Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
Name
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the format Name#Password
Comment
[i]Italic Text[/i]
[b]Bold Text[/b]
[spoiler]Spoiler Text[/spoiler]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace Text[/pre]
[super]Superset Text[/super]
[sub]Subset Text[/sub]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists
File

Sandwich

Leftism and the bounds of political correctness

Reply
Hide
- Mon, 29 May 2017 19:41:21 EST esq3c4wi No.208164
File: 1496101281651.jpg -(94718B / 92.50KB, 420x240) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Leftism and the bounds of political correctness
Source:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/may/29/evergreen-state-college-president-expresses-gratit/

Is there anyone here is who is on the side of the protesters here? I cannot for the life of me conjure a justification for this nonsense
>>
Martin Grandbury - Mon, 29 May 2017 20:26:02 EST Ya59RsKY No.208165 Reply
1496103962467.jpg -(98926B / 96.61KB, 334x250) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Yea man, the seizing of state property for the purpose of political expression has never been justified...

Oh wait...
>>
Beatrice Sapperway - Mon, 29 May 2017 22:53:18 EST UMAq39P6 No.208168 Reply
“On a college campus, one’s right to speak — or to be — must never be based on skin color.”
>>
Nell Docklesot - Mon, 29 May 2017 23:52:34 EST esq3c4wi No.208169 Reply
>>208165
So you agree with the protestors arguments? Should the teacher be fired because he issued a statement saying that demanding white people who go to the college to stay home that day is wrong?
>>
Ebenezer Crubblegold - Tue, 30 May 2017 02:11:26 EST 6sKBfHud No.208170 Reply
>>208165
The seizing of state property to feel represented by your government, or to out a professor who holds a contentious belief?
>>
Martin Grandbury - Tue, 30 May 2017 16:35:08 EST Ya59RsKY No.208171 Reply
>>208169
Your OP said:
>> I cannot for the life of me conjure a justification for this nonsense
I merely point out that there always could be a justification for any kind of nonsense, theoretically. The US was created out of that kind of 'nonsense.'
Should people be forced to stay home because of political action at their campus? Well no, they *shouldn't* but it doesn't mean that might not become the reality of their situation. The protesters at Kent State 'shouldn't' have been shot, but that was the reality of their situation.
And any teacher in today's political climate who would make a statement about something as charged as that, just really to prove a point, should expect the consequences that come from it. Any student who would violate that after it is clearly in effect is bringing their fate upon themselves by ignoring the reality of their situation.

Remember when those right-wing yahoos took over that wildlife refuge in Oregon? While they were there, because they were illegally occupying public property, theoretically any person 'should' have had the right to walk in there and do whatever they please. But if someone did actually do that, what would inevitably happen to them would be their own fault, for deliberately ignoring reality in favor of some la-la land of 'ought to be.'

If you're an administrator, of course you can't deny people access to college, but you can articulate why based on the legal reasons that prevent it from happening, while still expressing sympathy for the motives of the protestors, transforming the dialogue into something productive. Butting heads of philosophical irresolvables only makes the situation worse for everyone.
>>
William Womblepidge - Thu, 01 Jun 2017 22:41:20 EST esq3c4wi No.208173 Reply
>>208171
>expressing sympathy for the motives of the protestors
Which is unadulterated racism, pure and simple. So no I don't think you can with a straight face
>>
Charles Creshford - Fri, 02 Jun 2017 00:20:56 EST 1kfT+DW9 No.208174 Reply
Everyone is just practicing their free speech.
>>
Charlotte Sagglechotch - Fri, 02 Jun 2017 10:44:56 EST tqlhDf06 No.208175 Reply
>>208171
Perhaps it's the result of bias, but I fail to see how the protesters aren't posing a self-defeating argument. You can't promote equality by being racist and demonizing "whiteness".

How do they not see the parallels between their own intolerance and the racism that was forced on them over the centuries?

