5 ms·

You left out an important dimension. The modern trend is to run everything "more like a business." The heads of universities come decreasingly from academia, an

by dalke 11y ago

You left out an important dimension. The modern trend is to run everything "more like a business." The heads of universities come decreasingly from academia, and re instead MBA and politically connected people. This is justified by the need to bring in more money, because the states no longer want to fully fund the university. My belief is that businesses don't like controversy unless it brings profit. Free speech at a university rarely brings profit. So people who want to run a university like a business are not likely to fight against calls to reduce free speech on campus. And there have always been calls to reduce free speech on campus. Or to repurpose your phrase, "When business and profits are your religion, anyone with moral conviction is your enemy and must be silenced." "How many good men have put down" See, that's the sort of sexist language that encourages knee-jerk reactions, and gets people like me labeled "PC". My wife deployed twice to Iraq. Don't you dare leave out all those women who have died for the US, including nearly 200 in Iraq and Afghanistan.

marcoperaza 11y ago
I'm inclined to agree that "running things like a business" is part of the reason why no one wants to make a stand. But I have to disagree with this: >Or to repurpose your phrase, "When business and profits are your religion, anyone with moral conviction is your enemy and must be silenced." It's not the businessmen who are trying to shut down free speech and debate on college campuses. >See, that's the sort of sexist language that encourages knee-jerk reactions, and gets people like me labeled "PC". My wife deployed twice to Iraq. Don't you dare leave out all those women who have died for the US, including nearly 200 in Iraq and Afghanistan. You're totally right, so while we're at it, I've gone back and fixed an old quote: "One small step for a man or a womyn, one giant leap for man- and womyn-kind". I think I could get that one through even toughest SJW language police. What do you think? Seriously though, I didn't mean to refer to only men. (edit: Perhaps "good people", as suggested below, would have worked too.) I used the term in the broad sense, referring to human beings in general. The modern trend is toward politically correct phrasing that makes a butchery of the English language. I don't see how the phrasing is any more sexist than "mailman", "fireman", or "salesman", which are commonly used in the gender-generic sense. Interestingly, there are many female chairman who insist on being called "chairman", not "chairwoman" or "chair".
- loup-vaillant 11y ago
  Idioms are a bitch. I'm no native speaker, but I see no good alternative to "good men". "Good People", maybe? But I bet native ears would cringe a bit.
  - marcoperaza 11y ago
    "Good people" would have worked fine, though at some cost to dramatic impact. The really barbarous constructions are things like "he or she" as the third-person singular pronoun. There's five camps I can think of on this: 1) Keep using "he" as the gender-generic third-person singular pronoun. This was the only accepted option for a long time. I think this is the best sounding, but some crowds might give you grief for it. 2) Use "he or she" every time. This is the worst. 3) Use a mix of both "he" and "she", but obviously be consistent when referring to the same abstract person. I like this in theory, but in practice, the "she"s pops out of the page and direct attention away from what you're trying to say. 4) Use "they". This seems to be winning, though many find it to be a grammatical abomination, since "they" is supposed to be plural. 5) Always use "she". This is how you let everyone know that you have a political agenda.
    - rhyzomatic 11y ago
      For points 1) and 4), just so you are aware, "they" as a singular pronoun has been in popular use since the 14th century. The idea that the "correct" gender neutral singular pronoun is "he" came about in the 19th century. I find it much harder to support the idea that "'they' is supposed to be plural" with this in mind.
      - marcoperaza 11y ago
        Today I learned. Thanks for correcting me.
- hartpuff 11y ago
  > "One small step for a man or a womyn, one giant leap for man- and womyn-kind". I think I could get that one through even toughest SJW language police. What do you think? I think "the SJW language police" probably know that Neil Armstrong is not a "womyn".
michaelbuddy 11y ago
They don't run ît like a business, more like a political campaign + foundation + corrupt gov't. Donors, dealmaking, mandates, taxes.
michaelbuddy 11y ago
> See, that's the sort of sexist language that encourages knee-jerk reactions, and gets people like me labeled "PC". My wife deployed twice to Iraq. Don't you dare leave out all those women who have died.... You actually went there. In this thread. Unreal.
- dalke 11y ago
  I am not calling for a safe haven, or restriction on speech, which is what the main topic concern. Instead, I am using my speech to criticize someone else's speech, which is what "free speech" is supposed to encourage. Why shouldn't I go there in this thread?

