Support NeoGAF

[A Link to the Past]

Sorry, I was getting a little annoyed that I had to reeducate people who keep saying that she is coming under fire for "supporting free speech" rather than for supporting problematic speech, so I figure I'd be annoying and make sure that people couldn't yet again ignore that clarification of the details of the story!

That said, this is not a case of a person supporting something she finds abhorrent. She specifically has personal reasons to support it, namely that she thinks it is important for people to be provocative, transgressive, offensive, etc. every once in a while.

EDIT: Allow me to restate something that needn't be restated.

I did not compare calling someone a fag to supporting free speech. In fact, I brought it up in response to a statement of "gosh I sure do hope that she doesn't throw a hissy fit at work if someone says something offensive to them." You inserted yourself into this discussion, took my comment out of context, and determined that I was equating the two when the comment was not related to what she said at all. After you had (purposefully?) misunderstood the point of what I'd said, I explained that "supporting free speech" can have negative connotations, and that it's problematic to try and make the situation that she came under fire for supporting free speech. Like I said, "supporting free speech" in the right context can be a person supporting another person's right to call a person a fag. And that was my point. There is not an objective goodness to the support of free speech.

 

[theSlacker]

Oh wow, I don't think I've been trolled this hard in a long time. My opinion on you just did a full 180. Very good.

 

[cheststrongwell]

I'm confused.

 

[A Link to the Past]

I guess I can't exactly blame you for avoiding something that you've proven to be unable to make an intelligent response to.

But no, clearly, I'm trolling rather than you having taken my post out of context.

 

[Igo]

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.

Criticism isn't a always an attempt at censorship. Often it is, but it certainly doesn't appear to be in his case. I don't see a contradiction in advocating for free speech while also criticising certain speech.

In your example it would only be absurd and hypocritical if people wanted to place some restriction on making that argument.

 

[Piecake]

Sorry, I was getting a little annoyed that I had to reeducate people who keep saying that she is coming under fire for "supporting free speech" rather than for supporting problematic speech, so I figure I'd be annoying and make sure that people couldn't yet again ignore that clarification of the details of the story!

Its the same fucking thing. You can't have free speech without problematic speech.

That said, this is not a case of a person supporting something she finds abhorrent. She specifically has personal reasons to support it, namely that she thinks it is important for people to be provocative, transgressive, offensive, etc. every once in a while.

Where does she say this? If you mean this:

f you don’t like a costume someone is wearing, look away, or tell them you are offended. Talk to each other. Free speech and the ability to tolerate offence are the hallmarks of a free and open society.”

Then that is not what that means. She doesnt think it is important that people be shocking or offensive every once in a while. She thinks it is important that is important to tolerate and personally handle the offense because everyone is different, everyone has different ideas and norms, and different people are going to find different things offensive. And that is the only way we will have a free and open society.

 

[A Link to the Past]

And we can't have support of problematic speech without the right to be able to take a shit on that support. You keep saying things as if you're pulling a gotcha, as if I've been this big ol' free speech proponent. Free speech is a pretty solid idea, but I'm all for having regulations on certain expression on a campus.

This is something no one has replied to as of yet.

Is a man in blackface and wearing a noose free speech?

Also, this is what I was referring to:

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.

To me, this is someone ruminating that society is less accepting of certain speech, bordering on a "kids will be kids" angle.

 

[Piecake]

And we can't have support of problematic speech without the right to be able to take a shit on that support. You keep saying things as if you're pulling a gotcha, as if I've been this big ol' free speech proponent. Free speech is a pretty solid idea, but I'm all for having regulations on certain expression on a campus.

This is something no one has replied to as of yet.

Is a man in blackface and wearing a noose free speech?

Also, this is what I was referring to:



To me, this is someone ruminating that society is less accepting of certain speech, bordering on a "kids will be kids" angle.

Don't worry. I don't think you are in favor of free speech. What I object to is you trying to redefine free speech to your own definition, which is not the commonly accepted definition of free speech in America.

And why should I bother with that extremely grey hypothetical and insanely rare outlier example when you never even bothered to define what you find to be offensive and problematic speech?

