the man attempting a dialogue.
Isn't this reducing the letter's argument down to "free speech," when that was only one component of it? How is this different from reducing the protesters' argument down to hurt feelings?
Whoever argued that is obviously ignorant to the origins and history of protected speech.
A Link to the Past
Banned
The anger of the protest was heavily spurred by this response to it:
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.
The protest is entirely valid in and of itself, I don't even think most people disagree on that. What people are taking issue with is the tone of the protest, and considering that the response given there was fairly problematic (and really, not in the appropriate context - people who wear offensive Halloween costumes aren't really "speaking their minds"), I can understand why the tone took the direction that it did.
Ultimately, the point still stands - I imagine, or at least hope, that this person has certain limits as to what is acceptable to wear on Halloween. As per my examples, I can only imagine what would have happened if someone actually did something offensive like a Nazi or a slave costume and did not get reprimanded. If she is for free speech, does that mean that she is fine with any costume? If not, why? Because a Nazi officer costume could be construed as hate speech?
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.
The protest is entirely valid in and of itself, I don't even think most people disagree on that. What people are taking issue with is the tone of the protest, and considering that the response given there was fairly problematic (and really, not in the appropriate context - people who wear offensive Halloween costumes aren't really "speaking their minds"), I can understand why the tone took the direction that it did.
Ultimately, the point still stands - I imagine, or at least hope, that this person has certain limits as to what is acceptable to wear on Halloween. As per my examples, I can only imagine what would have happened if someone actually did something offensive like a Nazi or a slave costume and did not get reprimanded. If she is for free speech, does that mean that she is fine with any costume? If not, why? Because a Nazi officer costume could be construed as hate speech?
But that is not the policy of the University. That email was written by an individual employed at the University and was actually in response to a more 'official' Yale email that told students that they should be mindful of what they wear and try to be sensitive, etc.
Somehow this makes it open season for horribly offensive costumes? I never knew that the only thing keeping back Yale college students from wearing and saying horribly offensive shit was the Yale administration. And what would be a suitable punishment for a college student wearing an offensive costume? How do you even define such an arbitrary infraction? Who defines what offensive is? Do you expel the student? Kick them out of any Yale outside activities? What exactly?
Personally, I don't see what is so horribly offensive about this statement that people are calling for the person to get fired for being racially inattentive.
Can you disagree with it? Of course, but if this is not a legitimate position to hold, then that is just fucking sad. I find it a lot more offensive that people think that this sort of statement is a fire-able offensive more than anything.
A Link to the Past
Banned
I meant that in her mind, it should be open season. Not that it made it so. Thus, I am wondering if she considers all costumes to be protected by free speech, no matter what they may depict.
I do not personally consider this a reasonable response:
"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?"
The issue is that the obnoxiousness, inappropriateness, provocation, and offense usually comes from privilege, at least in Halloween. When you hear about offensive Halloween costumes, it's usually:
A. Blackface
B. Other skin modification in order to dress up as another ethnicity
C. Nazi soldier
D. Homeless people (remember that foreclosure firm?)
E. Native American costumes
F. Costumes of trans people (though admittedly I don't see this a super lot relative to the rest).
And what happens when one of these costumes is worn for Halloween? I would be legitimately interested in knowing how she would have approached it if the provocation became an international media controversy.
I do not personally consider this a reasonable response:
"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?"
The issue is that the obnoxiousness, inappropriateness, provocation, and offense usually comes from privilege, at least in Halloween. When you hear about offensive Halloween costumes, it's usually:
A. Blackface
B. Other skin modification in order to dress up as another ethnicity
C. Nazi soldier
D. Homeless people (remember that foreclosure firm?)
E. Native American costumes
F. Costumes of trans people (though admittedly I don't see this a super lot relative to the rest).
And what happens when one of these costumes is worn for Halloween? I would be legitimately interested in knowing how she would have approached it if the provocation became an international media controversy.
SecretSphere
Member
Yes, they can. From poliical satire at Dutch and German carnival to freedom of expression at gay parades.
A Link to the Past
Banned
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
She didn't say people shouldn't be offended by a costume. She said there are major problems when you try to use the mechanisms of power to try and ban the offensive behavior.
I have already established with you that I am 100% opposed to hate speech laws, and I extend that to University's internal policies, as well, because education is an essentially public service.
Intellectual
Challenging
Free speech
etc.
So, was this supposed to be proof that costumes can't be intellectually challenging speech?
A Link to the Past
Banned
We're obviously speaking in the context of Halloween. People are not typically doing this as a matter of positive expression, and any costume affected by this ruling, I highly doubt would be a costume that could be interpreted as a positive expression. No, carnival costumes and gay pride parade costumes aren't what is at stake here.
