U of Chicago sends letter to incoming students

[drunkenwildmage]

That is alarming to say the least. Though I see they typically get an equipment allotment to purchase said firearm. But I see that taking your service weapon home with you is optional and in a few jurisdictions not permitted. I also see that we have Bush 2.0 to thank for this.

I can see why it would be permitted. Police officers, in general, are not normally dealing with the most stable or lucid members of society, so having protection while off the clock isn't a bad idea. It's not like these Criminals are going to go ' oh, officer bob, it's your day off? Sorry, I'll guess I will have to shoot you tomorrow when you are working" They don't give a rats ass if Officer Bob is working, or not. Wouldn't surprise me that the jurisdictions that don't permit it, , that a good number of officers are still packing something.

[Gravekeeper]

I can see why it would be permitted. Police officers, in general, are not normally dealing with the most stable or lucid members of society, so having protection while off the clock isn't a bad idea. It's not like these Criminals are going to go ' oh, officer bob, it's your day off? Sorry, I'll guess I will have to shoot you tomorrow when you are working" They don't give a rats ass if Officer Bob is working, or not. Wouldn't surprise me that the jurisdictions that don't permit it, , that a good number of officers are still packing something.

Except being a police officer doesn't even rank in the top ten most dangerous jobs in the US. Very few officers are killed ( as in by a suspect ) in the line of duty per year in the US. Cops are far far more likely to kill themselves than they are to be killed in the line of duty.

[mjr]

"I know you are but what am I?" is becoming your go to rebuttal now is it? -.-

Well, when you seem to present a strawman...I'm just following your lead.

Its purpose was to reduce the English language to a state so simplistic that "incorrect" thought was difficult to have or express in the first place. Mainly by stripping the language of meaning and nuance. Censorship in service to an authoritarian state.

Now, please tell me how someone telling you what a word means to them is an attempt by the state to control your thoughts? Keeping in mind that the point behind Newspeak was to strip language of as much meaning as possible. Not add more meaning.

You're not quite correct. The purpose of Newspeak was to eliminate "unorthodox" thought, and only allow "orthodox" thought (i.e. what The Party deemed acceptable).

Newspeak was also supposed to precisely define certain words. It's even explained that "free", in it's specific Newspeak term, meant a "lack of", as in "this dog is free of fleas". Not, "I am a free man".

There's even this, from chapter 5 of the book:

Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed, will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten.

There doesn't have to be an "authoritarian" state -- yet. But there are "social groups" and "social justice warriors" that have a similar function (or believe they do) -- and you know this.

Pretending like this is any different, let alone that them composing lists of what hurts their feelings will bring about the end of freedom as we know it, is completely absurd.

Is it, really? Or do I need to quote you from earlier: "Freedom of speech is only good if I'm doing it."

But I'll leave you with this, also from the book:

In a way, the world-view of the Party imposed itself most successfully on people incapable of understanding it.

[drunkenwildmage]

Except being a police officer doesn't even rank in the top ten most dangerous jobs in the US. Very few officers are killed ( as in by a suspect ) in the line of duty per year in the US. Cops are far far more likely to kill themselves than they are to be killed in the line of duty.

How's that relevant?! Various Jobs are dangerous for various reasons. Chances are, as a logger, a tree you cut down while working is going to be less likely to threaten you and your family's life after you left work for the day, then some criminal that you had arrested in the past. If you can prove that vengeful trees are killing more off duty loggers then vengeful criminals are killing off duty cops, then you have a valid argument, but otherwise it shouldn't matter where the ranking falls.

[Gravekeeper]

You're not quite correct. The purpose of Newspeak was to eliminate "unorthodox" thought, and only allow "orthodox" thought (i.e. what The Party deemed acceptable).

....and that is different from what I said how exactly?

Newspeak was also supposed to precisely define certain words. It's even explained that "free", in it's specific Newspeak term, meant a "lack of", as in "this dog is free of fleas". Not, "I am a free man".

...yes, it precisely defines certain words by working to eliminate meaning and nuance. The idea is to simplify language to the point you can't even arrive at let alone express a subversive thought.

You're just explaining what I said with different wording.

"The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of IngSoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. Its vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and often very subtle expression to every meaning that a Party member could properly wish to express, while excluding all other meaning and also the possibility of arriving at them by indirect methods. This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meaning whatever."

- George Orwell

-.-

There doesn't have to be an "authoritarian" state -- yet. But there are "social groups" and "social justice warriors" that have a similar function (or believe they do) -- and you know this.

Oh please. With a side helping of "are you fucking serious?" given your overt political allegiance. A political side which does engage in message control and language manipulation to serve its version of the truth.

But no, its some sensitive college students with a list of words that hurt their feelings which are the precursor to thought crime.