by dalke 11y ago

marcoperaza 11y ago

I'm inclined to agree that "running things like a business" is part of the reason why no one wants to make a stand. But I have to disagree with this: >Or to repurpose your phrase, "When business and profits are your religion, anyone with moral conviction is your enemy and must be silenced." It's not the businessmen who are trying to shut down free speech and debate on college campuses. >See, that's the sort of sexist language that encourages knee-jerk reactions, and gets people like me labeled "PC". My wife deployed twice to Iraq. Don't you dare leave out all those women who have died for the US, including nearly 200 in Iraq and Afghanistan. You're totally right, so while we're at it, I've gone back and fixed an old quote: "One small step for a man or a womyn, one giant leap for man- and womyn-kind". I think I could get that one through even toughest SJW language police. What do you think? Seriously though, I didn't mean to refer to only men. (edit: Perhaps "good people", as suggested below, would have worked too.) I used the term in the broad sense, referring to human beings in general. The modern trend is toward politically correct phrasing that makes a butchery of the English language. I don't see how the phrasing is any more sexist than "mailman", "fireman", or "salesman", which are commonly used in the gender-generic sense. Interestingly, there are many female chairman who insist on being called "chairman", not "chairwoman" or "chair".

loup-vaillant 11y ago
Idioms are a bitch. I'm no native speaker, but I see no good alternative to "good men". "Good People", maybe? But I bet native ears would cringe a bit.
- marcoperaza 11y ago
  "Good people" would have worked fine, though at some cost to dramatic impact. The really barbarous constructions are things like "he or she" as the third-person singular pronoun. There's five camps I can think of on this: 1) Keep using "he" as the gender-generic third-person singular pronoun. This was the only accepted option for a long time. I think this is the best sounding, but some crowds might give you grief for it. 2) Use "he or she" every time. This is the worst. 3) Use a mix of both "he" and "she", but obviously be consistent when referring to the same abstract person. I like this in theory, but in practice, the "she"s pops out of the page and direct attention away from what you're trying to say. 4) Use "they". This seems to be winning, though many find it to be a grammatical abomination, since "they" is supposed to be plural. 5) Always use "she". This is how you let everyone know that you have a political agenda.
  - rhyzomatic 11y ago
    For points 1) and 4), just so you are aware, "they" as a singular pronoun has been in popular use since the 14th century. The idea that the "correct" gender neutral singular pronoun is "he" came about in the 19th century. I find it much harder to support the idea that "'they' is supposed to be plural" with this in mind.
    - marcoperaza 11y ago
      Today I learned. Thanks for correcting me.
hartpuff 11y ago
> "One small step for a man or a womyn, one giant leap for man- and womyn-kind". I think I could get that one through even toughest SJW language police. What do you think? I think "the SJW language police" probably know that Neil Armstrong is not a "womyn".

michaelbuddy 11y ago

They don't run ît like a business, more like a political campaign + foundation + corrupt gov't. Donors, dealmaking, mandates, taxes.

michaelbuddy 11y ago

> See, that's the sort of sexist language that encourages knee-jerk reactions, and gets people like me labeled "PC". My wife deployed twice to Iraq. Don't you dare leave out all those women who have died.... You actually went there. In this thread. Unreal.

dalke 11y ago
I am not calling for a safe haven, or restriction on speech, which is what the main topic concern. Instead, I am using my speech to criticize someone else's speech, which is what "free speech" is supposed to encourage. Why shouldn't I go there in this thread?