Oklahoma university president chastises "safe space" culture

[Lord Vutulaki]

Its amazing that "God's Word " in every major religion except Buddhism is almost entirely metaphoric.

That may be. However I haven't been painted into a corner. I know a lot of Catholics that don't take the bible literally and a lot that do. I choose to associate with the more reasonable ones. There are nuts out there of all shapes, sizes and religions and non religions. However this is beside the point. This guy in the op is spreading harmful ideologies to unsuspecting students? You'd have thought this guy was with Isis or something. He seems like a good guy promoting positivity and accountability.

That was directed at large organised religion and not you. My point is that if God knows everything and is all powerful like the religious of all faiths would have us believe why not provide us with clear instructions instead of metaphors? Why leave it up to human interpretation and then punish us for eternity when we mess up the guess work?

This and the fact that every fucking messiah hasnt bothered to grace us with their presence since sound recording has been available to us so just so fucking convenient. Its almost like religion is entirely man made and there to control us or something.

 

[BeardOfKnowledge]

I don't really have much of a position, not that it matters.

To give you some context, I worked for a few years in the domestic violence world. I learned a great deal about trauma and how it looks when it's triggered and also what it looks like to make small accommodations that don't really impact people all that much.

Also, speaking from a very personal place, I experienced sexual abuse as a very young child and it didn't impact me in any way whatsoever. It happened and as far as I know, it's never done anything to me. For whatever reason, I was able to exhibit resilience in the face of that experience though other significantly less commonly accepted as traumatic experiences I've endured have devastated me.

So the combination of my personal and professional life have taught me that trauma and how people respond to it is very relative. As a result, I'm open to providing reasonable accommodations to help people because why not? This is America, not Sudan. A more emotionally supportive world has to be better than this mean and generally uncaring one we have today. Saying "that's just how it is according to nature" just isn't an acknowledgment of the world we live in.

That said, I see the value in hardening up in recognition of the fact that we're not there yet and until we are, there are plenty of people who will prey on you. I mean, I live in the Bronx, not Beverly Hills.

So I'm sort of in the middle on the issue and can see both sides. I think when people use the term pussification they sound old. Or spiteful. But I also think when people make enemies out of others simply because they don't understand why you're sensitive to something, they're being unfair and hypocritical.

That's where I'm at.

This is a great post.

 

[Greenbean]

Its amazing that "God's Word " in every major religion except Buddhism is almost entirely metaphoric.


That was directed at large organised religion and not you. My point is that if God knows everything and is all powerful like the religious of all faiths would have us believe why not provide us with clear instructions instead of metaphors? Why leave it up to human interpretation and then punish us for eternity when we mess up the guess work?

This and the fact that every fucking messiah hasnt bothered to grace us with their presence since sound recording has been available to us so just so fucking convenient. Its almost like religion is entirely man made and there to control us or something.

I don't know. To add to that my meaningless anecdote. I tell my Catholic wife, when my house trained dog,that is smart as a whip, gets into the trash, and I know damn well he knows better, I tell her, if I were God, he'd spend the rest of eternity in hell. Lol.

I don't know and don't have the answers, but I do without a doubt LEAN towards there being a higher power and the bible being mostly metaphors. Take it for what it's worth.

 

[BeardOfKnowledge]

How do you know which to take literally and which are metaphors?

You deduce which are relevant to current society and discard those that aren't. The same way that scientific fact is always changing as new developments occur, what can be learned from a book a few thousands years old should also change.

I personally think people who won't eat pork for religious reasons is one of the most absurd things still accepted in today's society. If people deny science to a point that they think you'll be stricken down with illness for eating a pig, what are the chances they come around on some of the things that are less tangible.

 

[Leigh]

I don't and I hope I'm not coming across like I profess to. But if something makes sense, stop getting so hung up on the source. I posted a political fact on the other forum once and there were a few of the usual a who couldn't get past my source. They could not refute it, could find no literature supporting their position and make countless mentions of the source and not the material presented. It was legitimate, vetted material, but the source damn it! The source! Known for such bias spins!

So you have a completely different view on how a 'good person' should conduct themselves? Should they not strive to better themselves and help others?

A good person shouldn't advocate death by burning. That's what "The Source" is preaching

 

[Leigh]

You deduce which are relevant to current society and discard those that aren't. The same way that scientific fact is always changing as new developments occur, what can be learned from a book a few thousands years old should also change.

I personally think people who won't eat pork for religious reasons is one of the most absurd things still accepted in today's society. If people deny science to a point that they think you'll be stricken down with illness for eating a pig, what are the chances they come around on some of the things that are less tangible.

Deducing what is relevant today doesn't have a bearing on what was written in the Bible as a metaphor.

 

[Greenbean]

A good person shouldn't advocate death by burning. That's what "The Source" is preaching

I think we're on different pages. To me, let's say, I don't know just pulling this out of my ass because I mentioned my dog in an earlier post. But let's say I buy a book on how to house train my dog. And there are ways that work! It makes sense to me so I use the info. Everything is going great, the dog is getting trained, he can sit, shake, a bunch of other tricks and doesnt pee in the house.

Then I find out the author of that book is a cannibal. That's fucked up, I don't believe in that. It's sick. Does that mean I should disregard everything he has to say on every topic including things that I know work and make sense to me? I don't think so. That's the professor or whomever were referencing in the op (to me). You on the other hand would say that's not how you teach a dog to shake, the fuckin guy is a cannibal.

 

[ThatOneDude]

Deducing what is relevant today doesn't have a bearing on what was written in the Bible as a metaphor.

Isn't it interesting God only speaks "metaphorically" sometimes and literally other times but the style is always the same. No asterisks to let you know what's a metaphor and what's not.

 

[BeardOfKnowledge]

Deducing what is relevant today doesn't have a bearing on what was written in the Bible as a metaphor.

I apologize, I misunderstood your question. I don't take any of it literally. There were probably some dudes who wheeled around telling stories, and some of them had good teachings. Doesn't really go any further than that.

 

[Greenbean]

Isn't it interesting God only speaks "metaphorically" sometimes and literally other times but the style is always the same. No asterisks to let you know what's a metaphor and what's not.

While we're on the subject, what does it say literally in there? Since it doesn't define it with an asterisk, and given the fact I think it's interpretation is metaphorical, I don't know if I believe any part whatsoever is to be taken literally

 

[ThatOneDude]

I think we're on different pages. To me, let's say, I don't know just pulling this out of my ass because I mentioned my dog in an earlier post. But let's say I buy a book on how to house train my dog. And there are ways that work! It makes sense to me so I use the info. Everything is going great, the dog is getting trained, he can sit, shake, a bunch of other tricks and doesnt pee in the house.

Then I find out the author of that book is a cannibal. That's fucked up, I don't believe in that. It's sick. Does that mean I should disregard everything he has to say on every topic including things that I know work and make sense to me? I don't think so. That's the professor or whomever were referencing in the op (to me). You on the other hand would say that's not how you teach a dog to shake, the fuckin guy is a cannibal.

But the dog training book isn't about cannibalism so that's irrelevant. The Bible is about those bad things, along with the good things.

 

[Greenbean]

While we're on the subject, what does it say literally in there? Since it doesn't define it with an asterisk, and given the fact I think it's interpretation is metaphorical, I don't know if I believe any part whatsoever is to be taken literally

The holy trinity, immaculate conception, Jesus rose from the dead, God created earth in 7 days, none of that can be taken literally. What if the holy father was referring to your conscience and you should obey it. What if the word sin was replaced with regret? 7 deadly sins are 7 ways you will never forgive yourself.

I don't know I'm just spit balling here, but to me it makes more sense than immaculate conception in its literal interpretation.

 

[Greenbean]

The holy trinity, immaculate conception, Jesus rose from the dead, God created earth in 7 days, none of that can be taken literally. What if the holy father was referring to your conscience and you should obey it. What if the word sin was replaced with regret? 7 deadly sins are 7 ways you will never forgive yourself.

I don't know I'm just spit balling here, but to me it makes more sense than immaculate conception in its literal interpretation.

It says God created us in his image. What if we are the manifestation of our conscience in a different dimension and the outlining rules were defined by ourselves in that dimension, but hidden from us in the present. However still present in the spiritual sense. I may have just blown my own mind.

 

[Lord Vutulaki]

You deduce which are relevant to current society and discard those that aren't. The same way that scientific fact is always changing as new developments occur, what can be learned from a book a few thousands years old should also change.

