OP
OP
Yes, because the damage is already done. Telling the offenders to leave doesn't erase it from the minds of those who saw it.
US The Coddling of the American Mind
- Thread starter beancounter
- Start date
Yes, because the damage is already done. Telling the offenders to leave doesn't erase it from the minds of those who saw it.
Joe
Forum Legend
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2012
- Reaction score
- 634
Hmmn, the article said the university could not determine whether the person with this costume was affiliated with the university. I think if this person was not affiliated with the university, then they should have been required to leave.
Well, by that reasoning, there's no point in putting criminals in jail, since the damage is already done.
Joe
Forum Legend
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2012
- Reaction score
- 634
Because students, faculty, etc. are supposed to form a community where free speech and expression are fostered. Others are on campus more like guests, and the university should be less restricted in demanding they leave for misconduct.
Hmmmm.
I disagree with you on this. I think there's a difference between free speech and hate speech in an academic (or other) environment. And, in fact, schools have never been places of "free speech"; for example, there have always been rules about addressing faculty (and fellow students) with respect, etc.
I think that schools should foster critical thinking skills. "Free speech"* is not necessarily conducive to that.
*Free speech is a right which extends only to being protected from governmental interference in being able to express oneself.
OP
OP
That's a tad extreme... By definition, criminals have broken the law.
As distasteful as what these people did, it didn't break the law.
The university can take this incident and learn from it. All they have to do is make a rule that such displays are not allowed, and they will have the right and justification for removing them from the stadium the next time it occurs.
Spang
Foot Fetisher
- Joined
- May 31, 2012
- Reaction score
- 6,172
- Age
- 46
Last edited:
I was illustrating the (lack of) logic in your statement.
There are generally consequences imposed for offensive or bad behavior, even when it isn't a crime.
For instance, I suspect that you impose consequences on your kids (if you have any) if they do something bad or offensive. At least, I hope you do.
Likewise, if someone does something reprehensible at work, for example, there are consequences. It's not just shrugged off with a "the damage is already done."
OP
OP
A couple things on this: I think the costumes fit within the seating, and the term "appropriate nature" is vague, allowing for wiggle room.
Per the article
"Some have asked why the individual was not ejected. Once the noose was removed, the decision was made that the remainder of the costume fell within the stadium's costume policies. This was consistent with our handling of other instances of individuals wearing clothing containing offensive language.
The University needs to specify what is appropriate. For a stadium it should be easy - only sports related costumes would be appropriate.
Spang
Foot Fetisher
- Joined
- May 31, 2012
- Reaction score
- 6,172
- Age
- 46
The costume was a portrayal of President Obama being lynched. To call that inappropriate is an understatement.
Regardless, weapons are prohibited. The noose was used to murder countless Black people in the Jim Crow South.
Regardless, weapons are prohibited. The noose was used to murder countless Black people in the Jim Crow South.
Last edited:
Freesia
not my business.
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2012
- Reaction score
- 7,866
- Lifestyle
- Other
I think that even if you dont like Obama, if you are going to dress up like that you clearly think that is an ok costume to wear to insult any African american man and that does not say good things about the wearer, or the community where the costume came from, if they tolerated that.
OP
OP
Another example of coddling:
Yale professor lets students skip test in wake of Trump victory | New York Post
Yale professor lets students skip test in wake of Trump victory | New York Post
If that's "coddling", it's been around longer than you've been alive. One of my sister's professors gave his students the option to not take their comprehensive finals when RFK was assassinated.
And you know what? No harm was done because of that " coddling."
OP
OP
An assassination is a bit different than an election. The only other common reason for such an action is a death in the family.
And this does not compare.
Oh, I lived through both, and it more than compares. I cried when Bobby was murdered, but make no mistake about it - what died with Bobby is nothing compared to the consequences of Trump being elected.
ledboots
Peace
"Yale University is the source of one of the most glowing statements in support of free expression in higher education. The statement, based on the university’s 1975 Woodward Report, demonstrates the need to be free to “think the unthinkable, discuss the unmentionable, and challenge the unchallengeable.” It even goes so far as to inform Yale students that “when you agree to matriculate, you join a community where ‘the provocative, the disturbing, and the unorthodox’ must be tolerated. When you encounter people who think differently than you do, you will be expected to honor their free expression, even when what they have to say seems wrong or offensive to you.”
FortyTwo
Custom Title
My biggest question is, do people who get all up in arms about 'trigger warnings' and 'safe spaces' even know what those words mean? Or do they just assume that the Big Bad SJWs call anything remotely objectionable a 'trigger' and fight it from that vantage point?
Not wanting to re-experience trauma is not asking to be 'coddled.'
Also, the term 'special snowflake' doesn't sound any less greasy and misogynistic than when it was being barfed up in terrible political discourse chats in the naughts. It reeks of morbid cynicism and I-Weep-For-Humanity self-superior ideology, which is kind of delightfully ironic.
Not wanting to re-experience trauma is not asking to be 'coddled.'
Also, the term 'special snowflake' doesn't sound any less greasy and misogynistic than when it was being barfed up in terrible political discourse chats in the naughts. It reeks of morbid cynicism and I-Weep-For-Humanity self-superior ideology, which is kind of delightfully ironic.
The phrase we use here is "what is your background." A number of immigrants (recently immigrated or first-generation) have asked me that question even though I am white, have no accent, was born and raised here. I guess it's just a topic of interest for some people, and they seem to enjoy discussing their background with me. I don't really talk about that subject unless someone else brings it up first.
ETA: I do ask plenty of people (both white or otherwise) if they are originally from this city, as it's common for people to move to this city from other parts of the country. At that point, they usually tell me where they grew up, the different places they've moved to or lived over the years, and so on. So far nobody has found my question offensive, but maybe that's because the question is so common in this region.
ETA: I do ask plenty of people (both white or otherwise) if they are originally from this city, as it's common for people to move to this city from other parts of the country. At that point, they usually tell me where they grew up, the different places they've moved to or lived over the years, and so on. So far nobody has found my question offensive, but maybe that's because the question is so common in this region.
Last edited: