Free Speech and Creepy Liberalism

I came here to quote that with "fuuuuuuuuuck you"

xp

Yeah, Mordy is kind of right, I was imagining someone so conservative they wouldn't be in social work grad school at all, while Mordy is probably imagining someone more, like, well, Mordy, who would be laughed out of CPAC if he called himself a "conservative"

http://www.buzzfeed.com/katiejmbaker/teaching-rape-law-in-the-age-of-the-trigger-warning#.hsNveMNJr

followup to recent stories somewhere above itt

“There was a point in time where women were excused from not just rape but any disturbing legal topic because it was too traumatic,” said University of Colorado Law professor Aya Gruber, who said she’s noticed a “rapid and profound shift” in the way her students think about rape pedagogy over the past few years.

“Several of my contemporaries do not teach rape because it is too fraught, but I find this to be an almost sexist position,” she said. “My question is always the extent to which we as teachers are protecting women in a world which oppresses them, and the extent to which we as people in power are reaffirming and reinforcing the messages that keep women in that position.”

i'm a survivor of sexual assault who took crim law with one of the professors cited in that article. rape week had good class discussion, but outside of class a few far left female students expressed fury that anyone thought any of the cases might not constitute rape. fury on a different level than any other issue.

and that is meaningful to me bc most law school students (especially lefty ones) are nothing but furious about everything all the time.

http://www.michigandaily.com/news/umix-film-removed

showing of american sniper pulled after student petition

In the final version of the letter, students voiced several concerns over the film’s portrayal of Arabs and the Middle East and North Africa regions.

“Although we respect the right to freedom of speech, we believe that with this right comes responsibility: responsibility of action, intention, and outcome,” the letter read. “The movie ‘American Sniper’ not only tolerates but promotes anti-Muslim and anti-MENA rhetoric and sympathizes with a mass killer.”

In their statement, CCI said while their intent was not to make certain communities uncomfortable, they understood the impact of the film and would take more time to screen for content in the future.

“We in the Center for Campus Involvement and the UMix Late Night program did not intend to exclude any students or communities on campus through showing this film,” they wrote. “Nevertheless, as we know, intent and impact can be very different things.”

Mekkaoui said she appreciated CCI’s quick response to student concerns.

“I just want to say thank you to the Center for Campus Involvement for listening to student feedback, and for taking quick action to make sure (that) once they found that they had done something that made students on campus feel uncomfortable, they took immediate action to change that,” she said.

if your whole deal is based around the concept of "uncomfortable rhetoric" maybe stay away from calling an american soldier a "mass killer"

ridiculous

Although we respect the right to freedom of speech

sigh.

tbh i blame the org that pulled the film more than the petitioners (who, after all, just exercised free speech). instead of engaging in possibly uncomfortable but imo necessary dialogue about the issue, or responding to concerns in a different way (e.g. holding afterfilm discussion, or publishing critique of film in school paper, whatever), it's easier to just give in, meekly apologize, and of course-- be sure in future not to show any film which might unintentionally make anyone on campus uncomfortable.

sigh.

or, how bout, show two films

double bill with red dawn

maybe i'm really confused about the function of social workers (nb, my sister-in-law's father is a social worker) but my impression was that it had to do w/ helping ppl directly and nothing to do w/ theories of inequality.

― Mordy, Sunday, March 29, 2015 11:48 AM (1 week ago)

(i know this is an old post now but)

this is for the profession itself to decide. it's incredible to me how some people feel entitled to a degree just because they're willing to pay for the schooling. the gatekeepers of that profession are under no obligation to tolerate a student whose work directly contradicts the mission of the program and the field. should a medical school give a degree to a student who believes in homeopathy?

in the case of the author of this piece, it's not difficult to arrive at the conclusion that this person went to social work school as a resume-padder anyway. the dude can't get through a paragraph without mentioning milton friedman. social work isn't for you. it must be an uncomfortable dissonance knowing he essentially lied his way through grad school to get a degree in a field that wants no part of him

maybe i'm really confused about the function of social workers (nb, my sister-in-law's father is a social worker) but my impression was that it had to do w/ helping ppl directly and nothing to do w/ theories of inequality.

