4 ms·

Or, we could take women and minority students at their word about the stuff they find offensive and hurtful and treat them with a little respect. Oh, wait, tha

Or, we could take women and minority students at their word about the stuff they find offensive and hurtful and treat them with a little respect. Oh, wait, that's too much work. They're just a bunch of whiners. Edit: Not sure if the downvotes are because people don't get this was sarcastic, or if people do. Either way: Try listening to the people complaining instead of just brushing them off as "whiners". I hope that clears things up.

code_duck 11y ago
Unfortunately, just my being a "white NT cishet male" is offensive to some people. I can neither fix that for them nor take it seriously.
- fredfoobar42 11y ago
  Have you ever thought why that is? I'm a "white NT cishet male", as well, and at a glance, you can't tell the decent people from the awful ones. It's about behavior, and in a space where most people who look like us act like shit, it's not unreasonable to generalize a lack of trust. It's not on them to be understanding, it's on _us_. because we're in the position of privilege in this situation.
  - code_duck 11y ago
    I could say the same about any specific group or class of people, and be a bigot. How horrible would that be considered if I said what you just said about another specific racial group?
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- coldpie 11y ago
  > just my being a "white NT cishet male" is offensive to some people No, it isn't. They are offended by something else about you.
  - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
    Yes, it is. There are people who are intrinsically offended by people of all races, and some rationalize it with various collective narratives about power structures. Whether one kvetches about the Zionist Jews or the born-with-original-sin white men, it isn't practically different.
  - code_duck 11y ago
    I'm not talking about interactions with individuals. I'm referring to people who post hate speech against members of that group online. It's not directed at me personally. As I was saying, it's bigotry against a group that includes me.
- kelukelugames 11y ago
  Have you tried not taking crazy people seriously? Stop feeling like a victim.
  - bitwize 11y ago
    By calling certain people "crazy", and suggesting that they not be taken seriously, you're stigmatizing mental illness. Please stop.
  - code_duck 11y ago
    I don't think I stated or implied that I feel like a victim. Also, I specifically said I don't take these prejudiced people seriously.
- wan23 11y ago
  What you just said is not a real position that anyone has (in large enough numbers to be worth talking about). The part where you don't take people seriously is the thing that is offensive. You might be confused because people talk about white males as being the only people who are in a position to completely ignore the feelings of everyone else if they choose to, as you seem to have chosen to do. But to be clear, it's not racism/sexism directed against you, it's a dislike of something that you specifically do.
  - code_duck 11y ago
    That might be true if I was discussin interactions with individuals rather than blanket hate and prejudice on the Internet. How have I personally offended this person, for instance? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3054067/Pictured-Diversity-officer-banned-whites-anti-racism-event-British-university-wiping-away-fake-tear-no-white-men-sign.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3054067/Pictured-Div...
Balgair 11y ago
Sarcasm is best avoided online, the subtle intonations in voice are completely lost with text. That said, there is a clarification in the article that does need to be stated. The prof is not against rape, racism, sexism, PTSD counseling, etc. Rather, they are just a new person in a long line of fuddy-duddys complaining about the youth of today. I believe the prof's gripe was against the perceived laze or lack of courage that their student's exhibit. I think this comment in particular should be expanded on by the prof: ..Most disabilities that I am asked to accommodate seem to be unspecified and are remedied by providing the students with a separate, quiet location and an extra 30 minutes to take an exam. If the prof can start to gather some stats on that and make a real case that the students are abusing these privileges, then some change may be possible. Until then, the prof is just another old man complaining about kids on their lawn.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
logfromblammo 11y ago
It's not that they are whiners. I'm a whiner. I complain about things that I find to be deplorable all the time. But I also think I have a reasonable conception of what deplorableness is. And that includes persecution of nonbelievers for suspicion of heresy. Some people have founded a non-theistic religion regarding certain elements of social conduct, and its adherents act rather poorly towards those who do not share their beliefs. They can believe what they want. But they can't force me to kneel before their altars. Also, allow me to take a moment to endorse the use of the tilde ('~') as a "sarc mark". ~I'm sure it will catch on any day now.~
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
joesmo 11y ago
Does it help women if we stop teaching law students about rape law? If you're defending the students in this piece, you're defending ending teaching law altogether as some students are offended by the word 'violation,' as in 'violation of the law.' You're defending infinite stupidity.
- fredfoobar42 11y ago
  And if you can cite a real female law student who is actually offended by the idea of learning about rape law, or even the word "violation," you might possibly have the vaguest sense of something possibly resembling a point if you happen to be looking at it from the right angle.
  - joesmo 11y ago
    I don't need to. The article already has. I'm not sure if they're female, but that's irrelevant.
  - Nadya 11y ago
    >Last December, Jeannie Suk wrote in an online article for The New Yorker about law students asking her fellow professors at Harvard not to teach rape law—or, in one case, even use the word violate (as in “that violates the law”) lest it cause students distress. From the OP Article. So let's take a look at Jeannie Suk's writing [0] >One teacher I know was recently asked by a student not to use the word “violate” in class—as in “Does this conduct violate the law?”—because the word was triggering. Some students have even suggested that rape law should not be taught because of its potential to cause distress. And cited a real law student (female or not) who was actually offended by the word "violate" and asked for it to not be used because it was triggering. As well as some students suggesting rape law shouldn't be taught at all. [0] http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/trouble-teaching-rape-law http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/trouble-teaching-rap...
    - fredfoobar42 11y ago
      Okay, so this is one rare example that's actually true. Let's break the point down a bit. For an actual rape survivor, it's possible the word "violate" might be triggering. If that's the case in that room, then perhaps another word should be used. As for not teaching rape law, while rape law is something that might be triggering to a victim, this is a rare example where not teaching it, at least if it's a requirement of the program, is a problem. There's a discussion that can occur about the appropriateness of teaching rape law in, say, an introduction to law course at the undergraduate level. Having the discussion is important. Funny how the people who say that coddled students want to shut down all discussion, only to shut down discussion about what's appropriate to teach in general courses or for a university to endorse.
jazzyk 11y ago
So, you cannot possibly offend white males? In your world, apparently only women and minorities have the right to be offended.

