How have your politics changed over the years?

[Rageaholic]

Here's more bonkers pc stuff in colleges. It's gotten so bad that even Obama has commented on it.

[s_stabeler]

The way I see it, when evaluating if a word should be banned- and some words legitimately should- then you should look at what the meaning is. if the meaning is inherently offensive, then ban it. if, however, it can easily be used innocuously, then don't.

[Canarr]

I get banning words that are inherently offensive; although that can be a slippery slope, too, and should be done carefully. But a few of the examples listed in the link go way beyond that.

I mean, there's a case where students protest a professor correcting their grammar while grading their papers, for crying out loud. Apparently, that's a microaggression now, because it denies people the right to individually change the grammar of the English language, or something like that.

There seems to be a lot of entitlement going on in today's colleges.

[Gravekeeper]

Here's more bonkers pc stuff in colleges. It's gotten so bad that even Obama has commented on it.

This list is cherry picking context pretty badly and these aren't all really examples of PC. Given that some of these are a offended but vocal minorities whose ranting did not actually change anything in the story in question. It seems like the article is betting people won't actually follow the links and read the full stories. -.-

10. There was more to it than anxiety and it was a legitimate issue.

9. Grammar was the tip of the iceberg of the problems in that story. That uni has long standing problems with racism both in the faculty and the student body.

8. Okay that statue is creepy as shit and I don't know why you would install it outside a women's college. But again, the statue was not removed or censored as a result. In fact the main thing they asked was that it be moved into a museum area instead of just creepily hanging out by the road in the dark. Waiting. Watching.

7. This is legitimately stupid but its a student newspaper and its independent of the college with a staff of 17.

6. Serving Mexican food at an alien themed party probably isn't the most well thought out idea. Especially in California. I can see both sides of this one but its more of a faux pas than anything else.

5. Legitimately stupid. But was also not official policy and was created by students not faculty.

4. This is a legitimate example.

3. This one seems to have been ruined by internet trolls.

2. This is also a legitimate example.

1. The source of this story is basically a tabloid going for clickbait. The issue was more complicated than that. The second thing it brings up is an entirely unrelated matter that has nothing to do with PCness.

They didn't reject commemorating the holocaust, they rejected the specific proposal that was made and asked for it to be rewritten and presented again. Which it was and GUS went ahead with a holocaust memorial event. The original "news source" in question of course never updated its article to note that.

So yeah, kind of a weak list ( I assume they had some good examples but needed a top ten and had to fill it out ). Not all of the stories are even from the US.

Its also worth noting that the source of a lot of these issues is the students not the faculty. Which is what Obama is talking about.

[Rageaholic]

The statue in 8 was creepy, I'll give you that.

Even if a lot of these were student proposals, it's still rather stupid.

But at least we can agree that some of this pc stuff goes way too far. Everything can be considered a microaggression. 6 is a great example of this. The fact that they had to take a cultural competence course over something as innocent as food choices...

[TheHuckster]

10. There was more to it than anxiety and it was a legitimate issue.

Until the vocal minority starts making a beef about speakers and other audience members feeling anxious from jazz hands. Honestly, if clapping causes anxiety in college, I don't know how you're going to go through life after college.

7. This is legitimately stupid but its a student newspaper and its independent of the college with a staff of 17.

Yes, a student newspaper made up of staff, some of which will likely be in positions of authority, where they will continue to make up reasons to be offended and continue their fight to censor words they think are wrong to use. Just because they're students doesn't mean we should ignore the issue.

6. Serving Mexican food at an alien themed party probably isn't the most well thought out idea. Especially in California. I can see both sides of this one but its more of a faux pas than anything else.

A faux pas only because someone looked at it and interpreted it wrong. And requiring students to undergo "cultural acceptance training" (read: "walk on eggshells because the most innocent gesture might make you look like a racist to anyone who's looking for a reason to") is bizarre. The problem I have with this sort of thing is it's also un-PC to defend oneself if they retort the accusations of cultural insensitivity, because anyone who is offended, regardless of their reasoning or wrong interpretation, is automatically valid and the blame is solely on the one who made the faux pas.

5. Legitimately stupid. But was also not official policy and was created by students not faculty.

Again, so what if they are students or not? These students are going to grow up with the idea that anyone who dares call someone else "old" or "healthy" are bigots and offensive assholes. And they are already going to bully anyone who uses perfectly legitimate words to describe others because in their mind, the solution to insensitivity is to censor anything that might be construed as offensive.

I also love this little tidbit of contradiction:

“American” is offensive because using the term implies that the US is the only country in the continents of North and South America. ... the guide instructed its students to stop using the word “Caucasian” and instead use the more politically correct “European-American individuals.”

Its also worth noting that the source of a lot of these issues is the students not the faculty. Which is what Obama is talking about.

And I think Obama should address both parties on this matter. Student bodies can be just as influential and tyrannical as faculty. If I can't go around campus uttering the word "homosexual" without having a bunch of SJW-wannabes condemn me for it, then what difference does it make if that condemnation is coming from professors and deans or my fellow peers?

[Gravekeeper]

Until the vocal minority starts making a beef about speakers and other audience members feeling anxious from jazz hands. Honestly, if clapping causes anxiety in college, I don't know how you're going to go through life after college.

The people that mocked this story made a much much bigger deal out of it than the people actually involved in the story. No one actually involved had any issues.

The "Jazz hands" in question are actually sign language for applause for starters. It also wasn't just about "anxiety" but also disruptions to the discussion as this conference was a debate floor. You don't normally applaud during a debate.

So the truth was a tad more nuanced. It was the internet that trolled the shit out of it and made it a huge issue.

Just because they're students doesn't mean we should ignore the issue.

When someone invokes the specter of "PC run amok" its usually meant to refer to someone/thing in a position of authority pushing for / enforcing something absurd on everyone else. Often in response to a small minorities unreasonable request or complaint.

This is just a bunch of idjits at a student newspaper ( and likely just the desicion of one or two editors ). The newspaper is the vocal minority in this case and they have no power over anyone or thing else. Aside from acting like offended twats.

Hence students making a fuss isn't that great of an example of PCness being out of control. Its not even a valid example of the list's title as the list refers to banning things not being upset in your own little space over things. Many of these examples did not actually result in any sort of "bans" or censorship at all.

A faux pas only because someone looked at it and interpreted it wrong. And requiring students to undergo "cultural acceptance training" (read: "walk on eggshells because the most innocent gesture might make you look like a racist to anyone who's looking for a reason to") is bizarre.

The cultural acceptance training part is certainly stupid, yes. However, this college is actually part of UNC ( Which appears twice on this list ) and which seems to have some major problems with racism on campus. I'd be willing to bet the acceptance training was an overreaction in an attempt to combat that image.

If you remember this video, this idiot was from UNC.

And I think Obama should address both parties on this matter.

I think he kinda did?

If I can't go around campus uttering the word "homosexual" without having a bunch of SJW-wannabes condemn me for it, then what difference does it make if that condemnation is coming from professors and deans or my fellow peers?

A huge difference. Your peers are not in a position of authority and have the right to free speech. Just as you have to right to tell them they are being overly sensitive assholes. They can't force you to not say the word. Only complain that you are. And you can complain that they are telling you to not say the word. You're on equal footing.

A professor on the other hand has authority and power over you. You could be subject to academic reprisal if you don't comply.

[TheHuckster]

It also wasn't just about "anxiety" but also disruptions to the discussion as this conference was a debate floor. You don't normally applaud during a debate.

Waving your hands around silently is just as distracting. If they want a debate without interrupting gestures of applause, I get that. But first off, the article was talking about anxiety issues by the people involved, not as much about the disruptive effect clapping has, and second off, if you want to discourage applause, just tell everyone to sit still and shut up.

When someone invokes the specter of "PC run amok" its usually meant to refer to someone/thing in a position of authority pushing for / enforcing something absurd on everyone else. Often in response to a small minorities unreasonable request or complaint.

This is just a bunch of idjits at a student newspaper ( and likely just the desicion of one or two editors ). The newspaper is the vocal minority in this case and they have no power over anyone or thing else. Aside from acting like offended twats.

And people are just as entitled to call it out and tell them they're being stupid. The reason people call it "PC run amok" is because a school newspaper is often very influential on a college's culture and social climate. If the newspaper keeps telling students they ought to feel uncomfortable at everyday language that they construe as insensitive, it can have the same influence as an authority figure at the school who discourages the same use of language.

The cultural acceptance training part is certainly stupid, yes. However, this college is actually part of UNC ( Which appears twice on this list ) and which seems to have some major problems with racism on campus. I'd be willing to bet the acceptance training was an overreaction in an attempt to combat that image.

If you remember this video, this idiot was from UNC.

Yep, and obviously some racist twat on YouTube is representative of a student body of over 183,000 people.

I think he kinda did?

In the very post I was replying to, you said he was talking about the faculty, not the students.

A huge difference. Your peers are not in a position of authority and have the right to free speech. Just as you have to right to tell them they are being overly sensitive assholes. They can't force you to not say the word. Only complain that you are. And you can complain that they are telling you to not say the word. You're on equal footing.

A professor on the other hand has authority and power over you. You could be subject to academic reprisal if you don't comply.