 

[A Link to the Past]

Because you're asking me to make a simple definition of something that is so gargantuan that it is undefinable, and you're doing it to do a gotcha. Shit like this operates on a case-by-case basis. A hate crime, for instance, is not something that can be easily defined. Okay yeah, a hate crime is a type of crime where a person is targeted for their skin colour, gender, sexuality, etc. Yet, this has to be demonstrated for basically every instance where such a charge could be made. It has to be shown that indeed, the crime fits the definition of what a hate crime is. In this context, it's as simple as establishing basic guidelines and fostering a more comfortable environment, especially for students who routinely see costume versions of their ethnicity. You can disagree with the value of such a direction all you want, but that is generally what is going to happen. Just like at a place of work that allows costumes - they aren't going to allow you to wear just anything, and I'm not just talking about work-inappropriate attire like hanging sleeves in fast food or platform shoes in a construction site.

Also, because I'm asking why a noose hanging from a tree is a threat, while a noose hanging from a neck in a costume is expression. I've seen nooses as part of Halloween decorations, they're meant to convey death. Would you be okay with having nooses hanging around campus during Halloween?

EDIT: Also, I think I believe in free speech exactly as much as one should. I've never once advocated that she can't say what she did. Free speech has consequences, bae. She is experiencing them. That's how it works.

 

[Quixzlizx]

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.

Saying that you want to ban free speech is itself protected free speech, yes, but I can't tell whether your mental gymnastics are due to you trying to have a satisfying "gotcha" moment, or whether you actually believe that free speech is a bad idea.

 

[A Link to the Past]

Saying that you want to ban free speech is itself protected free speech, yes, but I can't tell whether your mental gymnastics are due to you trying to have a satisfying "gotcha" moment, or whether you actually believe that free speech is a bad idea.

Free speech means that she can say what she wants, not that she can't lose her job over it or get the piss taken out of her. I don't personally want her to lose her job, but as I've said in this thread, I find her views to be problematic and can understand the people that do. That said, people seem to be attached to this idea that she just supported the right of people to be offensive, when in fact from the email, she seems to have a personal "kids will be kids" perspective on the situation, and rather seems to find people being "a little" obnoxious, provocative, offensive, etc. to be a positive thing.

 

[MHWilliams]

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?

Sorry, went to the gym.

A noose implies a hanging, meaning death. The issue frequently is who it's aimed at. What if it's supposedly art? In the context of a film or television show?

Again, the problem is defining a difference. Who decides that? you seem to understand that as a fundamental question, but neglect to answer it. (Or your answer is "no one"?)

The iconography of a noose around a tree has been a problem in our country because of our history with slavery and its understood connotations. Blackface has a similar past that you seem willing to ignore.

As to punishment, I honestly don't have an opinion on that.

What I have an opinion on is the ruling bodies at the school not uniformly going "Hey, this is wrong." I don't need a campus code abolishing those types of costumes, but I do need those in charge to actually say "No, this is not a good and innocent thing." It's not about tolerance and a discussion. It's about "I want to let them do blackface without condemning them" and its frankly a reprehensible stance to take. I want them to actually foster a better culture at their schools, instead of telling the minority students to suck it up.

 

[Quixzlizx]

Free speech means that she can say what she wants, not that she can't lose her job over it. That said, people seem to be attached to this idea that she just supported the right of people to be offensive, when in fact from the email, she seems to have a personal "kids will be kids" perspective on the situation, and rather seems to find people being "a little" obnoxious, provocative, offensive, etc. to be a positive thing.

I wasn't even talking about the e-mail. Your post that I quoted said "ban said speech."

And I don't think anyone in this thread so far has called to ban that girl from saying what she wants. They just want to de-legitimize her position, just as you want to legitimize it. Consequences flow in all directions.

 

[Piecake]

Because you're asking me to make a simple definition of something that is so gargantuan that it is undefinable, and you're doing it to do a gotcha. Shit like this operates on a case-by-case basis. A hate crime, for instance, is not something that can be easily defined. Okay yeah, a hate crime is a type of crime where a person is targeted for their skin colour, gender, sexuality, etc. Yet, this has to be demonstrated for basically every instance where such a charge could be made. It has to be shown that indeed, the crime fits the definition of what a hate crime is. In this context, it's as simple as establishing basic guidelines and fostering a more comfortable environment, especially for students who routinely see costume versions of their ethnicity. You can disagree with the value of such a direction all you want, but that is generally what is going to happen. Just like at a place of work that allows costumes - they aren't going to allow you to wear just anything, and I'm not just talking about work-inappropriate attire like hanging sleeves in fast food or platform shoes in a construction site.