>>208174
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe racism is explicitly excluded from freedom of speech in the US.
>>
Phineas Nickleson - Fri, 02 Jun 2017 15:20:22 EST Ya59RsKY No.208177 Reply
>>208173
>>208175
You're defining their protest as racism in order to dismiss any further discussion of the argument from their perspective. You're labeling your opponent's opinion with a 'no-no' word in order to disregard the validity of their claim. That kinda low energy crap might fly somewhere else, but not on a philosophy board.

If you ask a BLM protester if they are racist, they will say no, and give numerous reasons why. I don't believe the protesters in this case are making a racist statement, although I don't know how racist each of them may be individually. So now you say they are racist, they say they aren't, it's your word against their's. You need some kind of proof or more complex argument than that, buds.

Besides, all kinds of racist people make arguments all the time. Do we dismiss the idea simply because a racist made it? No, we must evaluate all ideas on their own terms. It just happens to be that most racists' heads are full of other nonsensical shit.
>>
William Handlesan - Fri, 02 Jun 2017 15:56:31 EST P+Vr0QkV No.208178 Reply
>>208177
Since your vast intellect is having a hard time understanding this argument.
>>The First Peoples Multicultural Advising Services, who organized the event, said that it was necessary for white people to remove themselves this year unlike other years because some groups felt like “they are unwelcome on campus, following the 2016 election,” the college's student newspaper reported.
Source: http://m.torontosun.com/2017/06/01/activists-demand-professor-resign-for-opposing-campus-no-whites-day-at-evergreen-state-college

And the definition of racism, because you don't understand what that word means apparently,
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism
3rd definition, : racial prejudice or discrimination

Demanding people don't go to school because they are white is racist. Then demanding that a professor who openly writes a statement saying that's racist should be suspended without pay, is affirming the earlier racist stance.

>>The following day students took over Evergreen’s library for five hours in protest with a list of demands including that Weinstein be suspended without pay.
QED
>>
Phineas Nickleson - Fri, 02 Jun 2017 19:01:03 EST Ya59RsKY No.208179 Reply
>>208178
You're misrepresenting the situation entirely, to twist it to suit your narrative. This event has existed at this school for decades. It has always been a day out of classes for the purpose of workshops focused on improving race relations. It's entirely reasonable to say that, for one of the two days of the event (there's a Day of Absence and a Day of Presence) a group of people who aren't relevant to a particular aspect of the discussion, and may actively subvert it, ought not to participate. They're not asking white people to miss out on their regularly scheduled classes.

If a business takes a day off to run a seminar on women's issues in the workplace, is it unreasonable that only women should be invited to attend? How is that different from what is being asked of the students here?

As for the professor in question, I've seen his demeanor in interacting with these people. There's a way to get people to respond positively to you, but his whole premise in protesting the event was to ensnare people in a debate, and then entrap them using principles of sophistry that are totally irrelevant to the substance of what the students are expecting of them. It is valid for them to claim, as they do, that he is 'attempting to control the conversation.' Naturally there is an imbalance in maturity between them, but he uses that to manipulate them, rather than help them learn, while claiming the opposite, which is additionally abusive because of his responsibility as a teacher. It's a fate he brought entirely upon himself.

Check out the first definition that you linked:
>>that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
This is the element missing from these over-simplifying retorts to anti-racist activists as 'you're just being racist by talking about race!' which is barely a more developed an argument than 'I know you are but what am I?' The key thing that makes race significant in the first place is imbalance of power between the races. If one race is in the position of power in a relative area, the disempowered race isn't being racist by pointing out that situation; they are calling attention to the equality denied them by the other race's over-exertion of power.

You could substitute in cultures, religions or nations for race and the same thing would be true about this situation. Trying to have a venue to discuss the unique properties of your own group isn't itself X-ist, or makes you an X supremacist, and claiming that it is is a classic tactic for a majority group to undermine attempts by a minority group to achieve equality.