Also, yes, I'm aware that you're against laws that punish people for hanging nooses on trees, Snowman.
Aren't Universities supposed to be provocative, transgressive, offensive, obnoxious, etc.? Trying to get someone fired for their views sounds like it could be any one of those things. Or is that mindset limited to the right to dress in blackface?
Also, yes, I'm aware that you're against laws that punish people for hanging nooses on trees, Snowman.
Aren't Universities supposed to be provocative, transgressive, offensive, obnoxious, etc.? Trying to get someone fired for their views sounds like it could be any one of those things. Or is that mindset limited to the right to dress in blackface?
MHWilliams
Member
I mean, if you're not standing with students against something like blackface, you've pretty much given it a pass.
There's no discussion that's going to happen. There's no moment where a black student will go up to a white one in blackface and be able to convince that that it's horrible and racist. Especially not in a place like Yale, where the demographics are skewed heavily in one direction.
Essentially, "tolerate" is saying "do nothing".
I was wondering this as well. Defended the blackface, then you should probably stand up to defend someone being a major dick. Assholes all around!
There's no discussion that's going to happen. There's no moment where a black student will go up to a white one in blackface and be able to convince that that it's horrible and racist. Especially not in a place like Yale, where the demographics are skewed heavily in one direction.
Essentially, "tolerate" is saying "do nothing".
I was wondering this as well. Defended the blackface, then you should probably stand up to defend someone being a major dick. Assholes all around!
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
Last sentence is a total strawman. Nooses are very obviously THREATENING speech, not merely expressive. Dumbass costumes are the latter.
A Link to the Past
Banned
What about a person in blackface wearing a noose? Is that a threat? Or just a "dumbass costume"?
Also what makes the noose a threat? Why does it have to be a threat? Maybe it was just a dumbass Halloween decoration. Please don't oppress people for speaking their minds
What about that foreclosure firm that had a homeless costume party at their job? Is that okay by you, the basic celebration mocking people whose lives they made worse?
Also what makes the noose a threat? Why does it have to be a threat? Maybe it was just a dumbass Halloween decoration. Please don't oppress people for speaking their minds
What about that foreclosure firm that had a homeless costume party at their job? Is that okay by you, the basic celebration mocking people whose lives they made worse?
MHWilliams
Member
Wait. How do you define the difference? Is this a Potter Stewart-style situation?
A Link to the Past
Banned
This is so consistently the problem with people who are milquetoast in their opposition to hate speech laws. Instead of defining something as hate speech, we're now trying to decide whether something is a hate crime, a threat, etc.
Well, she was afforded to opportunity to make a fool of herself, so it's obviously not limited to blackface.
I think you can define that difference a hell of a lot more easily than what is offensive. a noose around a tree implies and threatens violence, murder and terror. A person in a black-face costume does not.
As for not standing with the students, then what do you think the punishment for students who wear offensive costumes should be? And what should we deem as offensive?
I would assume the faculty at Yale to actually be very diverse encompassing people of many different nationalities who earned their positions by being experts in their fields. Certainly that was my experience from doing my degree at an internationally regarded university - I had tutors/lecturers who were Iranian, Belgian, Chinese, German, Greek ect.
But that doesn't fit the American definition of diversity so...
cheststrongwell
my cake, fuck off
I understand this is a very emotional subject, but how the hell is this girl going to function when she enters the real world? When she gets offended by someone at work, is she going to throw a hissy fit? Hopefully she does some growing up before graduation.
His views are for free speech and however that extends, it's obviously not in favour of racist costumes.
and yes, asking for someone to be fired in their response to a response, is idiotic and kinda insane.
A Link to the Past
Banned
I was obviously replying to someone who had a double standard on free speech. Read.
What is a hate crime? What is hate speech? What is a threat? How do we determine these things? How do we punish people for these things? How harsh a punishment should a person receive because they put up nooses to have a slave era party? Is that a threat, or is that just stupid kids being obnoxious?
I remember one time, a co-worker got mad at me and started calling me a fag repeatedly. I got offended and got that person fired. What kind of asshole gets someone fired just because they spoke their mind?
These views protect racist costumes.
Also, that's a juvenile view of this situation. A person shouldn't be able to be fired over a "response to a response"? What does that even mean? The students are upset because the response contained something that they deemed sufficiently offensive to justify it. I think we can all agree that someone who uses the word "fag" on the job should be fired, yeah? That's a good springing point, yes? So we can establish that, indeed, being offensive can get you fired justifiably. At what point is the offense low enough to not make the firing justifiable? Who determines that, and how?