Also, because I'm asking why a noose hanging from a tree is a threat, while a noose hanging from a neck in a costume is expression. I've seen nooses as part of Halloween decorations, they're meant to convey death. Would you be okay with having nooses hanging around campus during Halloween?

[EDIT: Also, I think I believe in free speech exactly as much as one should. I've never once advocated that she can't say what she did. Free speech has consequences, bae. She is experiencing them. That's how it works.

Asking you to explain your position isnt a gotcha question. You stated that you are in favor of regulating speech on campus. Well, what sort of speech would you regulate, how would you do it, and what would be the consequences?

If you can't make it clear-cut, how the hell do you expect people to actually abide by your regulations? Know when what they are saying is protected speech and know what they are saying or doing is not? Should they should just 'know' what you mean by offensive speech? Is that fair? Should we be able to punish people for infractions when the regulation that they broke is so unclear and ambiguous out of necessity due to the gargantuan and undefinable problem?

 

[A Link to the Past]

Piecake, you make this into such a complicated situation. When a university decides that nooses should not be allowed to be hung on campuses, they did not make a specific "no nooses" rule. In all likelihood, what we see is a general discussion of offensive imagery. They are not going to make such a conclusion for a single act, because that is inefficient. The appropriate way to do it - and this is a very blatant thing I have already said to you as a solution - is to establish general guidelines that will help guide people to understanding what is appropriate and inappropriate, and handling things deemed inappropriate on a case-by-case basis. It's really a rather simple thing, and in fact, is pretty much what already happens.

That said, I'm replying to virtually everything you're saying right now, why are you constantly ignoring my question? Is a costume that depicts a hung black slave protected speech? Is it more or less offensive than someone hanging a noose on a tree during Halloween?

I wasn't even talking about the e-mail. Your post that I quoted said "ban said speech."

And I don't think anyone in this thread so far as called to ban that girl from saying what she wants. They just want to de-legitimize her position, just as you want to legitimize it. Consequences flow in all directions.

I too am in favour of consequences in all directions of speech. I never came out against the idea of a society that allowed someone to say "Go back to Africa", rather I was taking issue with a common response to these kinds of things, where someone will treat the desire to restrict speech as being worse than (arguably) untenable speech.

 

[FartOfWar]

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!

You're either with america or for terrorism. You don't hear Bush in you there? If a student is racist enough to show up in blackface he or she is almost guaranteed to end up a national news story, lose their employment and education prospects. The black student or any student of any background are indeed likely to say something (plenty of people in the video jumped at the chance to signal their virtue when addressing the professor) and whether or not they convince the racist he or she is wrong is irrelevant in this context.

 

[theSlacker]

I guess I can't exactly blame you for avoiding something that you've proven to be unable to make an intelligent response to.

But no, clearly, I'm trolling rather than you having taken my post out of context.

Oh you. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Yes, insult the ability to make an intelligent responce of the person you just couldn't understand the posts of, and then accused of saying things that were in no way related to anything they had said, topped off with an ultimatum to leave the forum. Well at least I can't claim you are taking things I said out of context since you made up the context. Don't worry though, I'll let it go, we all make mistakes. :3

It's actually a pretty high complement to be thought to be trolling in this situation since the alternative is that you brought out a homophobic slur, not even related to the topic at hand, in an attempt to villainize a different point of view then yours. I mean who would do that?

Still waiting on the examples of people trying to take away the protesters free speech in this thread. Or did I take that out of context as well? I mean it really looks to me like you have implied a few times that there were people in this thread that wanted to take away the protesters free speech. It is okay to admit you were wrong before moving onto a different point. It is the only other point of contention I have raised with you. I am also okay with you continuing to troll me hard since I'm in on it now.

That said, I'm replying to virtually everything you're saying right now, why are you constantly ignoring my question? Is a costume that depicts a hung black slave protected speech? Is it more or less offensive than someone hanging a noose on a tree during Halloween?

"Have you stopped beating your wife?"