To recap: claiming that an oppressed race is racist by pointing out their relative oppression to a privileged race is not valid, because the notion of racism depends on the concept of imbalance in power between the races, and is about describing the relationship between the privileged race and other races (which may or may not necessarily be minorities; consider South Africa.) So when the day comes that white people are more oppressed and underprivileged than some other race, then it will be legitimate to call racist someone who would want to exclude them from an event. All evidence suggests this development has not come to pass, so I would argue your premises from another angle other than hanging on calling someone a bad word (you haven't even tried to establish why it's bad to be racist, even though most would take it for granted.)
>>
William Handlesan - Fri, 02 Jun 2017 19:06:42 EST P+Vr0QkV No.208180 Reply
>>208179
I'm not misrepresenting anything. You said, how dare you call them racist, prove it!!! So I did, their request is textbook racism. There is a difference between race A choosing to not show up to school to highlight their importance on campus with demanding race B not show up because they make race A feel "unsafe" because trump was elected.
>>
Phineas Nickleson - Fri, 02 Jun 2017 19:12:40 EST Ya59RsKY No.208181 Reply
>>208180
And I showed you how your cherry picked third definition is not the definition in question, and the first one is the one that is applicable in this circumstance. Actually, they're not demanding they not show up only, they're requesting they attend a different set of seminars at a different location off campus. This is exactly the same as was done in the past at this school, just with a different venue for the white people part of the program. And with all the ruckus this one guy has made, along with the group of dudes he obviously has ready to back him up on the issue (have you seen the video? You can't pretend he and his squad are not without blame) it's probably pretty reasonable to want to ensure that no disruption takes place.

I'm hosting a women's conference at my college, with a men's conference at the hotel next door. A group of men demand to be allowed to attend the private women's sessions. I should let them, because if not, sexism?
>>
William Handlesan - Fri, 02 Jun 2017 19:21:25 EST P+Vr0QkV No.208182 Reply
>>208180
And just to point this out since you seem to neglect this fact of life, "warping" people's political arguments and motivations is
  1. What the protestors/people who support them are doing
And
2. What the professor/people who do not support the protestors are doing

That's politics, it's not some creative neo-con ploy to ensnare you into a trap by getting you to admit that the request is racist, it's because the request is inherently wrong; agreeing they are being racist is step 1 in arguing that point.

If you want to say it's impossible for racial minority A to be allowed to be racist then don't expect to be convincing many people of your argument, it's a double standard. If the point is to say racial minority A simply cannot be racist because they are a minority, that is
  1. A very stupid argument which is disproven by anyone who lives in LA
  2. Mental gymnastics
>>
Phineas Nickleson - Fri, 02 Jun 2017 19:29:51 EST Ya59RsKY No.208183 Reply
>>208182
I don't think you're arguing in good faith, because you're not even responding to what I'm saying.

>> since you seem to neglect this fact of life, "warping" people's political arguments and motivations is blah blah blah
Yes, the purpose of conversation, argumentation, and dialectic is to influence other people's opinions. This is a revelation to you why?

>>it's because the request is inherently wrong; agreeing they are being racist is step 1 in arguing that point.
Why is it inherently wrong that only certain groups of people should be allowed in sensitive situations? Do you believe it is wrong that we have gender specific bathrooms? By saying there should be a room for women to go pee in, am I saying that women are inherently superior to men and men should be ostracized from all society?

Your definition of racist is the racist's version; an absurd canard that's based on a mental shell game where you switch out the complaint of injustice with actual injustice. Who is honestly convinced by this kind of reasoning?

A racial minority can be an asshole, they can be a dick, they can be tribal, cruel, mean, or violent, but because the definition FROM THE DICTIONARY YOU QUOTED of racism is that one race is superior to another. If you are a member of an underprivileged race, the way you interact with white people might be tinged with bias, you might have a great deal of prejudice against white people, but because the underlying power dynamic still has you in the one down power position, it's not racism if you call them out on the things that they do that are relevant to that power dynamic. Which is what is at issue in the case of the college.