I personally think people who won't eat pork for religious reasons is one of the most absurd things still accepted in today's society. If people deny science to a point that they think you'll be stricken down with illness for eating a pig, what are the chances they come around on some of the things that are less tangible.

I believe that in Islam they dont eat pork because it is seen as unclean as pigs were the sewer systems on the ancient world. Muslims don't eat it because they want to emulate the prophet mohamed. Not because it will strike them down with illness.

Did you know that Hindus don't eat pork either?

The reason for this is tragically hilarious.

 

[FeeO]

It seems to me that the modern notion of victimisation is a power position, and like any power position people vie to seize it. It is a jousting with correct terminology that goes on relentlessly on the Facebook pages of my academic friends. And then the fucking terms change! Safe spaces? It's a weird concept to me. Indefinable. If "safe space" means somewhere little kids are fed, protected, and their needs met? Where you don't have to be afraid, if you're gay, of getting your teeth punched out? Where we agree that gang rape isn't cool? Great.

But that's not how the term is being used in popular culture. Conceiving of safe space as somewhere no one ever hurts your feelings or disagrees with you or inadvertently triggers some painful memory is, ironically, the most "privileged" concept imaginable.

That said, I see the reverse, too, on the Facebook pages of dopey misogynistic racist assholes who sneer at any callout of their obvious assholery by claiming you're some pampered SJW if you have feelings of basic empathy for other people and their struggles, or a sense of injustice about anything related to gender or race.

So I'm with Alienator: not leaping at the chance to be assholes to one another under one or another validating banner seems all right to me. Team Sane, man. We all know it when we see it.

 

[member 1013]

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?

When we beat the Nazis you pussy!

J/K. I'm not even tough.

 

[Yossarian]

I didn't say sensitivity served society better. My question was whether toughness still was the best instrument for interacting with the world.

And what is accepted in psychology is not the point. I am explaining that these terms came from decades ago in psychology to rebut your own point that they were suddenly made up by modern activists.

You asked perhaps a rhetorical question, whether toughness served humankind better as "sensitivity" would in these times and I answered.

I provided some examples that were disregarded as assumptions. You asked this question in the context of defending this "pussification" so it isn't outlandish to assume that you meant toughness in contrast with sensitivity. Now you are bending things round a bit, and all of the sudden you have no stance, and you didn't mean to defend sensitivity at all. It is ok. We both know that compassion is the word we are looking for anyways.

Again, the question you asked was in response of our criticism of this politically correct "Pussification" which you came to defend. Other "instruments" weren't mentioned.

 

[1031]

Isn't it interesting God only speaks "metaphorically" sometimes and literally other times but the style is always the same. No asterisks to let you know what's a metaphor and what's not.

As Sweet Tea (great album btw) alluded to, the trouble with the word of God, no matter the religion, is that it has been exclusively recorded by people (more than likely only men). What are the chances that fallible creatures like ourselves aren't going to add a little personal interpretation over the millennia that have passed? If asterisks were needed then there would be a lot of f'n asterisks.

 

[Leigh]

I think we're on different pages. To me, let's say, I don't know just pulling this out of my ass because I mentioned my dog in an earlier post. But let's say I buy a book on how to house train my dog. And there are ways that work! It makes sense to me so I use the info. Everything is going great, the dog is getting trained, he can sit, shake, a bunch of other tricks and doesnt pee in the house.

Then I find out the author of that book is a cannibal. That's fucked up, I don't believe in that. It's sick. Does that mean I should disregard everything he has to say on every topic including things that I know work and make sense to me? I don't think so. That's the professor or whomever were referencing in the op (to me). You on the other hand would say that's not how you teach a dog to shake, the fuckin guy is a cannibal.

A closer example is that you buy the book and it has a completely incorrect explanation as to why dogs exhibit certain behaviours. It has some good ideas on how to train your dog but they are obvious and you already know them. However, the book also includes spiteful methods, like beating and torturing your dog.

So yes, I will discount everything in that book. I'll simply use a different source, like an actual dog trainer with a proven track record.

 

[kneeblock]

You asked perhaps a rhetorical question, whether toughness served humankind better as "sensitivity" would in these times and I answered.

I provided some examples that were disregarded as assumptions. You asked this question in the context of defending this "pussification" so it isn't outlandish to assume that you meant toughness in contrast with sensitivity. Now you are bending things round a bit, and all of the sudden you have no stance, and you didn't mean to defend sensitivity at all. It is ok. We both know that compassion is the word we are looking for anyways.