You're good. Too good for me. I can take a crack at it though, in Piecake's absents. Yes to the first question. It would then also be okay (and I would fully support) for that person to be fired from their job/shamed in their community/people defending them to be banned on this forum. I'm one of those crazy people who believe in free speech all around though, without the hate speech provisions. I don't even want to touch the second question since I don't think it matters what one of the two is more or less offensive since the question behind that would be if it was a threat or not, not how offensive it was, since threatening speech is not protected. That is something good for me to think about come next Halloween though since I have seen people use hangman's nooses as decoration props before. I would assume it is the context of where and when it is being hung that determines it's possible intent.

 

[Tertullian]

Girl is such an entitled little shit. Maybe act like a fucking grown up instead of stunting your cause by behaving like a 13 year old.

This is such a frightening display of modern Ivy League student behaviour.

eta: here's another article that better covers the story

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

Thank God for FIRE.

 

[HarryKS]

I'm confused.

Dude, this is like the beginning of Kanye's song.

Except there's also a power trip involved.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4y3qk7SmT7M

 

[FartOfWar]

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.

These straw men are something else. Nooses? Go back to Africa? Where is this shit coming from? Who said the woman in the video should be prevented from doing whatever it is she thinks she's doing? I missed that.

 

[FartOfWar]

Oh wow, I don't think I've been trolled this hard in a long time. My opinion on you just did a full 180. Very good.

Just now made it to page 3 and saw that gem. He literally cannot comprehend freedom of speech.

 

[maquiladora]

This thread is giving me a headache. I'm still confused.

 

[Trident]

Just now made it to page 3 and saw that gem. He literally cannot comprehend freedom of speech.

No, no, he totally gets it: Speech which he approves of is "free speech" and therefore protected. Speech which he does not approve of is NOT "free speech" and therefore not protected.

Everything that would not be suppressed can not be suppressed, and everything that would be suppressed can be. So easy! So free!

 

[Voysa Reezun]

This thread confuses me.

The protesting Yale students are doing something that I instruct my regular ol' community college 101 students never to do; they see a position that they think is wrong and rather than combat that position with logic, facts, and clear-headed analysis, they think that shouting the position down is okay. It's not.

If you disagree with a position that someone takes, but you can't articulate why, shut the fuck up until you figure out how to do so rather than protesting, whining, and bitching about being offended or being unfairly targeted or whatever.

 

[MHWilliams]

The protesting Yale students are doing something that I instruct my regular ol' community college 101 students never to do; they see a position that they think is wrong and rather than combat that position with logic, facts, and clear-headed analysis, they think that shouting the position down is okay. It's not.

The problem is this is rarely enough to end certain problems. We certainly have a huge number of issues that point to that.

I can, with clear facts, argue about racially biased policing. That in and of itself, does not fix the problem. Basically, that's the kind of thing that's easy to say, but not quite helpful in practice.

 

[Piecake]

Piecake, you make this into such a complicated situation. When a university decides that nooses should not be allowed to be hung on campuses, they did not make a specific "no nooses" rule. In all likelihood, what we see is a general discussion of offensive imagery. They are not going to make such a conclusion for a single act, because that is inefficient. The appropriate way to do it - and this is a very blatant thing I have already said to you as a solution - is to establish general guidelines that will help guide people to understanding what is appropriate and inappropriate, and handling things deemed inappropriate on a case-by-case basis. It's really a rather simple thing, and in fact, is pretty much what already happens.

That said, I'm replying to virtually everything you're saying right now, why are you constantly ignoring my question? Is a costume that depicts a hung black slave protected speech? Is it more or less offensive than someone hanging a noose on a tree during Halloween?

I didnt bother because you never responded to mine. You respond a whole lot, but avoid answering specific questions. Since you answered finally, I will answer yours. I think it would be because while that costume certainly implies that the costume wearer is racist and supports violence against blacks, it is not a direct threat of violence or murder to an individual or a group of people. This seems quite analogous to Nazi uniforms and those KKK costumes. Those are protected forms of speech so this one will be protected speech as well.

As for the noose on the tree in Halloween, I think that is perfectly acceptable because the purpose of that is, again, not to threaten violence, murder, terror against an individual or group of people, but Halloween decoration to add to a spooky mood.

Since you are banned, I will try to predict your response. If this was a gotcha question about my passage about context and free speech, then I will explain. Determining context is obviously important to figuring out if an action was used to threaten violence, murder and terror. And I already admitted as such by stating that this is the reason why we have prosecutor and judicial discretion so that they can figure out the context and take that into account.

