Shameful Events at Mizzou

[kchoya]

Nov 10, 2015 15:32:31 GMT -5 quickplay said:

Nov 10, 2015 14:57:58 GMT -5 kchoya said:

If you're not going to read the linked articles, why even comment?

I did read the article, and?

I'm just not surprised that you find this incident more disturbing than "legitimate" racism, whatever the hell that is.

Now do you see why I used the term legitimate? (Though actual is probably a more accurate adjective than legitimate)

[hoyainspirit]

Nov 11, 2015 22:47:01 GMT -5 kchoya said:

Nov 10, 2015 15:32:31 GMT -5 quickplay said:

I did read the article, and?

I'm just not surprised that you find this incident more disturbing than "legitimate" racism, whatever the hell that is.

Now do you see why I used the term legitimate? (Though actual is probably a more accurate adjective than legitimate)

kc, you can't see the forest for the trees. The issue isn't whether one particular act meets your outdated, pre- 1970's definition of racism (a $hit swastika on the wall). That's just your diversionary tactics at play. The issue is far larger than that.

[TC]

Nov 11, 2015 13:27:14 GMT -5 kchoya said:

And just for giggles, here's the Georgetown administration trying to remove a video filmed at a campus event:

Georgetown demands edits to Christina Hoff Sommers video

I'm having trouble conflating the Georgetown incident with either the Yale or the Missouri one because :

- it's not apparent to me that the protesting students were really disrespectful or infringing on free speech. Were they shouting over her or something, or just quietly holding signs in the back? I haven't watched the video, but I read the comments, and people who agreed with Hoff Summers seem to make that point. The "safe space" in Maguire and trigger warning nonsense are ridiculous and they would be better served protesting the actual content, but this really seems like the minor leagues compared to Yale or Wesleyan - where people are going into hysterics and calling for heads based on letters or op-eds that were pretty measured and the appropriate response seemed like a letter to the editor that disagreed with the original content (whether Christakis' email, or the Wesleyan newspaper op-ed).

- I'm still a little confused by what their beef with Georgetown is because Georgetown's objection is only partially quoted and all of the context is left out. I'm guessing that Georgetown's objection, if I'm reading it right, is that there were no waivers issued or tickets printed and issued with a waiver on them. Hoff Summers and the Claire Booth Luce people are crying victim here, but if I'm right, issuing a ticket and sticking a waiver on it seems like Event 101 - I'm pretty sure the Lecture Fund had to do that even 20 years ago - and that's just a stupid mistake on their part. If I'm right here (and I don't know that I am because they selective quoted), it seems pretty ironic that a site named "Legal Insurrection" is crying about this.

[kchoya]

Nov 12, 2015 7:34:55 GMT -5 hoyainspirit said:

Nov 11, 2015 22:47:01 GMT -5 kchoya said:

Now do you see why I used the term legitimate? (Though actual is probably a more accurate adjective than legitimate)

kc, you can't see the forest for the trees. The issue isn't whether one particular act meets your outdated, pre- 1970's definition of racism (a $hit swastika on the wall). That's just your diversionary tactics at play. The issue is far larger than that.

Oh, so you think the MU student body president falsely claiming the KKK was sighted on campus serves to move the dialogue forward?

Your problem is that your forest is made up of a lots a trees that aren't really trees. Your problem is that you see racism everywhere, even where it doesn't exist. Your problem is that your focus on issues and actions that are not racist and are objectively harmless is the real diversionary tactic.

