5 ms·

Calling some of this infantilization is kind of sad. Walking around in slippers and napping wherever is a consequence of freedom from social conventions, or at

by netcan 11y ago

Calling some of this infantilization is kind of sad. Walking around in slippers and napping wherever is a consequence of freedom from social conventions, or at least an environment where social conventions are anomalous and rapidly changing. So is promiscuity, once called free love. These are things that universities have always been havens for. Others things (puppy rooms) are experimental, also an artifact of a nonconformist and liberal environment. Students and academics have more license to be quirky and eccentric than lawyers and soccer moms. That's a good thing. I also cringe when I here about PC student audiences that can't tolerate stand up comedy. It all feels like a part of the recreational righteous rage, liking to be right and pointing at the kid that said the C-word. OTOH, it's also a side effect of effective social movements that take place at universities. If I look back at social movements that universities played major roles in, I don't think they've been bad. Attitudes towards queers and trannies have changed so much in my lifetime. Amazingly. There is tremendous support and solidarity from the public. It's a breathtaking rise in collective conscience. If I'm going to be yelled at by 19 year olds for saying "tranny" but we get to a point where transexuals can work and live normally, homosexuals can have families…. I'll take it. Part of the way that is achieved intolerance towards "assholes," homophobes, xenophobes, sexists. Students, being young and insufferable spray that all around. Long term though, it sticks mostly where it should. But yea, I agree. Young people are annoying.

madaxe_again 11y ago
If we are to be truly tolerant, we must tolerate intolerance.
- danharaj 11y ago
  > The so-called paradox of freedom is the argument that freedom in the sense of absence of any constraining control must lead to very great restraint, since it makes the bully free to enslave the meek. The idea is, in a slightly different form, and with very different tendency, clearly expressed in Plato. > Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal. - Karl Popper
- rimantas 11y ago
  Nope, intolerance is the one thing that cannot be tolertated. Karl Popper: "Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal."
  - Torgo 11y ago
    The Amish are "intolerant" yet we tolerate their existence. Anybody that claims to value diversity should understand that for there to be differences that there has to be some sort of boundary between things, which crudely can be called "intolerance." The Amish are Amish because they are not us, they have separated themselves from us.
    - norea-armozel 11y ago
      The Amish don't go around reenacting the various Anabaptist slaughters of Catholics from the 16/17th centuries either. So, we tolerate their views because they're pacifists, thus are not a threat to society at large.
  - kps 11y ago
    Problem is that each faction thinks that the others' intolerance is intolerable, while their own intolerance is necessary intolerance of intolerance.
danharaj 11y ago
> Attitudes towards queers and trannies have changed so much in my lifetime. T* is a slur that is too often the last thing a woman hears before she is brutally murdered.
- dandanisaur 11y ago
  To add to this, i've quoted a detailed definition. "the term "tranny" is used as a dehumanizing slur to describe transgender individuals and is oftentimes the last word someone hears before they are brutally attacked. Similar to the anti-gay F-word, the term "tranny" is commonly used to humiliate and degrade transgender individuals." Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lance-bass/why-we-shouldnt-use-the-word-tranny_b_1168078.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lance-bass/why-we-shouldnt-use...
- netcan 11y ago
  So is 'Jew'. When people hate you, your name is a hateful slur even if its what you call yourself. You can't win this game. You also can't win the game of arguing that a word isn't hateful so I guess I shouldn't be commenting back.
  - TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
    > So is 'Jew'. When people hate you, your name is a hateful slur even if its what you call yourself. This is utterly ignorant of context. There are names used exclusively in hatred against a group, and there are names a group is happy to be called. By your logic, perhaps we should be going around referring to women as whores, black people as niggers, trans people as trannies, gay people as faggots, because "you can't win this game". Yet civilised society does not. And with good reason.
    - netcan 11y ago
      Personally, the only person I've known to use tranny conversationally is transexual. I know quite a few girls that call their friends hoors affectionately and ironically. Words mean what people saying and hearing them think they mean. In any case, I'm not arguing for anything in particular. I don't think there is a logic to this. My point is not about what words we can use. My point is that anger and insurrection against systematic hate, cultures of intolerance, injustice are directed against the instruments of intolerance. But, rage and insurrection are not always nuanced tools especially in the hands of young people. They get mad at the words themselves, not just the hate. Sometimes it's fueled by the wrong thing, like enjoying moral platitudes. Sometimes by the right thing. Either way, I think the net results are good.. essential even, but some of the side effects can be insufferable.
thecyborganizer 11y ago
> Attitudes towards queers and trannies have changed so much in my lifetime. "Tranny" is a vicious slur against trans people, on par with "faggot" for a gay person or "nigger" for a black person. Please edit your post.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- Roboprog 11y ago
  Seriously? Maybe you are trolling, to reinforce the point of the article. Otherwise, in context, I think using those words helped make the point of the attitude shift over time.
- netcan 11y ago
  I was making a point, please consider the context and intent.
- hueving 11y ago
  Your post is triggering me. Please add trigger warnings before you use those words.
- tomp 11y ago
  Seriously? Now even words can be vicious? Almost as stupid as calling them "micro-aggressions" when nobody is hurt.
joesmo 11y ago
None of the campus movements that brought about any change was created by students afraid of words, though. Quite the opposite. These students aren't standing up for anything except their own inability to understand comedy, irony, and other non-straightforward ways of expression that they should have learned before they even got in high school. In other words, the only thing these students are standing up for now is their own stupidity. And the only thing that's changed from the past is the adults who know better are now letting it happen instead of telling the students to shut up with their stupidity. Thus, no comedians on campus. Because humor is one of those ways of expressing oneself described above.
mc32 11y ago
I dont think its sad to call some of the described behaviors and accommodations infantilization. Higher ed is there to educate, prepare and provide networking and access to the job market. Very few people go with the end goal of learning for learning's sake. People attend higher ed as a vehicle to a better economic future. As such, coddling and comforting and extending parental protection institutionally does a disservice to people growing up and getting ready for the cold world out there which awaits all. The world is by nature wild and unsanitized. I understand the need to want and bring about a better more civilized, if less natural world, but I don't think suppressing reality is the way to subjugate reality to our form.