code_duck 11y ago

Unfortunately, just my being a "white NT cishet male" is offensive to some people. I can neither fix that for them nor take it seriously.

fredfoobar42 11y ago
Have you ever thought why that is? I'm a "white NT cishet male", as well, and at a glance, you can't tell the decent people from the awful ones. It's about behavior, and in a space where most people who look like us act like shit, it's not unreasonable to generalize a lack of trust. It's not on them to be understanding, it's on _us_. because we're in the position of privilege in this situation.
- code_duck 11y ago
  I could say the same about any specific group or class of people, and be a bigot. How horrible would that be considered if I said what you just said about another specific racial group?
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
coldpie 11y ago
> just my being a "white NT cishet male" is offensive to some people No, it isn't. They are offended by something else about you.
- vezzy-fnord 11y ago
  Yes, it is. There are people who are intrinsically offended by people of all races, and some rationalize it with various collective narratives about power structures. Whether one kvetches about the Zionist Jews or the born-with-original-sin white men, it isn't practically different.
- code_duck 11y ago
  I'm not talking about interactions with individuals. I'm referring to people who post hate speech against members of that group online. It's not directed at me personally. As I was saying, it's bigotry against a group that includes me.
kelukelugames 11y ago
Have you tried not taking crazy people seriously? Stop feeling like a victim.
- bitwize 11y ago
  By calling certain people "crazy", and suggesting that they not be taken seriously, you're stigmatizing mental illness. Please stop.
- code_duck 11y ago
  I don't think I stated or implied that I feel like a victim. Also, I specifically said I don't take these prejudiced people seriously.
wan23 11y ago
What you just said is not a real position that anyone has (in large enough numbers to be worth talking about). The part where you don't take people seriously is the thing that is offensive. You might be confused because people talk about white males as being the only people who are in a position to completely ignore the feelings of everyone else if they choose to, as you seem to have chosen to do. But to be clear, it's not racism/sexism directed against you, it's a dislike of something that you specifically do.
- code_duck 11y ago
  That might be true if I was discussin interactions with individuals rather than blanket hate and prejudice on the Internet. How have I personally offended this person, for instance? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3054067/Pictured-Diversity-officer-banned-whites-anti-racism-event-British-university-wiping-away-fake-tear-no-white-men-sign.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3054067/Pictured-Div...