[kchoya]

Nov 12, 2015 9:45:05 GMT -5 TC said:

Nov 11, 2015 13:27:14 GMT -5 kchoya said:

And just for giggles, here's the Georgetown administration trying to remove a video filmed at a campus event:

Georgetown demands edits to Christina Hoff Sommers video

I'm having trouble conflating the Georgetown incident with either the Yale or the Missouri one because :

- it's not apparent to me that the protesting students were really disrespectful or infringing on free speech. Were they shouting over her or something, or just quietly holding signs in the back? I haven't watched the video, but I read the comments, and people who agreed with Hoff Summers seem to make that point. The "safe space" in Maguire and trigger warning nonsense are ridiculous and they would be better served protesting the actual content, but this really seems like the minor leagues compared to Yale or Wesleyan - where people are going into hysterics and calling for heads based on letters or op-eds that were pretty measured and the appropriate response seemed like a letter to the editor that disagreed with the original content (whether Christakis' email, or the Wesleyan newspaper op-ed).

- I'm still a little confused by what their beef with Georgetown is because Georgetown's objection is only partially quoted and all of the context is left out. I'm guessing that Georgetown's objection, if I'm reading it right, is that there were no waivers issued or tickets printed and issued with a waiver on them. Hoff Summers and the Claire Booth Luce people are crying victim here, but if I'm right, issuing a ticket and sticking a waiver on it seems like Event 101 - I'm pretty sure the Lecture Fund had to do that even 20 years ago - and that's just a stupid mistake on their part. If I'm right here (and I don't know that I am because they selective quoted), it seems pretty ironic that a site named "Legal Insurrection" is crying about this.

I think you're using conflating incorrectly. 

I agree that the Hoff Summers incident is far less troubling than what happened in Columbia or New Haven (the outrage over the Voice cartoon is closer in kind). That's why I prefaced it with "Just for giggles."

BTW, I don't think the Claire Booth Luce people were crying victim. I think it was the simple matter of they were more than happy to point out the hypocrisy and idiocy of the arguments being made against them.

[TC]

Nov 12, 2015 11:56:50 GMT -5 kchoya said:

BTW, I don't think the Claire Booth Luce people were crying victim. I think it was the simple matter of they were more than happy to point out the hypocrisy and idiocy of the arguments being made against them.

Oh come on, they totally are. They can point out the hypocrisy all of the protestors all they want, but if Georgetown's complaint is about waivers (I'm guessing it is - they seem to have glossed over that / intentionally obscured it in order to cry victim), that's a legitimate complaint and an oversight the organizers should just own up to.

But it stretches credulity that Georgetown and its students would not understand that the lecture was a public event. The video camera was in plain view, and audience members themselves appear to be taking video and photos. It could not shock any student that he or she was on camera.

Georgetown doesn’t seem to understand is that once a video is uploaded to YouTube, it can’t be edited retroactively. We would have no choice but to take down the video and upload an inaccurate and incomplete edited version of the event.

While many Universities are accustomed to bullying students until they bend to a left wing point of view, a conservative women’s organization named after the courageous Clare Boothe Luce is not impressed or moved by such bullying.

[hoyainspirit]

Nov 12, 2015 11:51:21 GMT -5 kchoya said:

Nov 12, 2015 7:34:55 GMT -5 hoyainspirit said:

kc, you can't see the forest for the trees. The issue isn't whether one particular act meets your outdated, pre- 1970's definition of racism (a $hit swastika on the wall). That's just your diversionary tactics at play. The issue is far larger than that.

Oh, so you think the MU student body president falsely claiming the KKK was sighted on campus serves to move the dialogue forward?

Your problem is that your forest is made up of a lots a trees that aren't really trees. Your problem is that you see racism everywhere, even where it doesn't exist. Your problem is that your focus on issues and actions that are not racist and are objectively harmless is the real diversionary tactic.

Me, the football team and coaches, the thousands of Missouri students, dozens of faculty, and, I'm sure, countless other stakeholders in this issue. We all see things that aren't racist in your eyes. I guess that's why the flagship institution of your home state today searches for a new President and Chancellor. I don't think you should apply. You sound like the marching band member who looks down and sees everyone on his line taking a step with the left foot while he steps with the right and thinks, "Damn, they all out of step!"

