ISIS is trying to destroy Western Civilization, and Yale crybabies are whining about Halloween costumes.
Notice that the same person could be called as a baby, a girl and a woman depending on the context. Isn’t the use in English wonderful?
To her credit, she does come out as being full of energy and passionate about something. This is good. If a person at her age behaves like NC, I would think it is at least more “unnatural” for her to behave like him - a young woman should not be like someone who is over 60 yo.
I guess any person in my age has had a past experience in meeting such a young man or woman. It is really not a big deal.
I do not think NC intentionally tried to do something particularly bad either, just like the “shrieking woman” did not try to do something particularly bad. I think I would not be too critical about either of them, because I think they are still decent persons.
Mastadon: I think the timeline is really important, too, and have been trying to figure it out as well. Classicalmama, do you know when Lukianoff arrived on campus? Was he there for a Master’s tea as well as the conference?
A2lsimon thinks we’re conspiracists. It seems to me Lukianoff was deliberately provocative on campus, which may just be part of his free speech agenda.
At one point, Hunt questioned whether Lukianoff’s actions were nice. I don’t think I’m misquoting Hunt’s post on that. I can’t go back to look it up.
@GMTplus7 Was that comparison of ISIS & Paris in this context necessary? No one is equating the two. Yet often, opponents of an argument heap disdain by making such false comparisons.
T26,
In another thread, someone posted a link to an article showing a tweet of someone from Mizzou who, and I am paraphrasing, griped that the Paris attacks were stealing the limelight away from them. Sheesh. I believe mizzou is distancing themselves from it, stating that the tweet was from someone outside their community trying to create conflict, and posted a statement in support of the victims in Paris. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/14/mizzou-protesters-black-lives-matter-complain-pari/
D’s global studies class is in the midst of a world religions unit. They read a Pew report about the demographics of religion, and while doing further research on that topic, D found a documentary from 2012 about the Belgian Muslim community which contained an interview with a radical cleric who, among other topics, spoke about the high Muslim birth rate and polygamy. Since the video painted an unfavorable picture of Sharia and its incompatibility with democracy and the cleric expressed his community’s intent to institute Shari worldwide, D knew her teacher would not share it with her class because there are Muslim students present. I wonder if today, after the Paris attacks, it would be appropriate to show that video, or would it be even more inappropriate than before? When should the potential discomfort of a few restrict the education of the majority? And when the few are known to react violently to criticism of their religion and religious figures, should teachers never discuss these topics in school for fear of starting a riot?
Second, someone beat me to commenting on the Pope costumes, only I was going to mention that I hadn’t heard a single complaint about the Pope costumes for pets. It struck me as really amazing that no one was offended enough by that to speak out (that I know of anyway), but then it was the Catholics themselves who were dressing up their dogs! In addition, when the Pope was touring South America before coming to the US, I noticed that there were Pope dolls being sold. I thought of this again, since D also had a reading for English class which contained a snide remark about three different American types of entertainment that the author considered low class–one of which was a Christian televangelism show. Do you think he would have given out an article containing anything negative about people of another religion? I think you know the answer. I think it’s admirable not to take yourself and your beliefs so very seriously that you can’t take a joke, even a rude one, but by the same token I am tiring of the fact that the media thinks it OK to mock certain Christian groups whose beliefs may seem ignorant to them, but would NEVER say anything about, say, a religion with an elephant god or one which believes that rocks have spirits.
two things come to mind -
-
the grace with which Mormons handled “The Book of Mormon,” even to the point of buying ad space in the program - “if you’d like to learn more about us …”
-
Scientology gets a lot of bashing in the media but it doesn’t seem any weirder to me than any other religious belief.
I think it’s fair to say the babies dressed as the Pope this year are part of the general Franciscan love fest that’s been sweeping the nation this fall. They were dressing up as the actual Pope like 6 year olds girls dress up as Elsa. At other times people have openly mocked other Popes and it was generally not appreciated (see Sinead O’Connor). Her protest was not a war on Christianity, however, as she considers herself to be quite devout. It was a statement on abuses within the church and the (non) response at that time.
To your other point . . . mocking certain televangelist tv shows is not mocking Christian beliefs. I’m sure there are some better ones, but many of them seem to fly in the face of a good number of Christian teachings including but not limited to stealing from the poor and elderly. In no way are Tammy Faye Baker’s eye lashes protected under the banner of religious freedom.
http://studentactivism.net/2015/02/25/on-censorship-campus-free-speech-and-silencing/
On this board, the word is censored.
http://yaledailynews.com/blog/2015/11/09/students-protest-buckley-talk/
I have read a lot about the spitting, little about Lukianoff’s offensive (to me) remark.
I answered my own question about the Master’s Tea.
From what little I know about scientology, its a buisness guised as a religion founded by a former science fiction writer. It seems to be an organization with more than its share of legal and other controversies.
“On this board, the word is censored.”
This is a privately owned board. They can censor what they like and no one’s FA rights are being violated. Heck, I can’t even write the other college site that rhymes with howler.
And we can’t use the word that rhymes with droll.
I read the Atlsntic article when it came out. Like most anything, I agree with part and disagree with part. I would expect Y students to be the same. Why can’t people handle disagreement?
PG: Someone can stand in a public square and scream that word and accept the consequences. I believe the argument is that it is free speech and protected. Hunt and HarvestMoon may need to correct my assertion.
Do you think someone should be able to stand in the center of a campus and scream that word? Should that be allowed?
I think Lukianoff is arguing this sort of speech should be allowed and that it is important it be allowed.
The line drawing becomes important. And yes, you are right, there are different opinions.
It may be free speech, ah, but am guessing that person wouldn’t feel very protected.
@saintfan By your own logic regarding the Pope, dressing up in Native American clothes is not mocking a genocide. It is honoring a legacy and culture that is part of our nation’s history. A Native American love fest.
Or using the Braves as a name is okay because some but not all Native Americans were war like and we are only talking about them and not the others.
I am not sure you can have it both ways. Actually, you can, but we’ll have to disagree I guess.
Things that seem to be wrong for one group keep getting excused with regards to whites and/ or Christians in this thread. I am a free speech advocate, so I can deal with it but I do think someone should point out logical inconsistencies in the argument that everyone’s feelings can be hurt except white people (who are very rarely 100 percent white anyway) or Christians.
[QUOTE]
Do you think someone should be able to stand in the center of a campus and scream that word? Should that be allowed?]/quote]
Legally permissible? Yes
Socially permissible? No
It’s legally permissible to pick your nose in public.
Socially permissible? No
And there may be situations in which freedom of speech might be considered as clashing with public indecency.
As far as the concept of creating a safe place for learning, I do think there’s a difference between critiquing the religious idea or cultural practice and mocking the adherents of those ideas and practices. If a student and her family watches Joel Osteen and believes in positive thinking, and some professor cracks a joke in her religion class about the guy’s greasy smile (a la Tammy Faye’s eyelashes) or his feel-good prosperity doctrine, that would not be a personal offense. The same professor labeling anyone who watches the show as ignorant and low class would be. There is a way to challenge ideas without disrespecting the people who hold them.