Oklahoma university president chastises "safe space" culture

[member 1013]

Yeah that's pretty much what this one guy on here was trying to say. He didn't make it.

I once got 3.8 out of 4 on a paper for sociology by writing about how the majority of the theories at its core were simply opinion.

Aw fuck yea.

 

[Leigh]

Bigot!!1

Hey, I didn't say they CAN'T operate, I just think they're illogical. If people want to pay to go there, it's their money and they can spend it however they like.

 

[member 1013]

Hey, I didn't say they CAN'T operate, I just think they're illogical. If people want to pay to go there, it's their money and they can spend it however they like.

A pitbull would kick a leopards ass, and you know this.

 

[Punch]

A pitbull would kick a leopards ass, and you know this.

Where's the "you is trollin'" button?

 

[member 1013]

Where's the "you is trollin'" button?

I had Leigh convinced I was retarded on the OG by telling him that once.

 

[Ted Williams' head]

I once got 3.8 out of 4 on a paper for sociology by writing about how the majority of the theories at its core were simply opinion.

Aw fuck yea.

 

[kneeblock]

For those who complain about "pussification" in the world or among the current generation, can I ask you how the culture of "toughness" has benefits the world, particularly in this age of plenty?

 

[ThatOneDude]

For those who complain about "pussification" in the world or among the current generation, can I ask you how the culture of "toughness" has benefits the world, particularly in this age of plenty?

There's being a man and there's being a whiney Bitch.... I'll take the former any day.

 

[Yossarian]

For those who complain about "pussification" in the world or among the current generation, can I ask you how the culture of "toughness" has benefits the world, particularly in this age of plenty?

This toughness got some generations through a depression, a world war, a cultural revolution, standing up against slavery, racism, etc. If Martin Luther King was easily triggered, or Winston Churchill for that matter, where would we be? That is indeed a good question to ask.

Toughness is what is closest to what you see in nature, a grand scheme to keep species alive. Strive and competition are severely hampered by constant victim behavior. Even in our personal lives as we live them, it never has served us even once to behave as a victim.

To be tough doesn't mean being an asshole, but it is showing courage in the face of adversitiy, standing up what you believe in, making a change instead of staring at the status quo with your hands in your pockets. We all are a result of this toughness, we now have the luxury to be triggered by a silly word, or the violent act of clapping one's hands.

This pussification, as some may call it, is the acceptance of the victim role. Where once resilience was required to develop as a person, now you have the option to lock yourself in a room feeling victimized and blog about it.

It doesn't mean that I'd condone bigotry or inequality, debate should always be an option.

 

[Greenbean]

For those who complain about "pussification" in the world or among the current generation, can I ask you how the culture of "toughness" has benefits the world, particularly in this age of plenty?

Time will tell. These kids are bucklng at the first signs of quasi adversity. It isn't even adversity. It's what they call micro aggressions. Life is full of real adversity, and like I said, time will tell if giving up when things don't go your way will be beneficial to mankind.

 

[Splinty]

For those who complain about "pussification" in the world or among the current generation, can I ask you how the culture of "toughness" has benefits the world, particularly in this age of plenty?

That's a pretty good strawman, right?
And your question is a sort of implied support of this culture. I'm not trying to attack you for said support, because I also know how nuanced you are in your life views that rarely can I paint you with a broad brush.

But, the issue here is a group of children who's critical thinking only goes as far as "don't make me feel uncomfortable". Who's outcome is identical to the "toughness" culture you are working on dissecting.

Yale and Missouri posted above are pathognomonic of this issue.

The Yale video shows an administrator explaining the basic concept of free speech; noncontroversial speech doesn't need protection. Those students can't get it, don't get it, and even question, "even when it makes me uncomfortable?!?!".

Take a look at the Missouri video, in which students demanding their "safe space" to take over a public arena demand the removal of the 1st amendment rights of the licensed student journalist. They then brashly outshout him and march forward in aggressive manner, pushing him, while yelling ironically and falsely "don't touch me!".


If the end result is being getting threatened and trampled by a mob, to have someone call for "more muscle" to prevent me from standing in public, then there is no difference between this "pussification" and "toughness" towards me and other outsiders. We are still threatened. The only difference is the aggressor now demands no one dare be aggressive to them. It's only a way one street.

 

[Punch]

Shit just got deep.

 

[Greenbean]

Also I can't help but laugh @Leigh. Ok, I get it. You're not religious. That's your prerogative. Nothing wrong with your beliefs. However, are you really going to sit there and say you have an issue because there are religious undertones (in a Christian university) and completely dismiss the substance and value of what he's preaching (set aside the sky daddy argument).

If you have an issue with self reflection and love one another, and the pursuit to constantly better yourself whether or not it's in the name of the lord, then I have an issue with you. These are all positive values that should be instilled in everyone regardless of their beliefs.

 

[Punch]

I think that like much in life there is a sweet spot, a balancing point if you will, between being sensitive to the needs of others and being a tough hombre.

Don't be a dick, but don't brook no shit either.

 

[ThatOneDude]

This toughness got some generations through a depression, a world war, a cultural revolution, standing up against slavery, racism, etc. If Martin Luther King was easily triggered, or Winston Churchill for that matter, where would we be? That is indeed a good question to ask.

Toughness is what is closest to what you see in nature, a grand scheme to keep species alive. Strive and competition are severely hampered by constant victim behavior. Even in our personal lives as we live them, it never has served us even once to behave as a victim.

To be tough doesn't mean being an asshole, but it is showing courage in the face of adversitiy, standing up what you believe in, making a change instead of staring at the status quo with your hands in your pockets. We all are a result of this toughness, we now have the luxury to be triggered by a silly word, or the violent act of clapping one's hands.

This pussification, as some may call it, is the acceptance of the victim role. Where once resilience was required to develop as a person, now you have the option to lock yourself in a room feeling victimized and blog about it.

It doesn't mean that I'd condone bigotry or inequality, debate should always be an option.

Time will tell. These kids are bucklng at the first signs of quasi adversity. It isn't even adversity. It's what they call micro aggressions. Life is full of real adversity, and like I said, time will tell if giving up when things don't go your way will be beneficial to mankind.

That's a pretty good strawman, right?
And your question is a sort of implied support of this culture. I'm not trying to attack you for said support, because I also know how nuanced you are in your life views that rarely can I paint you with a broad brush.

But, the issue here is a group of children who's critical thinking only goes as far as "don't make me feel uncomfortable". Who's outcome is identical to the "toughness" culture you are working on dissecting.

Yale and Missouri posted above are pathognomonic of this issue.

The Yale video shows an administrator explaining the basic concept of free speech; noncontroversial speech doesn't need protection. Those students can't get it, don't get it, and even question, "even when it makes me uncomfortable?!?!".

Take a look at the Missouri video, in which students demanding their "safe space" to take over a public arena demand the removal of the 1st amendment rights of the licensed student journalist. They then brashly outshout him and march forward in aggressive manner, pushing him, while yelling ironically and falsely "don't touch me!".


If the end result is being getting threatened and trampled by a mob, to have someone call for "more muscle" to prevent me from standing in public, then there is no difference between this "pussification" and "toughness" towards me and other outsiders. We are still threatened. The only difference is the aggressor now demands no one dare be aggressive to them. It's only a way one street.

I bet you most people who are "triggered" were given trophies for "participation".

 

[Punch]

Also I can't help but laugh @Leigh. Ok, I get it. You're not religious. That's your prerogative. Nothing wrong with your beliefs. However, are you really going to sit there and say you have an issue because there are religious undertones (in a Christian university) and completely dismiss the substance and value of what he's preaching (set aside the sky daddy argument).

If you have an issue with self reflection and love one another, and the pursuit to constantly better yourself whether or not it's in the name of the lord, then I have an issue with you. These are all positive values that should be instilled in everyone regardless of their beliefs.

@Leigh as I know him is super down with growth and enlightenment. He just goes about it a different way than religion. Correct me if I'm wrong, homie.

 

[Splinty]

I bet you most people who are "triggered" were given trophies for "participation".

Students at UC Santa Barbara passed a resolution in support of mandatory trigger warnings for classes that could contain potentially upsetting material. Professors would be required to alert students of such material and allow them to skip classes that could make them feel uncomfortable.[13]

In an interview about Trigger Warnings for The Daily Telegraph Professor Metin Basoglu, a psychologist internationally recognised for his trauma research said that "The media should actually – quite the contrary… Instead of encouraging a culture of avoidance, they should be encouraging exposure. Most trauma survivors avoid situations that remind them of the experience. Avoidance means helplessness and helplessness means depression. That's not good".[14] Richard J. McNally, a Professor of Psychology at Harvard University, while writing for Pacific Standard,[15] discussed the merit of trigger warnings noting that "Trigger warnings are designed to help survivors avoid reminders of their trauma, thereby preventing emotional discomfort. Yet avoidance reinforces PTSD. Conversely, systematic exposure to triggers and the memories they provoke is the most effective means of overcoming the disorder" while citing several academic studies conducted on PTSD sufferers. Frank Furedi, an emeritus Professor of Sociology at the University of Kent, described trigger warnings as a form of narcissism, with the concerns not really being about the content of a book or work of art but about individual students asserting their own importance.[16]

There have been suggestions that trigger warnings could themselves act as triggers by reminding the sufferer of his or her trigger even if the article itself is unrelated.[11]

 

[Punch]

I bet you most people who are "triggered" were given trophies for "participation".