by netcan 11y ago

madaxe_again 11y ago

If we are to be truly tolerant, we must tolerate intolerance.

danharaj 11y ago
> The so-called paradox of freedom is the argument that freedom in the sense of absence of any constraining control must lead to very great restraint, since it makes the bully free to enslave the meek. The idea is, in a slightly different form, and with very different tendency, clearly expressed in Plato. > Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal. - Karl Popper
rimantas 11y ago
Nope, intolerance is the one thing that cannot be tolertated. Karl Popper: "Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal."
- Torgo 11y ago
  The Amish are "intolerant" yet we tolerate their existence. Anybody that claims to value diversity should understand that for there to be differences that there has to be some sort of boundary between things, which crudely can be called "intolerance." The Amish are Amish because they are not us, they have separated themselves from us.
  - norea-armozel 11y ago
    The Amish don't go around reenacting the various Anabaptist slaughters of Catholics from the 16/17th centuries either. So, we tolerate their views because they're pacifists, thus are not a threat to society at large.
- kps 11y ago
  Problem is that each faction thinks that the others' intolerance is intolerable, while their own intolerance is necessary intolerance of intolerance.

danharaj 11y ago

> Attitudes towards queers and trannies have changed so much in my lifetime. T* is a slur that is too often the last thing a woman hears before she is brutally murdered.

dandanisaur 11y ago
To add to this, i've quoted a detailed definition. "the term "tranny" is used as a dehumanizing slur to describe transgender individuals and is oftentimes the last word someone hears before they are brutally attacked. Similar to the anti-gay F-word, the term "tranny" is commonly used to humiliate and degrade transgender individuals." Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lance-bass/why-we-shouldnt-use-the-word-tranny_b_1168078.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lance-bass/why-we-shouldnt-use...
netcan 11y ago
So is 'Jew'. When people hate you, your name is a hateful slur even if its what you call yourself. You can't win this game. You also can't win the game of arguing that a word isn't hateful so I guess I shouldn't be commenting back.
- TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
  > So is 'Jew'. When people hate you, your name is a hateful slur even if its what you call yourself. This is utterly ignorant of context. There are names used exclusively in hatred against a group, and there are names a group is happy to be called. By your logic, perhaps we should be going around referring to women as whores, black people as niggers, trans people as trannies, gay people as faggots, because "you can't win this game". Yet civilised society does not. And with good reason.
  - netcan 11y ago
    Personally, the only person I've known to use tranny conversationally is transexual. I know quite a few girls that call their friends hoors affectionately and ironically. Words mean what people saying and hearing them think they mean. In any case, I'm not arguing for anything in particular. I don't think there is a logic to this. My point is not about what words we can use. My point is that anger and insurrection against systematic hate, cultures of intolerance, injustice are directed against the instruments of intolerance. But, rage and insurrection are not always nuanced tools especially in the hands of young people. They get mad at the words themselves, not just the hate. Sometimes it's fueled by the wrong thing, like enjoying moral platitudes. Sometimes by the right thing. Either way, I think the net results are good.. essential even, but some of the side effects can be insufferable.

thecyborganizer 11y ago

> Attitudes towards queers and trannies have changed so much in my lifetime. "Tranny" is a vicious slur against trans people, on par with "faggot" for a gay person or "nigger" for a black person. Please edit your post.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
Roboprog 11y ago
Seriously? Maybe you are trolling, to reinforce the point of the article. Otherwise, in context, I think using those words helped make the point of the attitude shift over time.
netcan 11y ago
I was making a point, please consider the context and intent.
hueving 11y ago
Your post is triggering me. Please add trigger warnings before you use those words.
tomp 11y ago
Seriously? Now even words can be vicious? Almost as stupid as calling them "micro-aggressions" when nobody is hurt.

joesmo 11y ago

None of the campus movements that brought about any change was created by students afraid of words, though. Quite the opposite. These students aren't standing up for anything except their own inability to understand comedy, irony, and other non-straightforward ways of expression that they should have learned before they even got in high school. In other words, the only thing these students are standing up for now is their own stupidity. And the only thing that's changed from the past is the adults who know better are now letting it happen instead of telling the students to shut up with their stupidity. Thus, no comedians on campus. Because humor is one of those ways of expressing oneself described above.

mc32 11y ago

I dont think its sad to call some of the described behaviors and accommodations infantilization. Higher ed is there to educate, prepare and provide networking and access to the job market. Very few people go with the end goal of learning for learning's sake. People attend higher ed as a vehicle to a better economic future. As such, coddling and comforting and extending parental protection institutionally does a disservice to people growing up and getting ready for the cold world out there which awaits all. The world is by nature wild and unsanitized. I understand the need to want and bring about a better more civilized, if less natural world, but I don't think suppressing reality is the way to subjugate reality to our form.