The issue with this thread is that ultimately, a lot of the people who criticize the protesters cannot elaborate upon that. It's often vague stuff, like simplifying it to "mad because of hurt feelings" or "wanting someone fired because of a response to a response(?)", when the details are more complicated than that. These people cannot explain when being offensive becomes improper (if ever), nor has anyone been able to explain why a noose is a threat, but a person wearing a noose and blackface is not.
theSlacker
Member
ITT supporting free speech = calling someone a "fag".
Well I'm glad I visited off topic today, time to check out.
Well I'm glad I visited off topic today, time to check out.
cheststrongwell
my cake, fuck off
Some asshole couldn't control himself like a normal person and threw a hissy fit at work. You complained and got him fired. No problem. If she throws fits like that at work, she isn't going to last long.
A Link to the Past
Banned
You do understand that "supporting free speech" in the appropriate context could refer to "supporting someone calling another person a fag", right? Shit, someone in this thread said as much by saying that they oppose hate speech laws.
People aren't upset that a person was "for free speech." Don't be obtuse. The reason they were upset is because the speech that was being supported was in and of itself potentially offensive. Hardly a Halloween passes without a big story about a super offensive Halloween costume.
Are you seriously trying to connect someone defending their stance behind an email to using a directed slur?
GrotesqueBeauty
Banned
I couldn't even make it through the videos. Just to preface, my take is based largely on the particular interaction recorded there, and is not a catch all for the multi-threaded circumstances mentioned in the article- although I have the suspicion that there are other students like that girl, and whatever legitimate points they have are doomed to be mere adornments to some forced image of righteous indignation. Frankly, the cocktail of issues mentioned in their totality are hard to parse out clearly and seem to reflect more of a general malaise within the student community than some hard and fast institutional injustice.
At any rate, there may be legitimate conversations to be had regarding some of the issues mentioned. It even looked like the the guy being confronted (Nicholas Christakis) was promoting meaningful discourse, which suggests student complaints weren't just falling on deaf ears. That doesn't guarantee automatic agreement or sudden unilateral policy changes, but it shows some earnest intent, and not avoidance or antagonism I would associate with an out of touch and insensitive social aggressor. In fact, he seemed to be actively engaging student concerns in spite of being backed into a corner publicly for a conversation that could have probably occurred naturally and quietly without drama if he was merely approached as a person rather than a mean spirited and draconian authority figure.
Watching the video I couldn't shake some gross lurking sense of the whole thing as a confused and weirdly affected display of surface bravado, without clarity of direction or sustained inner fortitude. It had the ring of an awkward pantomime- some privileged youth, unsure of what cause should catalyze them, latching onto day to day disagreements or matters of bad taste as an excuse to recreate some civil rights era moment they've romanticized, without any circumspection about their own context or the relative scale of things, underscored by the persnickety self pitying tone of suburbia, or perhaps an upscale urban upbringing.
And again, there may well be legitimate reasons to be offended, but what's the appropriate reaction here? This tenor of emotional histrionics with a weird layer of social media self awareness betrays a lack of dignity, rationality, and grounded conviction, replaced by the vacuity of entitlement and self pity. A lot of onlookers are just sort of there because something is happening. Even the body language betrays a sort of lack of clarity and conviction. Do they even know specifically what's bothering them, or is it just a general discontent with a string of loosely connected and sometimes murky circumstances? And if some of these students really don't know where there convictions lay and for what specific reasons, they need to sit down and reflect on it before marching around in some half cocked millennial approximation of what they think social engagement is supposed to mean, and leave the in your face activism for students who have a clear sense of purpose and the level of realization to take on these issues with an unwavering larger picture in mind, rather than the no-one-showed-up-to-my-birthday-party-and-now-my-life-is over school of protest.
At any rate, there may be legitimate conversations to be had regarding some of the issues mentioned. It even looked like the the guy being confronted (Nicholas Christakis) was promoting meaningful discourse, which suggests student complaints weren't just falling on deaf ears. That doesn't guarantee automatic agreement or sudden unilateral policy changes, but it shows some earnest intent, and not avoidance or antagonism I would associate with an out of touch and insensitive social aggressor. In fact, he seemed to be actively engaging student concerns in spite of being backed into a corner publicly for a conversation that could have probably occurred naturally and quietly without drama if he was merely approached as a person rather than a mean spirited and draconian authority figure.