>>disproven by anyone who lives in LA
I live in LA, motherfucker.
>>
Ian Wicklestack - Sat, 03 Jun 2017 05:51:21 EST +XN4QoUK No.208185 Reply
black people cant be racist.

the only way to address perceived injustice is with blatant injustice.
>>
Reuben Chillerdock - Sat, 03 Jun 2017 14:07:02 EST Ya59RsKY No.208186 Reply
>>208185
You guys aren't posting /pss/ style discussion posts. These are 4chong /pol/ style 'zingers.' If you aren't going to argue in good faith, fuck off, this isn't your sounding board, it's a place for discussion. Immigrants, gb2.
>>
James Claffingdock - Sat, 03 Jun 2017 17:51:25 EST a21wikmB No.208187 Reply
1496526685950.jpg -(48244B / 47.11KB, 463x960) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>208185
The idea that "black people can't be racist" comes from academia. In academia racism refers to the effects of cultural and legal power on different races, not how an individual feels about others. Black people historically have not had enough say in the American system and culture to guide it to a form of black supremacy.

When you toss out "black people can't be racist" as some sort of trump card in a petty online argument for how bad whites have it or how radical social justice views can be, you're really just telling everyone you've never engaged with or have always failed to understand the subject on an academic level.

It's not a gotcha, it's showing your shitty hand.
>>
Ian Wicklestack - Sat, 03 Jun 2017 19:44:50 EST +XN4QoUK No.208188 Reply
get a load of all this apologism. well keep on defending the indefensible. it wont change the absurdity of this shit.
>>
Jenny Beffingdale - Sat, 03 Jun 2017 21:37:21 EST Ya59RsKY No.208189 Reply
>>208188
Get a load of these stormfront raiders. They don't even take the time to hide that their posts don't match any of the others on this board.
You are just making you and your side look more and more stupid. Either respond to reasoned arguments with a reasoned argument or STOP POSTING.
>>
Jenny Beffingdale - Sat, 03 Jun 2017 22:27:56 EST Ya59RsKY No.208191 Reply
>>208190
So, do you have anything useful to say at all? Or are you going to keep spamming a nearly dead board to death with nonsense posts that contribute nothing? Spunky is just one 'report' away after all.
>>
Angus Bupperbark - Sat, 03 Jun 2017 22:33:31 EST +XN4QoUK No.208192 Reply
>>208191

normally. i just dont bother to argue with people who redefine words and make false equivalencies and invalid excuses for uncivilized and unreasonable actions. you expect intellectual honesty but demonstrate none. feel free to report me you smarmy strawmanning little sperg.
>>
Jenny Beffingdale - Sat, 03 Jun 2017 22:41:08 EST Ya59RsKY No.208193 Reply
>>208192
I redefined nothing, I just actually read the definition you yourself posted. If my excuses are invalid, if my equivalencies are false, it is your responsibility to demonstrate why with a reasoned argument. Just claiming they are and running away makes you look like a mental infant, and that's the only judgement anyone is going to take away about you from this thread unless you have the balls to defend your own statements. Stand up for something, christ, if you're going to make such incendiary claims, have enough spine to back them up. At least then your claim would be worthy of respect even if it is unsound and baseless. Or is it not that you lack the spine, but the brainpower?
>>
Angus Bupperbark - Sat, 03 Jun 2017 22:52:58 EST +XN4QoUK No.208194 Reply
1496544778069.jpg -(109967B / 107.39KB, 640x920) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>208193

have the last word. you will never justify this situation no matter how eloquent your mental gymnastics. :)
>>
Jenny Beffingdale - Sat, 03 Jun 2017 23:00:07 EST Ya59RsKY No.208195 Reply
>>208194
>>Your pic
>>classic canard: black people are X. neo-nazis are Y, therefore, Z.
What we have here is called the fallacy of four-terms. Something you should know about since you're clearly a regular poster of this philosophy board and belong here, right?

