Kevin's Watch

I can't take it anymore. I have to have a thread to vent. No offensive Lefties, I know that not all of you are insane ... just most of you.

According to recent reports, University of California President Janet Napolitano was behind the recent decision to discourage the school’s faculty from using dozens of potentially offensive words and phrases dubbed ‘microaggressions.’ Far from shunning only openly bigoted or hateful speech, phrases as historically inoffensive as “America is the land of opportunity” are off-limits under the new code.

link

The Left is so intolerant of disagreement on the issues, they can no longer leave it up to PCism to shut opponents up. Why leave it to social pressure when they wield real power? Now we have 'microaggressions,' a term that is applied so loosely, that it covers even traditional American values like opportunity. Oh, how can we possibly brag about opportunity when so many people don't avail themselves of it? (Specifically, certain demographic groups that vote Democrat ...)

It's not enough to say that they disagree about how much opportunity is out there, now they are going to mandate that people not even voice the opinion that opportunity is out there.

This is crazy. This is Leftist Insanity. GD control freaks! (George Carlin ... if only you were alive to breathe some sanity into this.)

The list of phrases no longer acceptable on campus includes numerous other examples of what many are denouncing as political correctness run amok. Among them are:


I believe the most qualified person should get the job.

When I look at you, I don’t see color.

Everyone can succeed in this society, if they work hard enough.

Where are you from or where were you born?

There is only one race, the human race.

UC’s ostensible motivation in implementing the new policy is a desire to cut down on “statements which assert that race or gender does not place a role in life successes.”

Many social media critics, however, identified political correctness as the ultimate objective.

I've noticed that the meaning of "tolerance" has been shifting over the last few years to become more or less co-extensive with "acceptance". Agreeing to disagree is no longer enough. If you will not concede that your opponent has a position as valid and proper as your own you are deemed "intolerant".

This move by the University of California system seems in line with this.

SS, it's a growing trend of legitimizing ad hominem attacks upon the opposing world view. If you can't defeat an argument, just label it 'bigotry' or some '-ism,' and make voicing the position forbidden.

It's anti-American. Freedom of speech is being limited, debate is being silenced, and opponents are branded immoral. I can't believe the ploy is gaining any traction. If my side was doing this, I wouldn't let them get away with it.

People who allow this to happen SUCK.

Zarathustra,

All sides do it to some extent.

The claim that Christian's are being oppressed by moves to legalize same sex marriage? That's a total non-sequiter that attempts to paint supporters of same sex marriage as somehow being anti-Christian bigots.

Conversely, people who want to say holding traditional Christian moral views about same sex marriage is tantamount to being a bigot are missing the point. I'm a Christian and don't believe I should impose my religious views upon other's via law. That said even though I support same sex marriage I can understand how some with more traditional views on the subject don't.

You're correct it's an attempt to legitimize the ad hominem fallacy as a legitmate form of debate.

Oh yeah, there's craziness on both sides. I've given theists and Christians hell in many threads. If someone wants to start an "Insanity of the Right" thread, I'd probably agree with many things they say.

This thread isn't just about PCism. I intend to go after Bernie Sanders's economic views next, but I thought I'd give people time to comment on this story first.

Well, you could have hunted down the thing [which was impossible to do AFAICT, using the article and links within it, from it, to the sources and original---almost like they were hiding something...or trying to alter and control the message.]

It doesn't ban anything, it doesn't even discourage---it's about awareness, it lists some examples that some people might find offensive in some contexts. [including when/why/who might be offended]

At the top, the short pamphlet includes [[[emphasis NOT mine---they wanted it seen, because it is part of the point.]]]:

The context of the relationship and situation is critical.

It DOESN'T say---or even HINT---not to discuss difficult/challenging/controversial/potentially offensive topics.
It's a warning that it is possible to do it by ACCIDENT, through ignorance, and
an attempt to reduce that ignorance.

Y'all might still think it's stupid or insane, but at least---if you follow the link;; it's a short thing, take a minute or so to read;; ---you won't be ignorant.
www.ucop.edu/academic-personnel-program ... ssions.pdf

Vraith wrote:Well, you could have hunted down the thing [which was impossible to do AFAICT, using the article and links within it, from it, to the sources and original---almost like they were hiding something...or trying to alter and control the message.]

It doesn't ban anything, it doesn't even discourage---it's about awareness, it lists some examples that some people might find offensive in some contexts. [including when/why/who might be offended]

At the top, the short pamphlet includes [[[emphasis NOT mine---they wanted it seen, because it is part of the point.]]]:

The context of the relationship and situation is critical.

It DOESN'T say---or even HINT---not to discuss difficult/challenging/controversial/potentially offensive topics.
It's a warning that it is possible to do it by ACCIDENT, through ignorance, and
an attempt to reduce that ignorance.

Y'all might still think it's stupid or insane, but at least---if you follow the link;; it's a short thing, take a minute or so to read;; ---you won't be ignorant.
www.ucop.edu/academic-personnel-program ... ssions.pdf

I read it. I say, grow thicker skin.

Vraith wrote:It doesn't ban anything, it doesn't even discourage---it's about awareness, it lists some examples that some people might find offensive in some contexts. [including when/why/who might be offended]

People don't have the right not to be offended. That is to say, my right to say x is not overshadowed by whatever offense you might take if I say x. The people who get offended by such non-offensive and non-aggressive statements such as "America is the land of opportunity" need to grow up and get over it.

Or....I could switch tactics. The term "mircoaggression" is highly offensive to me and gives me panic attacks since it evokes images of the emotional abuse I suffered at the hands of my grandmother as a small child. Since that term is highly offensive no one should be allowed to use it or engage in the activity in my presence.