I don't think context matters when we are talking about speech that has nothing to do with threatening someone or a group of people with violence and terror, and then taking an action to turn that threat into a possible immediate action, no matter how awful and offensive that speech might be.

Is there grey areas, confusion, and wiggle room? Of course, but there will be that problem no matter where you draw that line. Perhaps you did not intend to mean this, but I don't see why that is a huge issue with where I have drawn the line and not where you have drawn the line. I would argue that the closer you draw the line to complete restriction of free speech the more grey and ambiguous areas you will get.

I too am in favour of consequences in all directions of speech. I never came out against the idea of a society that allowed someone to say "Go back to Africa", rather I was taking issue with a common response to these kinds of things, where someone will treat the desire to restrict speech as being worse than (arguably) untenable speech.

I think it is.

 

[Voysa Reezun]

The problem is this is rarely enough to end certain problems. We certainly have a huge number of issues that point to that.

I can, with clear facts, argue about racially biased policing. That in and of itself, does not fix the problem. Basically, that's the kind of thing that's easy to say, but not quite helpful in practice.

I never claimed that it is enough to end problems.

However, shouting positions down is even less useful. It entrenches people in their positions. It's just noise with no meaning.

We can strive to be better and to use critical thought and evidence-based analysis to argue for our positions. Of course, humans are not robots, and we can be tolerant of people having emotions about a topic without validating those emotions as a valid argument in and of themselves.

 

[anaron]

Oh wow, I don't think I've been trolled this hard in a long time. My opinion on you just did a full 180. Very good.

same. What kind of attitude is that to have on a message board discussion that was fairly innocuous? He was the only person in here to actively make it hostile and unwelcoming which funnily enough, almost exactly mirrors the girl in the video.

 

[Condom]

lol those youtube comments

These discussions are good and need to happen everywhere. Too many wolves in sheep clothing telling people to 'just ignore' or 'be positive', fuck that let's have the difficult discussions.

No we can't have kids be obnoxious and offensive, especially if they really don't know what the fuck they are doing to others. Some live a privileged life and that impacts society when they get their privileged jobs and/or social positions. You'd think sociologists would know this but apparently not.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

Wait. How do you define the difference? Is this a Potter Stewart-style situation?

Sorry, I posted that last response before I went to work, and on my phone, to boot.

Anyway, the difference is that, when he wrote "hanging nooses from trees", I assumed he was referring to the relatively common practice employed by modern racist groups of clandestinely hanging nooses outside of black-advocating or -supporting establishments (activist organizations, black fraternities or student groups, etc.). In such an instance, given the history of lynching in relation to the American black population, the implied threat is, well, pretty obvious, and something virtually anybody can pick up on immediately. At the very least, the imagery is such that "threat and/or intimidation" is a reading of the act that would come to mind immediately, and be incontrovertibly valid, again because of the history of that symbol with respect to the population it's being employed against. Because threatening or intimidating speech is already illegal, there is no necessity for there to be a separate "hate speech" law prohibiting it. Conversely, stupid as racial caricature Halloween costumes may be, and as loathsome as Reddit's "Chimpire" may be, both are merely expressive forms of speech, for there simply is no logical, honest way to argue that, as speech, they are advocating directly and immediately for violent action to be taken against any specific individuals. Thus, much as they may mark their utterer as someone to be mocked or shunned, they still ought to be protected, because I don't believe the government has any business policing any non-violent or non-dangerous ("fire in a crowded theater") speech.

 

[NotBacon]

Looks like maybe two stories?

Not sure where to weigh in on the race portion, but regarding the halloween part these students are a bunch of disrespectful idiots. No one is going to cater to you and your 'safe space'. You're at a university, grow up.

 

[Cybit]

The problem is this is rarely enough to end certain problems. We certainly have a huge number of issues that point to that.

I can, with clear facts, argue about racially biased policing. That in and of itself, does not fix the problem. Basically, that's the kind of thing that's easy to say, but not quite helpful in practice.

The issue is that no one is defending blackface or what not - the retort is that they should expect students to use judgment rather than try to make a codified set of rules that everyone has to follow. The students wanted hard and fast rules with punishments, and they believed that by not putting in strict codified rules - you were "supporting" racial intolerance.

Also, the hilarious level of sexism involved (the dude they're shouting at didn't send the email, his wife did, and they're basically blaming him for his wife's comments) is deliciously ironic.