― Mordy, Sunday, March 29, 2015 11:48 AM (1 week ago)

^ creepy liberalism imo

stole from deej's tweeter

http://www.thefader.com/2015/04/09/students-protest-to-stop-big-sean-from-playing-at-princeton

Students at Princeton are mounting a protest to prevent Big Sean from playing at an outdoor concert on campus this spring. Rebecca Basaldua and Duncan Hosie have started a petition aimed at student government to cancel his performance at Lawn Parties, a biannual festival on campus. Since sharing an op-ed and the petition online Sunday, Hosie and Basaldua have accumulated at least 500 signatures. Other students have posted flyers on campus with the lyrics If she look good she pay me in sex, adding below: "Want to take this down? Take down Big Sean."

As of now, Big Sean is still scheduled to perform. Social committee chair Simon Wu told The Daily Princetonian, "The contracts are signed and it's unrealistic to stop this from happening."

lol/uhhh @ "Want to take this down? Take down Big Sean."

i don't think i've ever heard big sean, is he particularly egregious or is he just like, a commercial rap artist

i think its totally legit to ask that a campus-administration run program not show a film which lots of ppl find gross. you're not stopping private entities from showing it, you're asking that the administration not promote it, and that's a fair thing to ask an administration. they make a million choices over what is and isn't appropriate every day this is no different.

that seems true. but it was also a major contemporary cultural event, provoked controversy, received praised, etc., and it seems like colleges are in the business of encouraging thoughtful discussion of that sort of thing in controlled settings helped by the tools of their mission as institutions (analysis, critique, expert knowledge, the authority of experienced thinkers, pedagogues practiced at facilitating discussions of controversial topics).

are we still talking about big sean?

The thoughtful discussion aspect might have more weight if this was part of a film club or a debate club and not part of a Friday night entertainment programme designed to encourage kids to do something other than get wasted. It's possible that they might stick around afterwards for an in-depth look at the media portrayal of Arabs in a post-9/11 environment but idk whether i'd be laying any bets in that direction. I'd also assume it's pretty wearying for Arab-Americans and students from the middle east to constantly have to engage in these debates. The justification for pulling the screening (which the university has now apparently reversed) was that it made students "uncomfortable". The argument for pulling it made by the students was that anti-Arab violence had spiked following the release of the film and screening it could potentially add to an already charged atmosphere, which is much more tangible as a reason.

creepy and gross are becoming/have become shortcut words for.....idk what...

Big Sean?

big sean isn't creepy he's corny

no right to uncorny campus entertainment tho

tbh i would prob sign that petition

creepy and gross are becoming/have become shortcut words for.....idk what...

― post you had fecund thoughts about (darraghmac), Friday, April 10, 2015 2:13 AM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Creepy and gross have become shortcuts [1] for can mean * Twelve dozen = 144. * The total nominal earnings or amount, before taxes, expenses, exceptions or similar are deducted. That which remains after all deductions is called net. * The bulk, the mass, the masses.

that college ended up showing American Sniper after all

The classic formula for combatting speech of which one disapproves is to fight it with more speech, better conceived and more persuasive, rather than to attempt to stifle your opponent. This approach seems to be out of favor and trying to shut down your opponent's point of view from getting heard is gaining favor. This is not an encouraging trend, imo.

trending on twitter afaict

To be perfectly honest, the classic formula is to keep disenfranchised people without a voice in society. The idea that racists kept society racist because their ideas were so persuasive is weird.

kevin/mordy:

http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.ssf/2015/04/baker_college_taught_nursing_s.html

Rolfe said she questioned both instructors, trying to understand the rationale behind the two lessons that she believed went against how they were previously taught to inform patients.

"I was asking questions that a nursing student should ask," Rolfe said.

But the school claimed that Rolfe was overly aggressive and disruptive and it was for that reason she was removed from the program.

A dismissal contract the school drafted, which was filed with the lawsuit as evidence, claimed that Rolfe continuously argued with the instructor about a personal belief regarding immunizations and that several attempts were made to move forward with training but Rolfe kept bringing up the same argument.

The contract also cited "persistent, aggressive, oppositional behavior" by Rolfe as a reason for dismissal.

and

Her dismissal as a student came after Rolfe was placed on a June 10, 2013, behavior contract with the school due to an interaction with another student regarding a conversation about homosexuality.