Watching the video I couldn't shake some gross lurking sense of the whole thing as a confused and weirdly affected display of surface bravado, without clarity of direction or sustained inner fortitude. It had the ring of an awkward pantomime- some privileged youth, unsure of what cause should catalyze them, latching onto day to day disagreements or matters of bad taste as an excuse to recreate some civil rights era moment they've romanticized, without any circumspection about their own context or the relative scale of things, underscored by the persnickety self pitying tone of suburbia, or perhaps an upscale urban upbringing.
And again, there may well be legitimate reasons to be offended, but what's the appropriate reaction here? This tenor of emotional histrionics with a weird layer of social media self awareness betrays a lack of dignity, rationality, and grounded conviction, replaced by the vacuity of entitlement and self pity. A lot of onlookers are just sort of there because something is happening. Even the body language betrays a sort of lack of clarity and conviction. Do they even know specifically what's bothering them, or is it just a general discontent with a string of loosely connected and sometimes murky circumstances? And if some of these students really don't know where there convictions lay and for what specific reasons, they need to sit down and reflect on it before marching around in some half cocked millennial approximation of what they think social engagement is supposed to mean, and leave the in your face activism for students who have a clear sense of purpose and the level of realization to take on these issues with an unwavering larger picture in mind, rather than the no-one-showed-up-to-my-birthday-party-and-now-my-life-is over school of protest.
A Link to the Past
Banned
Why does this thread rely so heavily on reducing the issue to stuff like "a stance behind an email"? It almost seems like you're constantly trying to say that there's nothing to be offended by in the email but you'd rather not have to.
Again - people are upset because they found the stance offensive. Of course they're going to be bothered by a person doubling down on their stance.
I seem to be missing the double standard. Taking issue with someone's actions doesn't mean you want to limit their ability to take action.
A Link to the Past
Banned
If you are a proponent of free speech, you cannot be in favour of a person's right to express what was written in the email but also against a person's right to introduce consequences for that speech.
Seriously, it's absurd to me that to some people, "go back to Africa" is protected free speech, but wanting to ban said speech is not.
as I've made clear, my issue isn't with the students having a problem with the email, it's their behaviour and actions (at least in this video) that I find repulsive.
A Link to the Past
Banned
Their tone? Their goals? Even if we both agree that they had an inappropriate tone, and their goals aren't good, the end result would be that they are only as protected of speech as the email and the aforementioned defense.
theSlacker
Member
There is a huge difference between someone supporting the rights of someone to use such language, along with the right of people to criticize them for doing that, and being the person who is using those kind of words.
Using this story for an example. The person people are upset with didn't go around dressed up as an offensive caricature. They voiced their opinion that there should not be a hard official ban on people that decide to do that in responce to an email that may have been taken as an official decree. Both they (well I guess this is an assumption from reading the email), and I, are in no way against people being outraged and protesting/shaming a person that does do something as stupid as painting their skin to the appearance of another race. You seem to be trying to equate their email to straight up calling someone a slur. Don't even know the relevance in your post about it being "on the job" since that shouldn't matter to how people react to someone using that language either, but whatever.
As a side note, I don't have a problem with the students voicing their opinions on this matter, I just don't agree with them. I don't think anyone here has mentioned wanting to ban them from what they are doing, at most I've seen people just think how they are doing it is dumb, so don't really understand that angle of what you are saying either.
Is your stick to just come up with grey area examples as some sort of proof that the other position is untennable? I think that is rather ridiculous because your own position is far weaker in that regard. And these sorts of grey area examples are exactly why we have judicial discretion
Well, then you are against free speech. Congratulations. If you only protect the speech that you deem acceptable and ban the speech that you do not find acceptable then you do not have free speech.
Well, why don't you tell us? I think it is pretty clear that most people here think that a person advocating for the right of free speech should not be fired from his/her job.
And you can? You can determine what is offensive and what is not? You can define what sort of speech should be prosecuted or not? You are guilty of the same complaints that you bring up.
And why can't I criticize the protesters? I will defend their right to do it, but I don't have to agree with it or like it. I am not advocating that these people's speech be infringed upon. You are the one who is advocating to do that in this thread.
theSlacker
Member
Literally who is trying to ban the students from doing what they are doing? Is disagreeing with them seen as an attempt to ban them? Can you provide examples from this thread? I admit I may have skimmed too hard and missed it, but I was also gobsmacked at you equating supporting free speech to calling someone a "fag".
Damerman
Member
seriously... it's pretty aggravating.
A Link to the Past
Banned
Literally zero human beings in this thread have advocated for one single thing to happen to her specifically because she advocated in favour of free speech. Literally every person who has implied that is actively ignoring the actual issue and is discussing something that does not exist in any way, shape or form. She is being protested because of the CONTEXT of her defense of free speech.