Balgair 11y ago

Sarcasm is best avoided online, the subtle intonations in voice are completely lost with text. That said, there is a clarification in the article that does need to be stated. The prof is not against rape, racism, sexism, PTSD counseling, etc. Rather, they are just a new person in a long line of fuddy-duddys complaining about the youth of today. I believe the prof's gripe was against the perceived laze or lack of courage that their student's exhibit. I think this comment in particular should be expanded on by the prof: ..Most disabilities that I am asked to accommodate seem to be unspecified and are remedied by providing the students with a separate, quiet location and an extra 30 minutes to take an exam. If the prof can start to gather some stats on that and make a real case that the students are abusing these privileges, then some change may be possible. Until then, the prof is just another old man complaining about kids on their lawn.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

logfromblammo 11y ago

It's not that they are whiners. I'm a whiner. I complain about things that I find to be deplorable all the time. But I also think I have a reasonable conception of what deplorableness is. And that includes persecution of nonbelievers for suspicion of heresy. Some people have founded a non-theistic religion regarding certain elements of social conduct, and its adherents act rather poorly towards those who do not share their beliefs. They can believe what they want. But they can't force me to kneel before their altars. Also, allow me to take a moment to endorse the use of the tilde ('~') as a "sarc mark". ~I'm sure it will catch on any day now.~

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

joesmo 11y ago

Does it help women if we stop teaching law students about rape law? If you're defending the students in this piece, you're defending ending teaching law altogether as some students are offended by the word 'violation,' as in 'violation of the law.' You're defending infinite stupidity.

fredfoobar42 11y ago
And if you can cite a real female law student who is actually offended by the idea of learning about rape law, or even the word "violation," you might possibly have the vaguest sense of something possibly resembling a point if you happen to be looking at it from the right angle.
- joesmo 11y ago
  I don't need to. The article already has. I'm not sure if they're female, but that's irrelevant.
- Nadya 11y ago
  >Last December, Jeannie Suk wrote in an online article for The New Yorker about law students asking her fellow professors at Harvard not to teach rape law—or, in one case, even use the word violate (as in “that violates the law”) lest it cause students distress. From the OP Article. So let's take a look at Jeannie Suk's writing [0] >One teacher I know was recently asked by a student not to use the word “violate” in class—as in “Does this conduct violate the law?”—because the word was triggering. Some students have even suggested that rape law should not be taught because of its potential to cause distress. And cited a real law student (female or not) who was actually offended by the word "violate" and asked for it to not be used because it was triggering. As well as some students suggesting rape law shouldn't be taught at all. [0] http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/trouble-teaching-rape-law http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/trouble-teaching-rap...
  - fredfoobar42 11y ago
    Okay, so this is one rare example that's actually true. Let's break the point down a bit. For an actual rape survivor, it's possible the word "violate" might be triggering. If that's the case in that room, then perhaps another word should be used. As for not teaching rape law, while rape law is something that might be triggering to a victim, this is a rare example where not teaching it, at least if it's a requirement of the program, is a problem. There's a discussion that can occur about the appropriateness of teaching rape law in, say, an introduction to law course at the undergraduate level. Having the discussion is important. Funny how the people who say that coddled students want to shut down all discussion, only to shut down discussion about what's appropriate to teach in general courses or for a university to endorse.

jazzyk 11y ago

So, you cannot possibly offend white males? In your world, apparently only women and minorities have the right to be offended.