 

[RevengeOfDoh]

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?

There's a connection between arguing a university being a home and safe spaces. Putting it in terms of not being offended by anything just serves to further marginalize people that already are and really minimizes how racist society still is. It's so much less about being offended and a lot more about not having to deal with all the subtle and not so subtle acts of racism in larger society.

Whoever argued that is obviously ignorant to the origins and history of protected speech.

I would argue that they aren't considering the context. Being culturally insensitive is a form of oppression when we're talking about marginalized groups like people of color that are told to just suck it up.

 

[FartOfWar]

Follow up story at 'noted regressive propaganda organ' The Atlantic: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...tolerance-of-student-activism-at-yale/414810/

The entire article is well worth reading, but here, have a handful of examples:

"Another Silliman resident declared in a campus publication, “I have had to watch my friends defend their right to this institution. This email and the subsequent reaction to it have interrupted their lives. I have friends who are not going to class, who are not doing their homework, who are losing sleep, who are skipping meals, and who are having breakdowns.” One feels for these students. But if an email about Halloween costumes has them skipping class and suffering breakdowns, either they need help from mental-health professionals or they’ve been grievously ill-served by debilitating ideological notions they’ve acquired about what ought to cause them pain.

This notion that one’s existence can be invalidated by a fellow 18-year-old donning an offensive costume is perhaps the most disempowering notion aired at Yale.

This beggars belief. Yale students told to talk to each other if they find a peer’s costume offensive helplessly declare that they’re unable to do so without an authority figure specifying “any modes or means to facilitate these discussions,” as if they’re Martians unfamiliar with a concept as rudimentary as disagreeing in conversation

Who taught them that it is righteous to pillory faculty for failing to validate their feelings, as if disagreement is tantamount to disrespect?"

 

[OldAsUrSock]

Follow up story at 'noted regressive propaganda organ' The Atlantic: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...tolerance-of-student-activism-at-yale/414810/

The entire article is well worth reading, but here, have a handful of examples:

"Another Silliman resident declared in a campus publication, “I have had to watch my friends defend their right to this institution. This email and the subsequent reaction to it have interrupted their lives. I have friends who are not going to class, who are not doing their homework, who are losing sleep, who are skipping meals, and who are having breakdowns.” One feels for these students. But if an email about Halloween costumes has them skipping class and suffering breakdowns, either they need help from mental-health professionals or they’ve been grievously ill-served by debilitating ideological notions they’ve acquired about what ought to cause them pain.

This notion that one’s existence can be invalidated by a fellow 18-year-old donning an offensive costume is perhaps the most disempowering notion aired at Yale.

This beggars belief. Yale students told to talk to each other if they find a peer’s costume offensive helplessly declare that they’re unable to do so without an authority figure specifying “any modes or means to facilitate these discussions,” as if they’re Martians unfamiliar with a concept as rudimentary as disagreeing in conversation

Who taught them that it is righteous to pillory faculty for failing to validate their feelings, as if disagreement is tantamount to disrespect?"

Not going to class because of a costume is so unbelievably ridiculous, but believable that they would do so to be dramatic.

 

[FartOfWar]

Not going to class because of a costume is so unbelievably ridiculous, but believable that they would do so to be dramatic.

That's not even the issue. The student in the email is shellshocked not because someone wore a costume but because someone on faculty wondered whether staff needs to tell adult students what they can and can't wear.

 

[Hasphat'sAnts]

To be fair, Mental health issues at these elite colleges are no joke. At least 1/3rd of my classmates had sought help from campus counseling services and another 1/3rd probably should've.

I didn't need more excuses to miss class or skip meals. The pressure did that just fine.

 

[Hari Seldon]

The future leaders of america folks. This would be unbelievable if it was a south park episode.

 

[gamechanger87]

Beaten to the Atlantic article

 

[Cybit]

Irony alert.

http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/194869/growing-up-at-yale

In 2003, the Black Student Alliance was all about "free speech" when it involved bringing an anti-semitic (black) speaker onto campus to talk about how the Israelis were in on 9/11.

It's amazing how those who scream for cultural sensitivity are so good at ignoring their own advice when it comes to them doing it to other groups. Do as I say, not as I do, I suppose.

Also - the entire "not invited to a frat / sorority party because of race" thing is turning out (surprise surprise) to be bullshit.