[kchoya]

Nov 12, 2015 14:41:54 GMT -5 hoyainspirit said:

Nov 12, 2015 11:51:21 GMT -5 kchoya said:

Oh, so you think the MU student body president falsely claiming the KKK was sighted on campus serves to move the dialogue forward?

Your problem is that your forest is made up of a lots a trees that aren't really trees. Your problem is that you see racism everywhere, even where it doesn't exist. Your problem is that your focus on issues and actions that are not racist and are objectively harmless is the real diversionary tactic.

Me, the football team and coaches, the thousands of Missouri students, dozens of faculty, and, I'm sure, countless other stakeholders in this issue. We all see things that aren't racist in your eyes. I guess that's why the flagship institution of your home state today searches for a new President and Chancellor. I don't think you should apply. You sound like the marching band member who looks down and sees everyone on his line taking a step with the left foot while he steps with the right and thinks, "Damn, they all out of step!"

No, I admit I was usually the one out of step in marching band

[kchoya]

Black Princeton Students Make Demands

The organizers demanded cultural competency training for faculty and staff, an ethnicity and diversity distribution requirement and a space on campus explicitly dedicated to black students

I haven't read the full list of demands. Does it include a demand for separate drinking fountains for whites and blacks?

[hoyainspirit]

Obviously, Yale is a warmer, more welcoming environment after this.

Yale lecturer whose email ignited a debate about racism has decided not to teach there in the future

Again, SMH!

[kchoya]

Dec 6, 2015 11:19:03 GMT -5 hoyainspirit said:

Obviously, Yale is a warmer, more welcoming environment after this.

Yale lecturer whose email ignited a debate about racism has decided not to teach there in the future

Again, SMH!

Perhaps those African American students should go to a less-advanced school, a slower-track school, where they may do better.

[SirSaxa]

Dec 11, 2015 16:06:51 GMT -5 kchoya said:

Perhaps those African American students should go to a less-advanced school, a slower-track school, where they may do better.

I don't know if you are trying to be cute, funny, sarcastic or something much worse.
But that is a reprehensible comment, and I don't care whom you are quoting.

[kchoya]

Dec 11, 2015 16:27:22 GMT -5 SirSaxa said:

Dec 11, 2015 16:06:51 GMT -5 kchoya said:

Perhaps those African American students should go to a less-advanced school, a slower-track school, where they may do better.

I don't know if you are trying to be cute, funny, sarcastic or something much worse.
But that is a reprehensible comment, and I don't care whom you are quoting.

Try paying attention to the news for once.

[SirSaxa]

Dec 11, 2015 16:44:34 GMT -5 kchoya said:

Dec 11, 2015 16:27:22 GMT -5 SirSaxa said:

I don't know if you are trying to be cute, funny, sarcastic or something much worse.
But that is a reprehensible comment, and I don't care whom you are quoting.

Try paying attention to the news for once.

Apparently, I need to add Clueless to reprehensible.

[kchoya]

Dec 11, 2015 16:54:45 GMT -5 SirSaxa said:

Dec 11, 2015 16:44:34 GMT -5 kchoya said:

Try paying attention to the news for once.

Apparently, I need to add Clueless to reprehensible.

Are you just trying to list as many adjectives as you can? If so, you only have five. I bet you could come up with twice that many if you try really hard.

[SirSaxa]

Dec 11, 2015 17:02:54 GMT -5 kchoya said:

Dec 11, 2015 16:54:45 GMT -5 SirSaxa said:

Apparently, I need to add Clueless to reprehensible.

Are you just trying to list as many adjectives as you can? If so, you only have five. I bet you could come up with twice that many if you try really hard.

Your repeated failed attempts at smart-alecky responses do nothing to distract from your original offensive post.

[hoyainspirit]

kc, echoing SirSaxa's sentiment, sometimes your posts cross the line and deserve to be challenged. The way you express yourself frequently baffles me.

Scalia is ignorant.