How's that relevant?! Various Jobs are dangerous for various reasons. Chances are, as a logger, a tree you cut down while working is going to be less likely to threaten you and your family's life after you left work for the day, then some criminal that you had arrested in the past. If you can prove that vengeful trees are killing more off duty loggers then vengeful criminals are killing off duty cops, then you have a valid argument, but otherwise it shouldn't matter where the ranking falls.

Its relevant because your entire dream scenario is based on the supposed level of danger inherent in being a cop. A danger which I guess doesn't threaten cops in other countries nor threatened cops in the US prior to 2004 when the bill that gave them the right to conceal carry anywhere for any reason off duty was signed into law.

You're far more likely to be stalked BY a cop than you are as a cop.

[drunkenwildmage]

Its relevant because your entire dream scenario is based on the supposed level of danger inherent in being a cop. A danger which I guess doesn't threaten cops in other countries nor threatened cops in the US prior to 2004 when the bill that gave them the right to conceal carry anywhere for any reason off duty was signed into law.

You're far more likely to be stalked BY a cop than you are as a cop.

Cops are daily dealing with the criminal element of America, with the real possibility that the next person they are dealing may be their last, so I would hazard to say that the level of danger inherent to the profession is pretty real. I will give you that the scenario I laid out is highly unlikely, put it's still possible. My point is that, if an officer feels like his/her life is in danger when they are not working, then they should have the ability to defend it. Good, Bad or indifferent they would also be held accountable for any actions associated with it.

[Kheldarson]

Cops are daily dealing with the criminal element of America, with the real possibility that the next person they are dealing may be their last, so I would hazard to say that the level of danger inherent to the profession is pretty real. I will give you that the scenario I laid out is highly unlikely, put it's still possible. My point is that, if an officer feels like his/her life is in danger when they are not working, then they should have the ability to defend it. Good, Bad or indifferent they would also be held accountable for any actions associated with it.

Except GK was citing statistics that say being a cop isn't even in the top 10 deadliest jobs. Period.

https://fee.org/articles/by-the-numb...t-to-be-a-cop/

So saying there's a greater inherent danger to the job is false. They are less at risk of dying for their job than truck drivers.

So saying that they have a job inherent right to a firearm at all times to help with a low risk over the feeling of safety of the community they are temporarily residing in (a safety that they're supposed to uphold, yeah?) is a poor argument.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Except GK was citing statistics that say being a cop isn't even in the top 10 deadliest jobs. Period.

https://fee.org/articles/by-the-numb...t-to-be-a-cop/

So saying there's a greater inherent danger to the job is false. They are less at risk of dying for their job than truck drivers.

So saying that they have a job inherent right to a firearm at all times to help with a low risk over the feeling of safety of the community they are temporarily residing in (a safety that they're supposed to uphold, yeah?) is a poor argument.

Not sure who runs rt.com, but, according to them in 2015 1,200 people were killed by police (https://www.rt.com/usa/327740-killed-by-us-police/).
Whereas, there are ~88,000 deaths a year from alcohol (almost 12% of that is DUI related) https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-he...and-statistics

So, the idea that the college students have of gun-toting officers killing them for no reason is a moot point. Also, with the recent officer-involved shootings, officers are under a LOT more scrutiny and will not want to make the evening news, so, they probably will probably be more inclined to exhaust all other avenues first.

[s_stabeler]

I think nobody is arguing that the college students are at particularly high risk of actually being shot. However, the college students have a very real perception they would be at increased risk. The issue isn't the actual risk, but a question of if it's fair to force the college students inot a situation where they have a legitimate- albeit mistaken- belief they are not safe in what is, in fact, their home. This cuts to the heart of why I find restrictive safe spaces far more acceptable in someone's private residence ( Yes, I know Halls aren't particularly private. That's actually irrelevant) since there's a general acceptance- the Castle Doctrine is based on similar principles- that you have the right to live undisturbed in your own residence.

It's actually arguable that by forcing the students- even if only for a few days- to live in an environment where they are in legitimate fear of their lives iis harassment of the students. ( the reason why it is harassment is that the university has established the principle that student concerns about their safety can be ignored. To use a more likely scenario, say a stalker and their victim both attend the same Uni. The Uni assigns them to rooms close enough to each other that the victim and stalker would have a high chance of meeting in communal areas. The victim would have a legitimate complaint against the uni even if the stalker never does anything untoward, since the very presence of the stalker is cause for fear.

[Kheldarson]

Piece on why safe spaces are important:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2...nter_open.html

[mjr]

And counterexamples:

And by the way, before you attack me, why not try to explain where the authors are wrong:

http://townhall.com/columnists/johnh...etter-n2080535

And this:

Student Government At Public University Wants To Kick Out Member Over Pro-Trump Chalking

And one more, for good measure:

THE TYRANNY OF SAFE SPACES

[Kheldarson]

And by the way, before you attack me, why not try to explain where the authors are wrong

Or maybe you can take your own advice and start by explaining why my article is wrong, especially given that yours don't actually counter or address the issues listed in mine and instead just blindly attack the younger generation?