It hasn't come to this yet but the only way someone will ever be able to make me shut up or quit speaking my opinions is to hold a gun in my face and threaten my life. Yes, if that happens I will probably shut up but that person will show everyone that their only successful argument was violence. Truthfully, that is the only way the Far Left will ever be able to get its way--through the use of guns (yes, the same guns they don't want anyone else to have).

Hashi Lebwohl wrote:

Vraith wrote:It doesn't ban anything, it doesn't even discourage---it's about awareness, it lists some examples that some people might find offensive in some contexts. [including when/why/who might be offended]

People don't have the right not to be offended. That is to say, my right to say x is not overshadowed by whatever offense you might take if I say x.

Sure. But that isn't the point.
It wasn't the point of the pamphlet/discussion, either.
It isn't about taking away your right to say x.
It's about knowing what you are saying means---so if you're going to go ahead and offend someone, you do it with a purpose, with knowledge.
It's like that guy running for some office a couple years ago calling people "wetbacks." He claimed he didn't know it was offensive, that's just the way people talk in his world. Giving him shit cuz it was offensive isn't a problem...he should know what he's saying. He was either racist or ignorant---both deserve a response.
He's perfectly free to say it again, now. And we'll all know which he is if he does.

Vraith, calling someone a 'wetback' and saying 'I think the most qualified person should get the job' aren't in the same ballpark.

But I acknowledge that the Left is trying to make it that way. That's why it's insane.

It's thought control, plain and simple. There should be no discussion necessary when it comes to speaking your mind. The entire concept of "triggers" and "microagressions" is ridiculous, and an attempt (thankfully a transparent one) to end discussion and promote conformity.

I don't see what the big deal is... I commonly ignore everything e-mailed out by the university anyway. Most faculty do.

-jay

kevinswatch wrote:I don't see what the big deal is... I commonly ignore everything e-mailed out by the university anyway. Most faculty do.

-jay

The big deal is that it gives people something to harp about until the next plane crash.

All this really is is a playing around with new concepts such as "triggers" and "microagressions" and the current idea of not creating a "hostile environment" for workers/students.

So sure, people do not have the right "not to be offended" but that does not mean that people are free to create a "hostile environment", which can be caused by several different actions.

Telling people that they can't express harmless beliefs like "the most qualified person should get the job" in itself creates a hostile environment towards people with that position.

This has nothing to do with decreasing hostility. It's not a defensive technique, but an offensive one (or perhaps passive aggressive is a better term). It's a hostile stance towards the belief in a meritocracy, among other traditionally American beliefs.

Zarathustra wrote:Telling people that they can't express harmless beliefs like "the most qualified person should get the job" in itself creates a hostile environment towards people with that position.

This has nothing to do with decreasing hostility. It's not a defensive technique, but an offensive one (or perhaps passive aggressive is a better term). It's a hostile stance towards the belief in a meritocracy, among other traditionally American beliefs.

Hey hey hey... stop it. You are directing your microagression again.

You implied that just because I didn't get a job I am not qualified!! Then you follow up and tell me that my feelings don't matter and that I must be misguided and possibly have some emotional stability issues. Not only that but you are making small of my opinions on this matter.




Oh wait.... now that I think about it, all of the above is a microagression against you Z... Damnit man Im sorry. I didnt realize until now..... No dont apologize.. that will only belittle me and again you will show your micro-agressions against me.


See how silly this all is? We couldnt even have discourse (and no I'm not calling you stupid... or maybe I did inadvertently... Oh crap I did it again) because anything we disagree on could be considered some form of aggression against the other person. Or we might agree but since some other person might be hurt by what we agree on since they disagree....

Maybe I will just go sit in a corner now

To me, it's like the "Right's War on Women". Do you see that? Or is it taken waaay out of context and blown waaaay out of proportion? Cause this looks like some dorks had a conference, put together a pamphlet, and sent them out as suggestions. Yes, there are people out who believe this... but there are also Republicans that beat their wives.

That does not mean there's this grand conspiracy to turn the US into a nation of Leftist-PC-Drones. It just means you were taken in by right-wing propaganda... much like those on the left are taken in by left-wing propaganda about how Republicans want to process the poor into feed for the horses of the rich or some such garbage.

Much like how I'm taken in by the propaganda that whenever there is fun, there is always Coca-Cola.

Vraith wrote:
It's about knowing what you are saying means---so if you're going to go ahead and offend someone, you do it with a purpose, with knowledge.

I always know the meaning of what I am saying. If someone else applies a different context to it then that is their problem, not mine. I try to abide by the adage "say what you mean; mean what you say" at all times.

If I mean to say something offensive to someone, they will know that I am trying to offend them.

+JMJ+

Zarathustra wrote:It's a hostile stance towards the belief in a meritocracy, among other traditionally American beliefs.

There is a certain irony in ideological partisans of the Enlightenment warning aganst hostility to traditional beliefs.

Wosbald wrote:+JMJ+

Zarathustra wrote:It's a hostile stance towards the belief in a meritocracy, among other traditionally American beliefs.

There is a certain irony in ideological partisans of the Enlightenment warning aganst hostility to traditional beliefs.

Maybe. But I'm not talking about traditional beliefs for the sake of tradition. I'm talking about the tradition of the Enlightenment. A tradition of criticism and error correction is necessary for any progress. It's not the notion of traditions themselves which are the problem, but the particular traditions that can be the problem.

Orlion wrote:that whenever there is fun, there is always Coca-Cola.

Apparently the mythical land of Australia agrees with you.

Now with MORE DIDGERIDOO!