Again, the question you asked was in response of our criticism of this politically correct "Pussification" which you came to defend. Other "instruments" weren't mentioned.

No, I asked this:

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

I didn't disregard your examples. I simply intimated your perception of them as models of toughness was predicated on certain assumptions, namely that personal toughness and trained resilience in the context of a movement or political process are equivalent.

As I've said, my position is generally agnostic, but I think on MMA forums in particular, people are quick to exalt toughness over weakness (because, let's be real, we're into fighting, not curling), so I felt it was worth unpacking. The question stands: how does the stiff upper lip benefit us today? Thus far, all I've heard is how it's benefited us in extreme circumstances in times past. Like "get over yourself. You have no REAL problems." As if ex-slaves couldn't have made the same argument to activists in the Civil Rights movement. There has been an ongoing project to make a more compassionate society since at least the Progressive era. This modern agitation seems to be the latest frontier of that journey in a US that has at least ensured relative civil equanimity. Are it's proponents correct? In some ways yes, in some ways no, in my view, but to say their complaints are solely rooted in weakness or entitlement or ignorance is terribly reductive. It's get off my lawn ethics and that was the counterpoint I was attempting to make.

 

[1031]

No, I asked this:

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

I guess it's just realizing that not everything in the world is about you, at least not to the rest of us. Recognizing how good you have it and how you should be thankful instead of bitching and moaning about how offended you are is a good thing. If the merits of that aren't evident to you then I don't know what to tell you.

 

[Punch]

I'm going to have to go read that shit and get back to you.

@Leigh I read up on what I was remembering last night.

Matthew 12 - Jesus basically says eff the Sabbath rules
Matthew 15 - eff the unclean food rules
Matthew 22 - Jesus says the greatest commandment is to love God, and after that, one another. (stoning someone to death for being gay doesn't sound very loving)

At least that is what I got from it.

 

[Punch]

It seems to me that the modern notion of victimisation is a power position, and like any power position people vie to seize it. It is a jousting with correct terminology that goes on relentlessly on the Facebook pages of my academic friends. And then the fucking terms change! Safe spaces? It's a weird concept to me. Indefinable. If "safe space" means somewhere little kids are fed, protected, and their needs met? Where you don't have to be afraid, if you're gay, of getting your teeth punched out? Where we agree that gang rape isn't cool? Great.

But that's not how the term is being used in popular culture. Conceiving of safe space as somewhere no one ever hurts your feelings or disagrees with you or inadvertently triggers some painful memory is, ironically, the most "privileged" concept imaginable.

That said, I see the reverse, too, on the Facebook pages of dopey misogynistic racist assholes who sneer at any callout of their obvious assholery by claiming you're some pampered SJW if you have feelings of basic empathy for other people and their struggles, or a sense of injustice about anything related to gender or race.

So I'm with Alienator: not leaping at the chance to be assholes to one another under one or another validating banner seems all right to me. Team Sane, man. We all know it when we see it.

#TeamSane, i like it! I'm stealing that fee fi fo fum.

 

[Leigh]

@Leigh I read up on what I was remembering last night.

Matthew 12 - Jesus basically says eff the Sabbath rules
Matthew 15 - eff the unclean food rules
Matthew 22 - Jesus says the greatest commandment is to love God, and after that, one another. (stoning someone to death for being gay doesn't sound very loving)

At least that is what I got from it.

Those were metaphors and not meant to be taken seriously

 

[Greenbean]

@Leigh and @Alienator . You two have just outlined someone can read something and have a completely different interpretation. I googled the passages and what I have personally took from them is this.

Matthew 12: one should observe the Sabbath unless it is to do good, in Which case, work is permitted.

Matthew 15: it's more important what comes out of your mouth than what goes into it. For what comes out is from the heart, and it should be clean.

Jesus, in the two aforementioned verses is explaining how the PARABLES from the old testament were meant to be understood. It is a lesson he gives his disciples.

Regarding Matthew 22, I'm not sure how alienate arrives at that conclusion, unless I read the wrong verse or maybe he meant to write a different one.

However, I think leighs comment of the passages to be taken as metaphor, although I believe he meant to be facetious, isn't wrong. For it actually states he is explaining parables.

At least how I take it. Open to discussion. That's what we're all here for.