[mjr]

Or maybe you can take your own advice and start by explaining why my article is wrong, especially given that yours don't actually counter or address the issues listed in mine and instead just blindly attack the younger generation?

I'll play. Will you? But first, note I never attacked you. Just provided counter examples. And can you honestly say that you've never blindly attacked anyone, or any group?

The author in the Slate article (probably a left-slant to begin with, but that's beside the point as I'm trying to be fair here), I believe, is conflating different things, and trying to equate them.

There's a vast difference between what that article discusses (which, it could be argued, is a legitimate reason for a "safe" area for like people to meet), and getting butthurt and feeling "unsafe" because someone writes "Trump For President" in chalk on a sidewalk, and saying you need a safe space because of it. Or someone looks at them with "stink eye" and they consider it a "microaggression".

But who, then, is allowed safe spaces and who isn't? Can (and should, more importantly) ANY group who wants one have a "safe space"?

And aside from all of that, I think it's been mentioned earlier, the "real world" doesn't really have a lot of "safe spaces", does it? I mean, CS.com is evidence of that. Aside from people's own individual residences (depending on where they live, obviously) a lot of other places in the "real world" don't have (and aren't) safe spaces. That's just a fact of life.

[Kheldarson]

I'll play. Will you? But first, note I never attacked you. Just provided counter examples. And can you honestly say that you've never blindly attacked anyone, or any group?

Did I say you attacked me? Sounds like the man doth protest too much.

Also the point isn't saying that you're perfect or that you won't make mistakes. The point is to be civil and understanding and to not deliberately go out of your way to be an ass.

Some people are better than it than others. i'll be happy to meet a Captain Mal level.


Further, my statement was about your articles, not you yourself. None of your articles actually address the concerns given in mine and employ ad hominen attacks as well as strawman arguments. They also seem to be operating under a false idea that times and populations and values don't change.

There's a vast difference between what that article discusses (which, it could be argued, is a legitimate reason for a "safe" area for like people to meet), and getting butthurt and feeling "unsafe" because someone writes "Trump For President" in chalk on a sidewalk, and saying you need a safe space because of it.

Is there? When you plaster the name of a man who displays and argues for racist and xenophobic policies and tendencies, and actively courts and/or abides such elements in the population, all around a campus, particularly in areas where minorities hang out, you don't see that as trying to, at least, intimidate the population? As in your second example, showing support for a wall when you're part of a group that's supposed to be bringing more diversity to campus by supporting students' rights isn't an attack?

But who, then, is allowed safe spaces and who isn't? Can (and should, more importantly) ANY group who wants one have a "safe space"?

Everybody is allowed safe spaces. And we set them up and maintain them ourselves all the time. You don't think the Young Republicans aren't allowed to meet?

The reall issue, and the one that most of the alt-right doesn't want to understand, is that public spaces aren't free from consequences anymore. You (generic) want to go to your Westboro church or your KKK meeting or Trump rally and talk about how bad things are and how it's all been ruined by the blacks and LGBT and Hispanics? Go ahead. That's your safe space. But the public isn't wanting to hear it anymore.

[mjr]

The point is to be civil and understanding and to not deliberately go out of your way to be an ass.

And that, I believe, is a two-way street, is it not?

They also seem to be operating under a false idea that times and populations and values don't change.

Oh, sure, times, values, etc. change. But not necessarily for the better. Aside from that, some of these people (in general, not singling out any one group) are going to be in for a rude awakening when they graduate and get in the "real world".

Is there? When you plaster the name of a man who displays and argues for racist and xenophobic policies and tendencies

I had no idea "border security" and "enforcing the laws" were racist constructs.

Some people might be offended with "Hillary for President" being written in chalk somewhere. If people on college campuses have been traumatized by it, I'd like to see an article about that. I'd feel the same about them.

Do you have any actual in context quotes regarding what you're talking about? And your explanation as to why they're xenophobic and/or racist? I'd love to hear them.

I'm not voting for the guy anyway (nor Hillary), I just want to see what you come up with.

As in your second example, showing support for a wall when you're part of a group that's supposed to be bringing more diversity to campus by supporting students' rights isn't an attack?

Again, that depends on whether or not you consider "border security" to be a racist construct.

Everybody is allowed safe spaces. And we set them up and maintain them ourselves all the time. You don't think the Young Republicans aren't allowed to meet?

True. I'm sure they are. But I think you're starting to stretch the definition of "safe space" a little.

The reall issue, and the one that most of the alt-right doesn't want to understand, is that public spaces aren't free from consequences anymore.

Public spaces haven't been free from consequences for several years now.

You (generic) want to go to your Westboro church or your KKK meeting or Trump rally and talk about how bad things are and how it's all been ruined by the blacks and LGBT and Hispanics? Go ahead. That's your safe space. But the public isn't wanting to hear it anymore.

Is that the same as saying that bigoted, hateful, evil, greedy, <whatever> Republicans have ruined the country?