And what happens when those overly sensitive assholes take their complaints to the faculty, who as you say, are trying to combat an image of being insensitive? And also, what happens when those students grow up to become authoritative assholes?

I'm all for free speech, and they are entitled to their opinion, but we shouldn't just dismiss the issue just because they are students. I just see the next phase of this movement becoming more and more bullying and shaming, where the students who are using terms like "healthy" and "crazy" are harassed for it.

[Gravekeeper]

Waving your hands around silently is just as distracting.

Its really not, no. -.-

But first off, the article was talking about anxiety issues by the people involved, not as much about the disruptive effect clapping has, and second off, if you want to discourage applause, just tell everyone to sit still and shut up.

From the article:

“Jazz hands are used throughout NUS in place of clapping as a way to show appreciation of someone’s point without interrupting or causing disturbance, as it can create anxiety,” said Nona Buckley-Irvine, general secretary at the London School of Economics Students’ Union.

It was the interwebs that latched onto the "omigawd don't clap PCness feminists" thing. The jazz hands thing is pretty standard practice for conferences of that nature over there.

And people are just as entitled to call it out and tell them they're being stupid. The reason people call it "PC run amok" is because a school newspaper is often very influential on a college's culture and social climate. If the newspaper keeps telling students they ought to feel uncomfortable at everyday language that they construe as insensitive, it can have the same influence as an authority figure at the school who discourages the same use of language.

Its a small independent news group of which the college in question has 16 of.

Yep, and obviously some racist twat on YouTube is representative of a student body of over 183,000 people.

Look, its no secret UNC has a racism problem. Even just following the links from the original article would have told you that. So maybe brush up on the subject before you try to be a smart ass.

In the very post I was replying to, you said he was talking about the faculty, not the students.

I said he was talking about the students. But he discussed the topic in general as well. Perhaps you should go read that too.

I'm all for free speech, and they are entitled to their opinion, but we shouldn't just dismiss the issue just because they are students. I just see the next phase of this movement becoming more and more bullying and shaming, where the students who are using terms like "healthy" and "crazy" are harassed for it.

I didn't dismiss the issue and what are you even talking about?

You're teetering dangerously close to "I'm offended you took offense" territory. What are you even proposing here? There's no "movement" from a tiny independent student run paper. Even if there was somehow a movement what exactly do you propose to do about it? You can't censor them, then you're exactly the same as them.

Ignoring them is basically the best option all things considered. Let them be as offended as they want in their own little worlds. They'll soon find out the real world doesn't work that way. I'm not even sure where you're trying to go with the bizarre argument that we have to do something about them just in case in the future they land a job in a position of authority.

[TheHuckster]

Its really not, no. -.-

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, then. When you're on a stage and suddenly your audience is waving hands in unison, some of which likely have shiny jewelry on them to make it more seen, it'd annoy the hell out of me. But, I guess that's just me.

But I'll concede it isn't some PC move that is oppressing people from expressing themselves.

Its a small independent news group of which the college in question has 16 of.

A group who has control over the school's media. Most schools don't have more than one newspaper. And it's not necessarily the point of view that is concerning to me, it's their mindset: That as a newspaper they feel it's "good" to censor people and leave out even the least uncomfortable parts out. They were refusing to even quote speakers at a conference who were using language they thought was inappropriate, even if that language was something as innocuous as "crazy".

I didn't dismiss the issue and what are you even talking about?

I'm sorry if I'm misunderstanding, but it sounds like you're saying that, because these are mere students, we shouldn't make a beef about the possibility of having a trend of whiny babies who take offense at non-offensive terms to they point they'll even refuse to acknowledge someone's words.

You're teetering dangerously close to "I'm offended you took offense" territory.

Ah, no. If someone mentions I shouldn't use the term "crazy" I'll just roll my eyes and move on. If I'm interviewed at a newspaper, even a school newspaper, and they refuse to quote me solely on the grounds I said something they didn't feel was fit for print because they feared offending a few overly-sensitive babies, then, yes, I find that concerning. Not because they find the terms offensive in and of themselves, but because they feel what's best for journalistic integrity is to sugarcoat reality.

What are you even proposing here? There's no "movement" from a tiny independent student run paper. Even if there was somehow a movement what exactly do you propose to do about it? You can't censor them, then you're exactly the same as them.

No, I can't censor them, nor should anyone. But, that doesn't mean I shouldn't be concerned about their viewpoints in general. They can, and are entitled, to be offended. They are not entitled to make everyone's lives hard because they think everyone should think like they do. I feel the same way about other student groups like Young Republicans and, well, pretty much the entire student body at Liberty University. Even if they might not be in positions of authority in the future, they are voters.