Rolfe claimed that she told the student that it wasn't the place of potential nurses to judge others and that she disagreed with the other student's view that homosexuality is a learned behavior.

The student complained to the nursing program's directors, claiming that she felt harassed by Rolfe for her stance on homosexuality, according to the lawsuit.

i like the sound of 'placed on a contract', sounds like they're doing the same thing tech employers do when they make you agree to your own reasons for termination

it's hard to get a read on this. the student seems… ethical? and the college is a not-for-profit diploma factory? but immunization people can be crazy and wily?

To be perfectly honest, the classic formula is to keep disenfranchised people without a voice in society.

If you truly think the disenfranchised have no voice, then obviously someone else is speaking on their behalf, because how else would anyone get the idea, for example, that American Sniper was racist? How would anyone ever hear about racism or be able to form any idea of it? In which case, the self-appointed mouthpieces for the disenfranchised may be doing the speaking, but it is their voices that are doing the work of persuasion.

Or do you think a social revolution can somehow happen without ever having a voice, or having ideas and or persuading people?

I'd say there's a big difference between being able to write something on the internet and HAVING A VOICE meaning having real political and cultural representation that extend beyond blogging powers.

Sure. Having power in society, through ownership and control of the economy puts you in the driver's seat in terms of being able to propagate your ideas. Those in power have a VOICE, as opposed to merely a voice. This is obvious.

But I'd say that putting your efforts into censoring the voices you disagree with, no matter how tempting this looks, is a losing proposition when you are not the one in the driver's seat, whereas speaking up, constantly, and voicing your truth to as many as will listen, is the only long term effective strategy for changing society. When the social and economic power belongs to someone else, you have to change minds instead of trying to force others to do what you instruct them to do.

Censoring does not mean criticism. Censorship is a tool a power structure uses to control messaging, I don't think it can be applied to the disenfranchised. What you are advocating is that outside voices stick to appeasing an internal audience which is a good business plan but not a good way to get any general social change done.

i think everyone needs to be much more careful around this 'when you do it it's called X, when i do it it's called Y' bullshit

for example, power doesn't flow exclusively from one direction, and punching up doesn't mean there's no power in yr punch

xps

Criticism may be used to justify preventing a film from being shown to an audience, but preventing a film from being shown is not a form of criticism.

i think everyone needs to be much more careful around this 'when you do it it's called X, when i do it it's called Y' bullshit

― Mordy, Saturday, April 11, 2015 1:40 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

yes yes yes yes yes yes.

I'd like to pull this away from "is this censorship" questions and look at whether it's a good idea to try to get movies banned, from the standpoint of those offended (with whom I sympathize).

What was accomplished? An utterly minor (& totally questionable) (& short term & reversed) victory of getting a movie pulled pales in comparison to the contribution this incident made to multiple right wing talking points. Bonus points for getting one more "university censorship" talking point firmly established as well, although that was an "own goal" they can take the blame for by themselves.

So basically they should have considered that the power structure is already decked against them and just not done anything.

False binary.

True binary.

Well, then! I'm persuaded. Clearly, they had no choice other than sitting in a dark corner chewing their lower lips, which amounts to no choice at all when you think about it.

How about countering the movie at the time of showing with a well-thought out and communicated critique explaining exactly what was wrong with it?

i think if you're a liberal and committed to broad ideas of inclusiveness then counter-speech is always preferable to simple censorship (or whatever you'd want to call this). however, i think this broad to commitment to inclusiveness is why liberalism is always vulnerable from behind to fundamentalisms that are willing to put their exclusions front and center. liberalism tends to make those questions (what's allowed? who's in and who's out?) rather contingent ones and that's hard to cope with continually.

liberalism has a few problems re effective organizing and tbh I'd consider its propensity to splinter into finer and finer groups v conservative counterpart hierarchies a bigger issue than its allowing too many voices

insofar as it allows those voices in terms of their uniqueness and specificity id say that allowing them is the actual cause of the splintering. it's kinda the price you pay for liberalism.

Election years would be so much more interesting if any of this stuff about lots of voices were evident.