Starker on 16/9/2018 at 06:49
From what I read about it, it sounds like it's about a whole lot more than simply martyring Weinstein:
Quote:
(
https://theoutline.com/post/5721/racism-free-speech-evergreen-state-college)
Shortly after the plan was released, Weinstein, who is white, sent dozens of emails to a faculty listserv (which also included some students who worked on campus) calling the diversity initiative an “unstoppable train” that would hinder a “silent majority” of professors. Weinstein was particularly concerned about a yearly event called Day of Presence/Day of Absence, in which students of color are typically invited to leave campus for a day and discuss racial issues. That year, the student organizers had proposed reversing the event so that white students would leave campus. Even though the event was voluntary, Weinstein said the proposed reversal was an, “act of oppression in and of itself.”
Even before the emails, tension had been building on Evergreen's campus. The previous year, a white police officer had shot two black men at a grocery store close to campus, and faced no charges. The incident heightened anti-police and pro-black activism among students and faculty. At convocation for the 2016 to 2017 school year, students walked on stage holding a sign that read “Evergreen cashes diversity checks but doesn't care about blacks.”
Then, in May, two black students got into a Facebook argument with another student who said PoC-only activities on campus were a form of reverse racism. When the argument got heated, the dissenting student said he felt threatened by the black students and called public safety. The two black students were detained in the middle of the night and questioned by campus police for several hours. A few days later, a small group of student protesters disrupted a public discussion with a candidate for the newly created position of diversity and inclusion chair.
[...]
And it's likely the occupation would have remained a local issue; after all, it was about campus-specific demands mostly regarding students and faculty of color at a small school in the Pacific Northwest. But shortly after the library occupation, Weinstein appeared twice on Tucker Carlson's Fox News show. “They imagine that I'm a racist,” he told Carlson. “That I'm teaching racism in my classroom, and that I therefore have no right to speak.”
Right-wing blogs excitedly joined the discussion. Weinstein's brother, Eric, a prominent conservative and the managing director of Thiel Capital (run by Peter Thiel), began tweeting incessantly about the incident. He called the students fascists and Maoists.
YouTubers made hundreds of videos about the protests and those most closely involved. Many manipulated images of Lowe and other prominent protesters, drawing attention to her race and size. Some professors at Evergreen wondered if Eric, and perhaps even Thiel, were coordinating media for Bret.
The media coverage, from niche to mainstream, was nearly universally negative for the students and Lowe: calling them anti-white zealots (Washington Examiner), and anti-free-speech zealots (The New York Times).
Are you really being silenced if you're not only not being fired, but turn the whole thing into a media circus?
Looks to me more like an attempt to silence marginalised people and paint them as villains than having anything to do with the free speech of the right.
Renzatic on 16/9/2018 at 08:59
Peter Thiel being involved makes everything suddenly suspect. Now you don't know who's pushing what.
Starker on 16/9/2018 at 10:10
It's an old tactic, demonising the opposition -- even the rhetoric about political correctness and suppression of free speech is nothing new, but a rehashed version of what happened in the 70s and 80s.
"See, these feminists are not really about equal treatment for women -- they just want special treatment for women and they hate men."
"See, these black people protesting are just being used as pawns by radicals like Martin Luther King who rile them up for their own nefarious agenda."
And with it inevitably the claims how actually it's the men who are being oppressed, how actually it's the white people who are treated unfairly, etc. And bullies often turn up as the biggest victims.
Weinstein wasn't fired because some protesters suddenly showed up apropos of nothing and claimed that he's racist. He wasn't even fired at all. He left on his own and sued the university for not providing him a safe space.
deathshadow on 16/9/2018 at 10:17
Quote Posted by icemann
as people often from the far left get extremely aggressive both verbally and abusive.
The far LEFT gets verbally and physically abusive on these topics? REALLY?!?
REALLY?!?!? {string of expletives omitted}
If so, it's in response to the abuse from the right and MORE than justified in those cases.
Inline Image:
http://www.cutcodedown.com/images/respect.jpgSums it up rather nicely.
It always fascinates me when the conservative side of the "fight" show zero respect, spew endless streams of hatred, intolerance, ignorance, and flat out bigotry, then are magically shocked and play the victim when someone DARES to stand up to them. It's the flipping schoolyard bully mentality -- weeks, months, years of verbal abuse, a kick here, a shove there, ganging up on people, then when the subject of the abuse breaks and lashes out, blame the victim!