I should also point out that there have been instances where students' voices has greatly impacted schools' events. Speakers, debates, and conferences have been canceled due to a minority yet vocal student group making enough noise due to their supposed controversy that the faculty caves in and gives them what they want. So, just because they aren't in a position of authority right now doesn't mean they can't have a negative impact on student life and a free flow of ideas which schools should nurture.

[Rageaholic]

No, I can't censor them, nor should anyone. But, that doesn't mean I shouldn't be concerned about their viewpoints in general. They can, and are entitled, to be offended. They are not entitled to make everyone's lives hard because they think everyone should think like they do. I feel the same way about other student groups like Young Republicans and, well, pretty much the entire student body at Liberty University. Even if they might not be in positions of authority in the future, they are voters.

I should also point out that there have been instances where students' voices has greatly impacted schools' events. Speakers, debates, and conferences have been canceled due to a minority yet vocal student group making enough noise due to their supposed controversy that the faculty caves in and gives them what they want. So, just because they aren't in a position of authority right now doesn't mean they can't have a negative impact on student life and a free flow of ideas which schools should nurture.

This is why Jerry Seinfeld and a few other comedians will no longer perform at colleges. They have to walk on egg shells to avoid saying the wrong word and triggering a shitstorm.

[Canarr]

9. Grammar was the tip of the iceberg of the problems in that story. That uni has long standing problems with racism both in the faculty and the student body.

They also trimmed the quote from the crying student to make her sound more whiny than the full quote actually is, so they're not above doing some misrepresenting to increase the outrage factor. Still, complaining about having your grammar corrected in papers you submit is ridiculous, full stop. There is no cultural right for any kind of minority to modify a commonly used language, and there shouldn't be, either.

8. Okay that statue is creepy as shit and I don't know why you would install it outside a women's college. But again, the statue was not removed or censored as a result. In fact the main thing they asked was that it be moved into a museum area instead of just creepily hanging out by the road in the dark. Waiting. Watching.

Yes; any protest against that thing is justified. Hell, smashing it to pieces and spreading the rubble across three different bodies of water would be justified.

So yeah, kind of a weak list ( I assume they had some good examples but needed a top ten and had to fill it out ). Not all of the stories are even from the US.

Its also worth noting that the source of a lot of these issues is the students not the faculty. Which is what Obama is talking about.

I'm with TheHuckster; I actually find it more concerning that students are the ones coming up with demands/restrictions/bannings, that if it were faculty. Because college should be the time where adolescents grow into adults, where they make new experiences, encounter the adult world - decisions, responsibilities, consequences, but also mistakes, problems, obstacles, opportunities. Instead, you have young people - students - working to ensure that nobody is offended, inconvenienced, "triggered", by blocking unpleasant experiences, uncomfortable ideas, divergent views.

Somehow, I don't see this as a good thing.

Here's an interesting article on the subject:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...n-mind/399356/

[Gravekeeper]

I'm with TheHuckster; I actually find it more concerning that students are the ones coming up with demands/restrictions/bannings, that if it were faculty.

Generation Me. >.>

The students can thrash around all they want. The problem is when someone takes the bullshit seriously. Some students whining in their own little independent newspaper isn't a problem. That's their space, they can whine if they want to. If they're swaying campus policy or disrupting conferences, etc, that's definitely a problem.

The faculty, etc, should simply say "Grow up" and move on with things. Bowing to the fringe never turns out well. No matter what said fringe is ( be it PC amok, religious, etc ). Coddly students on campus isn't going to do anything except make the world kick them in the nuts 4-6 years down the road instead of right now when they need it. Its just delaying the inevitable.

The world at large isn't going to put up with their shit to be honest >.>

Also, I will link my favourite article on the subject. Which gets more to the root of the problem, imo.

[the_std]

This piece on Popehat by the inestimable Ken White tackles the same problem as the current discussion. This is a subject he often writes about, so if you're fervent about the issue, it's worth going back and reading through his stuff.

[s_stabeler]

It's not quite generation me, actually. It's more a case, I think, that in the years before the internet, things like this weren't really reported on. ( for a couple of reasons: 1. difficulty in spreading the news- before the rise of the internet, you more-or-less had to get the attention of a newspaper to get something like this be more than a local issue. 2. with there being less truly massive scandals about these days ( by massive scandal, i mean something along the lines of the expenses scandal in the UK- something where there is a clearcut abuse of power.) the criteria for a scandal- as in, headline news,several articles, basically, making a massive deal out of it- seems to be somewhat lower ( sometimes, it seems like when a politician does anything even slightly wrong, it's turned into a massive scandal. While politicians do need to be held accountable, there IS a limit to what should be made a massive deal about.)