>>you will never justify this situation no matter how eloquent your mental gymnastics.
Actually, I did justify the situation, and since you didn't offer a rebuttal, and refused to engage in debate, that's how the issue will stand until someone makes a new point. That's what 'the last word' means. Enjoy losing, you've really earned it :)
>>
Angus Bupperbark - Sat, 03 Jun 2017 23:07:44 EST +XN4QoUK No.208196 Reply
>>208195

there is no debate. they are engaging in racial segregation and hateful discrimination - and rightfully getting heat for it. full stop, end of, thats all she wrote.

>my opinions are facts until you enthusiasmally spoonfeed me exactly why im wrong

nope. you cannot justify these actions in any reasonable way. deal with it, or keep delusionally masturbating your pretense of being on an intellectual and moral high ground. doesnt change reality. :)
>>
Jenny Beffingdale - Sat, 03 Jun 2017 23:11:03 EST Ya59RsKY No.208197 Reply
>>208196
I'm not asking you to spoonfeed me. I'm asking you to respond to the posts responding to your own posts, the foundation of conversation. Respond to this, kindly, if you wish to engage in debate:

You claim:
>>they are engaging in racial segregation and hateful discrimination
in response to which I will ask the same question I asked last time:
Is it segregation and hateful discrimination for there to be gender specific bathrooms?
>>
Angus Bupperbark - Sat, 03 Jun 2017 23:31:15 EST +XN4QoUK No.208198 Reply
>>208197

>doubles down on false equivalency
>pls argue with my utterly irrelevant analogy

yawn.
>>
Jenny Beffingdale - Sat, 03 Jun 2017 23:35:43 EST Ya59RsKY No.208199 Reply
>>208198
It's like you don't have the energy to say more than three words at a time. It's pathetic. Are you lobotomized? I'm gonna try it your way until you either go away or learn your lesson.

>>doubles down on false equivalency
Why?
>>pls argue with my utterly irrelevant analogy
Why?

>>shits up the board by enthusiastically screaming 'mah logic is so gr8 I don need to debate anyone hateful discrimination cause I said so!'

stormfag shill.
>>
Angus Bupperbark - Sat, 03 Jun 2017 23:43:16 EST +XN4QoUK No.208200 Reply
1496547796069.jpg -(9888B / 9.66KB, 320x235) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>208199

>why he dont want to play my pathetic game of pedantry and semantics
>i must teach lesson or make go away
>call him stormfag shill for good measure
>>
Jenny Beffingdale - Sat, 03 Jun 2017 23:46:34 EST Ya59RsKY No.208201 Reply
1496547994317.jpg -(55254B / 53.96KB, 496x381) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>208200
>>why won't people take my bait and just start screaming about gassing the bikes racecar now
>>way too much reading
>>this site isn't anything like 4chong
>>here meme me me pictures lol. I'm so cool
>>
Sophie Nacklebury - Sun, 04 Jun 2017 09:58:11 EST TXzq2wrO No.208203 Reply
>>208164
>leftism

It's time for you to leave. This is the /pol/ board. Not the retarded circlejerk meme board.
>>
Sidney Honeybanks - Sun, 04 Jun 2017 21:11:02 EST Ya59RsKY No.208206 Reply
>>208205
There's nothing wrong with having a paradigm, there's a problem if you can't see outside of it. People who equate 'leftism' with identity politics liberals don't really know what the 'left' is. Also, lumping everyone who is 'left' of the arbitrary center in together as if they were a cohesive entity demonstrates what such oversimplifying paradigms will get you; confusion and error.
>>
Nicholas Pettingdock - Mon, 05 Jun 2017 06:16:53 EST TXzq2wrO No.208207 Reply
>>208205
"Leftism" doesn't exist.