All right. From this point on, I reserve the right to just disregard anyone who misrepresents the story in this way. Because you actually need to make an effort to ignore the actual narrative.
100%, no one is advocating for her to be affected by her free speech. I specifically have responded to these claims by laying out that it's about what specific speech she is defending, multiple times. I am utterly gobsmacked to be in a thread where people are claiming to have the stronger position and yet cannot stand without removing details from the story and creating gross simplifications of the protest's goals and what was said that made protesters upset.
So, can we please, please, stop pretending that people are upset because "she defended free speech." It's an intellectually vacant argument and insults everyone involved in the discussion.
And let me bold this REclarification.
If the context of her defending free speech was her defending a person's right to refer to people as fags, then would you dismiss the protesters as protesting people just because they were defending free speech? That is exactly why it is an asinine argument. A person is not "just" defending free speech. Even people who are defending good speech, it should not simply be characterized as a situation where someone came under attack for defending free speech. Context is key. Some defense of free speech can be good, some defense of free speech can be bad. The only way to understand which is which is to apply context to them, so I ask that you stop making it about the fact that she defended speech and make it about what speech she was defending.
All right. From this point on, I reserve the right to just disregard anyone who misrepresents the story in this way. Because you actually need to make an effort to ignore the actual narrative.
100%, no one is advocating for her to be affected by her free speech. I specifically have responded to these claims by laying out that it's about what specific speech she is defending, multiple times. I am utterly gobsmacked to be in a thread where people are claiming to have the stronger position and yet cannot stand without removing details from the story and creating gross simplifications of the protest's goals and what was said that made protesters upset.
So, can we please, please, stop pretending that people are upset because "she defended free speech." It's an intellectually vacant argument and insults everyone involved in the discussion.
And let me bold this REclarification.
If the context of her defending free speech was her defending a person's right to refer to people as fags, then would you dismiss the protesters as protesting people just because they were defending free speech? That is exactly why it is an asinine argument. A person is not "just" defending free speech. Even people who are defending good speech, it should not simply be characterized as a situation where someone came under attack for defending free speech. Context is key. Some defense of free speech can be good, some defense of free speech can be bad. The only way to understand which is which is to apply context to them, so I ask that you stop making it about the fact that she defended speech and make it about what speech she was defending.
theSlacker
Member
Disagreeing or dismissing the protesters isn't trying to suspend their free speech. I still don't see where you are coming from with that. Still, who in this thread has gone after the protesters free speech and right to protest while supporting the email and stance of Christakis?
The issue of "good" or "bad" free speech isn't relevant to me. It is still amazing to me that are trying/did try to make supporting free speech the same as someone using a homophobic slur. Is that just the way to win arguments here? Find a way to connect someone/something you disagree with to something terrible? I don't spend a lot of time in off topic and I already regret the time I've spent here today.
The issue of "good" or "bad" free speech isn't relevant to me. It is still amazing to me that are trying/did try to make supporting free speech the same as someone using a homophobic slur. Is that just the way to win arguments here? Find a way to connect someone/something you disagree with to something terrible? I don't spend a lot of time in off topic and I already regret the time I've spent here today.
A Link to the Past
Banned
Please, do me a favour. Choose:
1. Show me a post where I implied that she should be punished solely for supporting free speech.
2. Apologize for making things up about what I said.
3. Leave NeoGAF.
These are your options, because if you're making claims of what I've said and can't do either the first or second, what did you even come to this discussion for?
1. Show me a post where I implied that she should be punished solely for supporting free speech.
2. Apologize for making things up about what I said.
3. Leave NeoGAF.
These are your options, because if you're making claims of what I've said and can't do either the first or second, what did you even come to this discussion for?
Context is not key. If you require context then you aren't in favor of free speech. Defending a person's right to say awful, offensive shit is a legitimate defense of free speech in any context. That does not mean that the person who is defending that right thinks that the offending person should be free of all consequences or actually agrees with the person. And it definitely does not facilitate or encourage offensive speech. The person defending the right that there should be no legal consequences, and in this case, not ban or punish speech by the administration at a University.
If the offending person gets fired from his/her job or becomes a social outcast, then that is totally fine. All of those people are excersing their rights of free speech and free action to punish and disassociate themselves from that offending person.
And get off your high horse. It is annoying.
theSlacker
Member
What are you even talking about? My first response to you, along with every one following it up, was in response to you equating supporting free speech to calling someone a homophobic slur. When have I even mentioned anything even related to claiming you want her punished at all, let alone for what reason? Are you drunk? Or are you just not talking to me, and I'm drunk?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked