Oklahoma university president chastises "safe space" culture

[Punch]

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.

Unless you are going to seminary, which is what that college is. Or say going to become a rabbi, or a shaman. You do have to go to school to learn that shit.

 

[Leigh]

Unless you are going to seminary, which is what that college is. Or say going to become a rabbi, or a shaman. You do have to go to school to learn that shit.

Learning ABOUT religion is different to learning FROM religion. I think it is interesting and useful to learn about different religions but I don't look to them to learn right from wrong or for information on the natural world.

 

[Greenbean]

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

I'm no zealot. I don't even know if I consider myself Christian. Maybe agnostic in that I have no clue and I don't think anyone does. But personally I believe there is a higher power, but wouldn't bet all of my chips on it, because there might not be. I try not to shit on anyone's beliefs or lack thereof because fuck, they might be right or maybe not. I don't know.

But for someone to dismiss values such as what was 'preached' or professed by whomever that was in the op is absolutely asinine. Then to get hung up on semantics of why it should be this way is a cop out. Just say... Tldr, after the first hint of creationism because I ain't about that. Cmon. Really?

 

[Greenbean]

They all take the cake, including the guy trying to teach morals from the Bible. University is a place to improve your mental aptitude, not retard it.

.

 

[Leigh]

.

?

 

[Greenbean]

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.

.

 

[Leigh]

.

Make your point

 

[Greenbean]

So you literally just said they all take the cake, implying this guy as unqualified, and dismissive of anything he has to say. Please don't say you didn't dismiss the substance because of the source because that would be an outlandish lie.

 

[Greenbean]

It seems like your values line up with the guy, but you're fighting it because of where he gets it from. It's weird

 

[Punch]

Learning ABOUT religion is different to learning FROM religion. I think it is interesting and useful to learn about different religions but I don't look to them to learn right from wrong or for information on the natural world.

To get some one else to believe what you believe (i think that's the goal of most religions) it would behoove you to be able to answer any questions that they might throw your way in a convincing, assured, well thought out manner.

If you're the type of person that wishes to be a preacher of some kind and you want people to listen to you, you're going to need charisma. Seminary is not only a knowledge center. It's where they teach you how best to convince and convert others.

Crazy how much $€£¥¢ religion makes.

 

[Greenbean]

And I'm no talking about whether or not you believe in the Virgin Mary or Jesus died on the cross. I'm talking about the values within the context he provides. You're all about it. But the guy is full of shit... Why

 

[Leigh]

And I'm no talking about whether or not you believe in the Virgin Mary or Jesus died on the cross. I'm talking about the values within the context he provides. You're all about it. But the guy is full of shit... Why

How do you know what his morals are? How do you know what mine are? If he's preaching from the bible, there is a good chance our morals do NOT line up.

 

[ThatOneDude]

And I'm no talking about whether or not you believe in the Virgin Mary or Jesus died on the cross. I'm talking about the values within the context he provides. You're all about it. But the guy is full of shit... Why

Correct me if I'm wrong @Leigh, but maybe he sees someone as a shitty person who needs an imaginary friend and the threat of fire and brimstone to be a good person. Instead of being a good person because we are all people.

 

[kneeblock]

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.

Allow me to question some of these assumptions.

Was it toughness that got the figures you cite through their situations or resilience in the face of literally overwhelming adversity? Resilience is a learned and practiced behavior. Toughness is a normative moralization. King, for example, was a trained activist who had worked with Ella Baker and studied Gandhi's methodologies. He and many members of the movement received much formal training through organizations like SNCC, the SCLC and others. White allies were trained through organizations in the late 60s like SDS. The message was never "be tough," but rather check your feelings, keep your cool and then debrief in private.

Churchill was a trained politician. He had been in the political trenches for years and was part of a massive government apparatus, not to mention a large international coalition. He projected messages of strength because there was no alternative certainly in a world war. It's actually unreasonable to suggest otherwise.

As for toughness being close to nature, I can agree with that, but the question is how close are we to nature? We are living mostly in the artificial world now. The fact that we are having this conversation via this platform is sort of the zenith of that, but even the fact that we are using language at all is perhaps the oldest indicator of it. To clarify: our civilization is predicated on a diminishment of the behaviors associated with interactions with nature. We call behaviors associated with earlier human times barbarism. As we've moved deeper into civilization and further from barbarism, language has evolved as have the channels we use to transmit it. While nature is still a major part of our experience on the planet, modeling our behavior on its expectations is considerably less important or relevant. Language is more nuanced and less simplistic. Our orientation is less toward immediate self preservation and more toward long term sustenance.

So my understanding of the arguments of the proponents of sensitivity is that they acknowledge this place we are at in the evolution of civilization and are asking if we can be more accommodating as it may have a net positive effect (which is, of course, debatable).

 

[Punch]

Correct me if I'm wrong @Leigh, but maybe he sees someone as a shitty person who needs an imaginary friend and the threat of fire and brimstone to be a good person. Instead of being a good person because we are all people.

Now you and me both know you need a red-hot poker threat to keep your ass away from the prostitutes.

 

[Leigh]

To get some one else to believe what you believe (i think that's the goal of most religions) it would behoove you to be able to answer any questions that they might throw your way in a convincing, assured, well thought out manner.

If you're the type of person that wishes to be a preacher of some kind and you want people to listen to you, you're going to need charisma. Seminary is not only a knowledge center. It's where they teach you how best to convince and convert others.

Crazy how much $€£¥¢ religion makes.

I don't understand how that is in response to what I posted. Again, learning ABOUT a religion is useful. Learning FROM it is less so. For example, learning about what Christians, Muslims, Hindus etc believe and their practises may be interesting. Being taught that homosexuality is a sin and you deserve to be tortured FOREVER for committing it is disgusting. There are plenty of more insidious, evil lessons within the Abrahamic religions. And aside from the morals, it's patently false that the Earth is a few thousand years old and Adam was made from clay.

 

[kneeblock]

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.

How is resistance buckling?

 

[Greenbean]

How do you know what his morals are? How do you know what mine are? If he's preaching from the bible, there is a good chance our morals do NOT line up.

well, tbh, a fellow mentioned earlier that you are not against what he is saying, rather against his source. So I may be misinformed. I just don't see how anything he says could be detrimental to ones growth, as you might have one believe. Ok, there's no god. Please tell me where he's wrong about everything else he mentions.

 

[Punch]

Allow me to question some of these assumptions.

Was it toughness that got the figures you cite through their situations or resilience in the face of literally overwhelming adversity? Resilience is a learned and practiced behavior. Toughness is a normative moralization. King, for example, was a trained activist who had worked with Ella Baker and studied Gandhi's methodologies. He and many members of the movement received much formal training through organizations like SNCC, the SCLC and others. White allies were trained through organizations in the late 60s like SDS. The message was never "be tough," but rather check your feelings, keep your cool and then debrief in private.

Churchill was a trained politician. He had been in the political trenches for years and was part of a massive government apparatus, not to mention a large international coalition. He projected messages of st

Damn homie!

I don't understand how that is in response to what I posted. Again, learning ABOUT a religion is useful. Learning FROM it is less so. For example, learning about what Christians, Muslims, Hindus etc believe and their practises may be interesting. Being taught that homosexuality is a sin and you deserve to be tortured FOREVER for committing it is disgusting. There are plenty of more insidious, evil lessons within the Abrahamic religions. And aside from the morals, it;s patently false that the Earth is a few thousand years old and Adam was made from clay.

I get it's not useful to you, all I'm saying is that it is useful to the people making fat cash off of it.

 

[Leigh]

well, tbh, a fellow mentioned earlier that you are not against what he is saying, rather against his source. So I may be misinformed. I just don't see how anything he says could be detrimental to ones growth, as you might have one believe. Ok, there's no god. Please tell me where he's wrong about everything else he mentions.

If he's teaching from the bible, then most of what he's teaching will be incorrect. The 613 commandments are full of all sorts of crap. Number 132, for instance, states, "The rapist must marry his victim if she is unwed".

These books are not sources of good morals. If you can read through them and pick and choose good from bad, why do you need the book in the first place?

 

[Leigh]

I get it's not useful to you, all I'm saying is that it is useful to the people making fat cash off of it.

Yes, to learn ABOUT the Bible, not to learn FROM it.

 

[Greenbean]

Correct me if I'm wrong @Leigh, but maybe he sees someone as a shitty person who needs an imaginary friend and the threat of fire and brimstone to be a good person. Instead of being a good person because we are all people.

Oh I get it, and I'm on board with you. I often question My wife (Catholic) if I'm going to the same hell as hitter for playing with myself.

What I don't get it how anyone can disagree with the teachings and positive message, because he gets it from a different book. I mean is he wrong in saying love thy neighbor? Or would it be more semantically pleasing if he said we should all be cordial to one another and treat people how we would want to be treated in return

 

[kneeblock]

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 can agree with most of this and I have no sympathies with either side of the argument tbh. My question is whether there is intrinsic value in toughness, as is being implied by some posts just as the critics charge that there is intrinsic value in sensitivity. I think your characterization of their complaint is a little reductive, but the way they're going about presenting it is undeniably alienating.

The protest methods are problematic, I agree, but that's assuming we are to take at face value what we're seeing in these videos.

I completely agree that bullying your way into not being triggered is a vast contradiction in terms.

 

[Punch]

If he's teaching from the bible, then most of what he's teaching will be incorrect. The 613 commandments are full of all sorts of crap. Number 132, for instance, states, "The rapist must marry his victim if she is unwed".

These books are not sources of good morals. If you can read through them and pick and choose good from bad, why do you need the book in the first place?

Uhm, I thought I remembered in the new testament Jesus basically saying fuck a lot of that old testament shit, and that's how the Schism started.

 

[Yossarian]

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.

Sir this post does require a micro-trigger alert thank you!

Allow me to question some of these assumptions.

Was it toughness that got the figures you cite through their situations or resilience in the face of literally overwhelming adversity? Resilience is a learned and practiced behavior. Toughness is a normative moralization. King, for example, was a trained activist who had worked with Ella Baker and studied Gandhi's methodologies. He and many members of the movement received much formal training through organizations like SNCC, the SCLC and others. White allies were trained through organizations in the late 60s like SDS. The message was never "be tough," but rather check your feelings, keep your cool and then debrief in private.

Churchill was a trained politician. He had been in the political trenches for years and was part of a massive government apparatus, not to mention a large international coalition. He projected messages of strength because there was no alternative certainly in a world war. It's actually unreasonable to suggest otherwise.

As for toughness being close to nature, I can agree with that, but the question is how close are we to nature? We are living mostly in the artificial world now. The fact that we are having this conversation via this platform is sort of the zenith of that, but even the fact that we are using language at all is perhaps the oldest indicator of it. To clarify: our civilization is predicated on a diminishment of the behaviors associated with interactions with nature. We call behaviors associated with earlier human times barbarism. As we've moved deeper into civilization and further from barbarism, language has evolved as have the channels we use to transmit it. While nature is still a major part of our experience on the planet, modeling our behavior on its expectations is considerably less important or relevant. Language is more nuanced and less simplistic. Our orientation is less toward immediate self preservation and more toward long term sustenance.

So my understanding of the arguments of the proponents of sensitivity is that they acknowledge this place we are at in the evolution of civilization and are asking if we can be more accommodating as it may have a net positive effect (which is, of course, debatable).

Toughness, resilience, take your pick. What it DIDN'T require was a safe space. That we do know.

I think Martin Luther King was the best example because he faced REAL adversity and was tough and resilient while handling that adversitiy whilst exercising sensitivity (non-violence policy, protest through civil disobediance, etc). That is not an assumption, that is what we've come to know about him. Hence my reasoning.

Being sensitive is perfectly fine in conjunction with the ability being tough and resilient. Being just sensitive, will lead towards an imbalance of judgement, which will lead to trigger words, safe-spaces, micro agressions, and all the other made-up adversity. They actually had to invent new words for these "conditions" so that finally they would stick and be accepted as a real dillema.