If you actually lived in a civilized country with multiple political parties, you'd realise that.
>>
Jenny Shakeville - Mon, 05 Jun 2017 06:40:44 EST +XN4QoUK No.208208 Reply
>>208207

>if you shared my delusion you would share my delusion

nay.
>>
Sidney Honeybanks - Mon, 05 Jun 2017 16:17:16 EST Ya59RsKY No.208209 Reply
>>208208
>>My name is +XN4QoUK
>>I post one to two word replies to yellowtext misrepresentations of other posters
>>this way I keep the entire thread so confused that no actual discussion of the OP is possible
>>I do this because my opinions on the OP are so paper-thin they cannot withstand ANY discussion or scrutiny
>>My objective on this board? Wasting my own and everyone else's time.
>>
Nell Hunkinwater - Tue, 06 Jun 2017 00:44:12 EST +XN4QoUK No.208211 Reply
>>208210

at least i dont make excuses for forced racial segregation or tap dance around the definition of racism.
>>
Polly Gaffingfoot - Tue, 06 Jun 2017 01:35:53 EST Ya59RsKY No.208212 Reply
>>208211
You're not OP. OP asked for discussion on the subject in his OP. Anyone who offers that discussion, you screech at as 'making excuses.' This isn't your thread. If you want to make a thread in which anyone who doesn't agree with you 100% is immediately labelled a 'tap dancer' go ahead.
>>
Nell Hunkinwater - Tue, 06 Jun 2017 01:41:00 EST +XN4QoUK No.208213 Reply
>>208212

its open to the public. it is my thread. and yours, obviously. hell you seem to haunt this sorry little board.
>>
Polly Gaffingfoot - Tue, 06 Jun 2017 03:11:36 EST Ya59RsKY No.208214 Reply
>>208213
>>why stay on topic? screeching 'tap dancing' to everyone who posts surely is more interesting than the discussion the OP asked for
Nope, sorry, that's not how it works on chans in general or around here in particular. Off topic discussion is frowned upon, or else why have boards and threads in the first place? And yeah, I do check /pss/ regularly, because it's usually got interesting discussion on it, even if it is a very slow board. Which is why it's so easy to spot an immigrant trying to shit up the place. Either learn to contribute in a positive way, or you're not wanted. This chan is open to the public, but moderators can and do, even on this slow board, remove undesireable elements at their discretion. So, follow the rules, stay on topic, and smoke moar, or that's you, buddy.
>>
Nell Hunkinwater - Tue, 06 Jun 2017 03:16:58 EST +XN4QoUK No.208215 Reply
>>208214

>even more passive aggressive smuggery

keep this up and i too will be checking regularly. pure schadenfreude.
>>
Nell Hunkinwater - Tue, 06 Jun 2017 03:18:26 EST +XN4QoUK No.208216 Reply
>stay on topic
>what about bathrooms

fucking lawl
>>
Polly Gaffingfoot - Tue, 06 Jun 2017 03:32:31 EST Ya59RsKY No.208217 Reply
>>208216
If you had bothered to respond to my question about bathrooms, I would've explained the connection (which should already be painfully obvious without needing to even state it.) That's called the Socratic method, argumentation in a circle.

>>keep this up and i too will be checking regularly. pure schadenfreude.
Until you start posting like a normal contributing /pss/ poster, with at least *some* degree of thought and pretense at dialectic before going off on shit posting tangents (which is how most posters here operate) you can guarantee I will be up your ass and harassing you every single time you post. You're disrupting the discussion I was hoping to have in this thread, even though I'm not even OP. Obviously we're not going to get that now, but if you learn your lesson, maybe eventually this thread can become not shit again (actually it was always shit, but it took quite a dive with your posts, which is saying something) and hopefully you won't do it to any other threads.
>>
Nell Hunkinwater - Tue, 06 Jun 2017 04:32:13 EST +XN4QoUK No.208218 Reply
>>208217

spiteful little prick arent you. sad. have this "discussion" you wish to have with yourself, thats really what you wanted to do. talk about going full circle.
Report Post
Reason
Note
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.