 

[dream]

This part is particularly fantastic:

According to The Washington Post, “several students in Silliman said they cannot bear to live in the college anymore.” These are young people who live in safe, heated buildings with two Steinway grand pianos, an indoor basketball court, a courtyard with hammocks and picnic tables, a computer lab, a dance studio, a gym, a movie theater, a film-editing lab, billiard tables, an art gallery, and four music practice rooms. But they can’t bear this setting that millions of people would risk their lives to inhabit because one woman wrote an email that hurt their feelings?

 

[goober]

How is that even accetable to talk to another adult, even a member of the faculty? So disrespectful, in my opinion. I feel like she didn't give him a chance to speak and conversation involves both parties. Its not a shouting match.

 

[gamechanger87]

This thread confuses me.

The protesting Yale students are doing something that I instruct my regular ol' community college 101 students never to do; they see a position that they think is wrong and rather than combat that position with logic, facts, and clear-headed analysis, they think that shouting the position down is okay. It's not.

If you disagree with a position that someone takes, but you can't articulate why, shut the fuck up until you figure out how to do so rather than protesting, whining, and bitching about being offended or being unfairly targeted or whatever.

On top of that, they want to stifle free speech to prevent them from being offended. There is just a mentality that the administration needs to protect the students from the world which is absurd.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXQkXXBqj_U

 

[shintoki]

Not a single fucking one of them will leave the school.

 

[Dennis]

This part is particularly fantastic:

ahahaha, yeah that is amazing. These people are just too damn frail to function.

I doubt their bloodline will survive the (New Haven) winter.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

That Atlantic article is fantastic.

It's seriously shocking that an email as civil and intelligent as that one could be the spark for such controversy. I have to imagine that there must have been a LOT of shit piling up over time, under the surface, that we're not privy to as outsiders.

 

[tiredheadcrab]

Follow up story at 'noted regressive propaganda organ' The Atlantic: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...tolerance-of-student-activism-at-yale/414810/

The entire article is well worth reading, but here, have a handful of examples:

"Another Silliman resident declared in a campus publication, “I have had to watch my friends defend their right to this institution. This email and the subsequent reaction to it have interrupted their lives. I have friends who are not going to class, who are not doing their homework, who are losing sleep, who are skipping meals, and who are having breakdowns.” One feels for these students. But if an email about Halloween costumes has them skipping class and suffering breakdowns, either they need help from mental-health professionals or they’ve been grievously ill-served by debilitating ideological notions they’ve acquired about what ought to cause them pain.

This notion that one’s existence can be invalidated by a fellow 18-year-old donning an offensive costume is perhaps the most disempowering notion aired at Yale.

This beggars belief. Yale students told to talk to each other if they find a peer’s costume offensive helplessly declare that they’re unable to do so without an authority figure specifying “any modes or means to facilitate these discussions,” as if they’re Martians unfamiliar with a concept as rudimentary as disagreeing in conversation

Who taught them that it is righteous to pillory faculty for failing to validate their feelings, as if disagreement is tantamount to disrespect?"

Yeah I just got done reading that. Also read an article from Vox which also made some good points as well.

http://www.vox.com/2015/11/10/9696600/yale-protests-mental-health

Need to reflect on this whole thing for awhile.

 

[gamechanger87]

That Atlantic article is fantastic.

It's seriously shocking that an email as civil and intelligent as that one could be the spark for such controversy. I have to imagine that there must have been a LOT of shit piling up over time, under the surface, that we're not privy to as outsiders.

Not really. These groups like to get riled up about stuff all the time and they want any dissenting views silenced. Hell, they made a big deal about this White's Only party that was discovered to be a fabrication. Did anyone ever come out and apologize for making a huge deal out of it? Nope, just on to the next topic to rage about.

 

[anaron]

That Atlantic article is fantastic.

It's seriously shocking that an email as civil and intelligent as that one could be the spark for such controversy. I have to imagine that there must have been a LOT of shit piling up over time, under the surface, that we're not privy to as outsiders.

Definitely.

demanding the husband of the woman behind said email, be fired...is just beyond ridiculous.

also was anyone else bothered how the students kept holding and comforting eachother like they were being verbally abused throughout the video?

 

[Bold One]

This part is particularly fantastic:

I'm sure Gaf can provide a safe space for them