Hey, fuck you homie. Those shits are on my mantle. All 127 of them.

 

[Splinty]

 

[Punch]

Students at UC Santa Barbara passed a resolution in support of mandatory trigger warnings for classes that could contain potentially upsetting material. Professors would be required to alert students of such material and allow them to skip classes that could make them feel uncomfortable.[13]

In an interview about Trigger Warnings for The Daily Telegraph Professor Metin Basoglu, a psychologist internationally recognised for his trauma research said that "The media should actually – quite the contrary… Instead of encouraging a culture of avoidance, they should be encouraging exposure. Most trauma survivors avoid situations that remind them of the experience. Avoidance means helplessness and helplessness means depression. That's not good".[14] Richard J. McNally, a Professor of Psychology at Harvard University, while writing for Pacific Standard,[15] discussed the merit of trigger warnings noting that "Trigger warnings are designed to help survivors avoid reminders of their trauma, thereby preventing emotional discomfort. Yet avoidance reinforces PTSD. Conversely, systematic exposure to triggers and the memories they provoke is the most effective means of overcoming the disorder" while citing several academic studies conducted on PTSD sufferers. Frank Furedi, an emeritus Professor of Sociology at the University of Kent, described trigger warnings as a form of narcissism, with the concerns not really being about the content of a book or work of art but about individual students asserting their own importance.[16]

There have been suggestions that trigger warnings could themselves act as triggers by reminding the sufferer of his or her trigger even if the article itself is unrelated.[11]

Did they get participation ribbons for attending the seminar?

 

[Greenbean]

@Leigh as I know him is super down with growth and enlightenment. He just goes about it a different way than religion. Correct me if I'm wrong, homie.

Then if you disregard the trigger words of sin, Christ, etc... What exactly would he be against?

 

[ThatOneDude]

Students at UC Santa Barbara passed a resolution in support of mandatory trigger warnings for classes that could contain potentially upsetting material. Professors would be required to alert students of such material and allow them to skip classes that could make them feel uncomfortable.[13]

In an interview about Trigger Warnings for The Daily Telegraph Professor Metin Basoglu, a psychologist internationally recognised for his trauma research said that "The media should actually – quite the contrary… Instead of encouraging a culture of avoidance, they should be encouraging exposure. Most trauma survivors avoid situations that remind them of the experience. Avoidance means helplessness and helplessness means depression. That's not good".[14] Richard J. McNally, a Professor of Psychology at Harvard University, while writing for Pacific Standard,[15] discussed the merit of trigger warnings noting that "Trigger warnings are designed to help survivors avoid reminders of their trauma, thereby preventing emotional discomfort. Yet avoidance reinforces PTSD. Conversely, systematic exposure to triggers and the memories they provoke is the most effective means of overcoming the disorder" while citing several academic studies conducted on PTSD sufferers. Frank Furedi, an emeritus Professor of Sociology at the University of Kent, described trigger warnings as a form of narcissism, with the concerns not really being about the content of a book or work of art but about individual students asserting their own importance.[16]

There have been suggestions that trigger warnings could themselves act as triggers by reminding the sufferer of his or her trigger even if the article itself is unrelated.[11]

Im going to go watch the hurt locker now....i'll be back after my freak out

 

[Punch]

Then if you disregard the trigger words of sin, Christ, etc... What exactly would he be against?

I'm personally against zealotry in almost every form. Doesn't matter to me what religion it comes from.

 

[Punch]

Im going to go watch the hurt locker now....i'll be back after my freak out

Puff the magic Dragon

 

[Leigh]

Also I can't help but laugh @Leigh. Ok, I get it. You're not religious. That's your prerogative. Nothing wrong with your beliefs. However, are you really going to sit there and say you have an issue because there are religious undertones (in a Christian university) and completely dismiss the substance and value of what he's preaching (set aside the sky daddy argument).

If you have an issue with self reflection and love one another, and the pursuit to constantly better yourself whether or not it's in the name of the lord, then I have an issue with you. These are all positive values that should be instilled in everyone regardless of their beliefs.

Where did I say I have an issue with self reflection and love one another, and the pursuit to constantly better yourself? That's the king of all strawmen. You just completely made that up and then attacked it.

Some religions may have SOME redeeming features but they all lack critical thinking and many, including Christianity, preach some pretty poor morals. I'm pretty libertarian and I support freedom of religion but it has no place being used as a tool for education.