Works in court for rape cases, works for waging war on the poor instead of poverty, works for leeching suckers wallets dry, works for neglecting the people of Puerto Rico -- so why not for civil rights as well? BLAME THE VICTIM! Blame those trying to stand up for what's right just because your noodle-doodle halfwitted mentally-enfeebled fairy tale about a magical man in the sky -- or more accurately the scam artist bible thumper at the pulpit -- tells you to.
But then I've always found that those who "demand" respect in a conversation and react in a surprised manner to negative responses or outbursts are the ones having truly shown no respect -- being part of groups incapable of showing such. HENCE the entire reason for the response on the other side. The whole "if you can't say anything nice" cop-out being NOTHING MORE than a lame excuse for the fact that they are incapable of defending their ignorant, bigoted, intolerant viewpoint.
THOUGH, that decades of abuse is why those on the left do take it too far -- but to be surprised by that or complain about it when you're on the other side? You have NOBODY to blame but yourself for that one you camel-mannered tunic-wearing mollycoddles!
Purgator on 16/9/2018 at 11:06
[video=youtube;aAxEYjLr4q0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAxEYjLr4q0[/video]
Starker on 16/9/2018 at 12:19
Yeah, Jordan Peterson's idea of the modern left is confused at best and a caricature at worst.
Gryzemuis on 16/9/2018 at 12:43
Quote Posted by Renzatic
This isn't vastly different than what the alt-right are doing. It's almost like they're mirror images of each other.
Extremists on the left are almost always fighting for other people. Other groups. Trying to make the world a better place for everybody. Trying to give the under-privileged a better position in society. Trying to undo wrong-doing. Trying to improve the future. Even if their reasoning is ridiculous, it is often not egoistical.
Extremists on the right are always just fighting for themselves. They want to protect just their own social or financial or cultural position. Very egoistical.
It's a huge difference, imho.
Gryzemuis on 16/9/2018 at 12:56
Quote Posted by deathshadow
... and play the victim when someone DARES to stand up to them.
I totally agree with what you say.
Something I read earlier this year.
It's a tweet by Mike Godwin. He's the inventor of (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law) Godwin's Law.
It was a response to a tweet from Trump, where Trump used the words infest and breeding in context of talking about immigrants.
Words that were used by the Nazis when talking about Jews.
Inline Image:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DHNi_aDXgAI7TiM.jpg(
https://twitter.com/ohnoshetwitnt/status/986571437736693760)
I think Republican politicians and most of their voters are scum.
They are not Nazis. Because what happened in '33-'45 was so outrageous, you can't compare anything with that.
But if you want to get your point across, if you want to express how you really feel about Republican politics, you got Godwin's blessing to call them Nazis.
I'm all for it.
Nicker on 16/9/2018 at 13:28
They might not be point for point comparable to the fully ripened Nazis of 1938 but they do attract and endorse candidates who express ideology, rhetoric and goals championed by the Nazis of the 1920's. And Republican leaders do seem soft on actual Nazis marching in the streets with torches, chanting "Jews will not replace us".
Their silence and equivocation could be because they are in denial that the GOP harbors factions with the worst intentions for humanity or because they secretly endorse them.
And this feeds the general strategy of the far to extreme right, starting lots and lots of small fires, fanning the flames and using heat and smoke to generate an increasing divide in society which can be used as an excuse for the use of violence and isolationism.
Gryzemuis - excellent and largely fair comment about the motives of the left VS the right. I think these perspectives are a continuum of instincts which are inherent and essential to our species, the constant tug-of-war between our social and individual survival. Unless we can evolve a method of balancing both interests most of the time, we are pretty much doomed to repeat these dramas.
Thirith on 16/9/2018 at 13:47
Yeah, at present I find the horseshoe thing a prime example of false equivalency, because at present the mainstream of each side of the spectrum (and yes, left/right is a simplification that is problematic in many ways) can hardly be compared. The mainstream on the right has moved much more towards the right over the last decade or so, with mainstream right wing parties espousing policies that at the beginning of the millennium were the domain of the far right. Look at Trump, look at Orban and Salvini, and more and more they're not exceptions.
If you just look at the most extreme positions on both sides, then you may come away thinking that the centre is the place to be, but look at how the two sides are currently distributed and where their mainstream lies and, sorry, no, that horseshoe is far from symmetrical.
