FEDS investigating hate speech against white male
Take that you.....you...fly white guy!
I thought this relevent considering the sticky that was at the top of the forum concerning remarks about Texas/Texans, etc.
I see it in this forum, but in society in general as well. It is pretty much okay to use speech on white males that would be considered hate speech by pretty much any other group.
If I had a nickle for every time someone did an imitation of a slack-jawed bubba-wannabe here in the forums, I wouldn't have to work.
But imagine if I posted a thread, and in the disagreement took on the persona of what I considered to be an ignorant black person. I'm fairly sure I would get called on it. If I made a comment and then reflected a negative, ignorant view from a single mom, airheaded woman, etc. I'm sure someone would say something about it.
In short there are those who hold the view that hate and the tactics associated with hate speech are okay as long as they are being used on those perceived to be in power or have the power.
Who has that power perceived or otherwise aside, are folks justified in using hate speech to tear down individuals or perhaps power structures they disagree with?
My view is no. Anyone who engages in it contributes to that which they claim to hate. They are promoting the same ignorance and hate they claim to fight.
What is your view?
Nick
Quote:
She referred to the student by name, calling him "a white, heterosexual, christian male" who "can feel entitled to make violent, heterosexist comments and not feel marked or threatened or vulnerable."
Crystall apologized to the class Monday in another e-mail, saying her earlier message "crossed a line and inhibited free discussion."
She referred to the student by name, calling him "a white, heterosexual, christian male" who "can feel entitled to make violent, heterosexist comments and not feel marked or threatened or vulnerable."
Crystall apologized to the class Monday in another e-mail, saying her earlier message "crossed a line and inhibited free discussion."
I thought this relevent considering the sticky that was at the top of the forum concerning remarks about Texas/Texans, etc.
I see it in this forum, but in society in general as well. It is pretty much okay to use speech on white males that would be considered hate speech by pretty much any other group.
If I had a nickle for every time someone did an imitation of a slack-jawed bubba-wannabe here in the forums, I wouldn't have to work.
But imagine if I posted a thread, and in the disagreement took on the persona of what I considered to be an ignorant black person. I'm fairly sure I would get called on it. If I made a comment and then reflected a negative, ignorant view from a single mom, airheaded woman, etc. I'm sure someone would say something about it.
In short there are those who hold the view that hate and the tactics associated with hate speech are okay as long as they are being used on those perceived to be in power or have the power.
Who has that power perceived or otherwise aside, are folks justified in using hate speech to tear down individuals or perhaps power structures they disagree with?
My view is no. Anyone who engages in it contributes to that which they claim to hate. They are promoting the same ignorance and hate they claim to fight.
What is your view?
Nick
Comments
2. But, it does look as if the professor overreacted to what was said, given her "inhibit free discussion" concession.
3. Regardless of what the student actually said, sending a mass email to the class sounds like harassment to me.
Midwinter, what do you think?
Originally posted by trumptman
I thought this relevent considering the sticky that was at the top of the forum concerning remarks about Texas/Texans, etc.
I see it in this forum, but in society in general as well. It is pretty much okay to use speech on white males that would be considered hate speech by pretty much any other group.
If I had a nickle for every time someone did an imitation of a slack-jawed bubba-wannabe here in the forums, I wouldn't have to work.
But imagine if I posted a thread, and in the disagreement took on the persona of what I considered to be an ignorant black person. I'm fairly sure I would get called on it.
Attacking everyone who is from Texas isn't the same as attacking everyone who is black. Making fun of a culture isn't the same as attacking a skin color.
Originally posted by bunge
Attacking everyone who is from Texas isn't the same as attacking everyone who is black. Making fun of a culture isn't the same as attacking a skin color.
You are welcome to clarify under what instances you think it is okay to be hateful to other people.
Nick
It is getting to the point that in the future it will be the same, however, that is not now nor will it be in the near future . . . our culture is still very geared towards the 'leading man' type of white male heterosexuals . . .
To deny that is willfull myopia . . . .
sure the teacher probably reacted in a knee-jerk fashion, and yes, some people do "reverse-discrimination", that I'll grant, but that doesn't negate the reality fo the situation: by-and-large a white hetero male does not, -and if they have a chip on their shoulder like Trumptman does- can not know what it is like to have an entire culture be slanted away from them
Discrimination against white-male-heteros is wrong and smarts . . . . . but only smarts some compared to having a long history of continuous opprobrium heaped on you. and therefore built into the very material of your self-identity in its relation to the mainstream culture. . . . But that kind of recognition takes introspection and honesty, and the main poster in this thread has repeatedly shown that he wants only to prove that white men are now some kind of victim, he wants to claim the victim status that he says all those other-people 'wear on their sleave'
If I had a nickle for every time someone did an imitation of a slack-jawed bubba-wannabe here in the forums, I wouldn't have to work.
I don't know what you're talking about!
Just remember class: because white men have traditionally run this country in the past(government, business, etc.), it is now OK to verbally abuse those men in today's society, who are also white. After all, part of making sure that other races and sexes are better-represented in our leadership positions, is demeaning the white guys who might've otherwise held those positions.
Take the low road I say!
Calling some guy an "insensitive, sexist, white pig" is not only not forbidden, it is encouraged. So get on out there and SLANDER someone in your community, people! It's less important that's it actually true, than it is that you put the white man in his place and make him pay for the sins of past white men!
Thankfully, I have more of an olive complexion and thus am spared from being labeled as a "true whitey", "cracker", "saltine" or other accurate description of white guys everywhere.
Considering that somewhere around 1/4 of every student body in America is currently enrolled in this class, and considering that the vast majority of these classes are taught by relatively new-to-teaching graduate instructors or adjuncts, it shouldn't be surprising that ONE PERSON had a bad day and blew her top at some comment by a student.
It happens sometimes.
Originally posted by trumptman
You are welcome to clarify under what instances you think it is okay to be hateful to other people.
Nick
If they have one of if not the worst education systems in the country. If they pollute worse than any other state. Both directly and indirectly degrade my quality of life.
Now, I've answered your question even though it was simply a way to avoid addressing my original statement.
Why don't you address that now?
g
Originally posted by pfflam
Describing the FACT that a heterosexual white male is less likely to be the butt of either racism, sexism or gender descrimination is not the same thing as being the butt of racism, sexism or gender discrimination.
It is getting to the point that in the future it will be the same, however, that is not now nor will it be in the near future . . . our culture is still very geared towards the 'leading man' type of white male heterosexuals . . .
To deny that is willfull myopia . . . .
sure the teacher probably reacted in a knee-jerk fashion, and yes, some people do "reverse-discrimination", that I'll grant, but that doesn't negate the reality fo the situation: by-and-large a white hetero male does not, -and if they have a chip on their shoulder like Trumptman does- can not know what it is like to have an entire culture be slanted away from them
Discrimination against white-male-heteros is wrong and smarts . . . . . but only smarts some compared to having a long history of continuous opprobrium heaped on you. and therefore built into the very material of your self-identity in its relation to the mainstream culture. . . . But that kind of recognition takes introspection and honesty, and the main poster in this thread has repeatedly shown that he wants only to prove that white men are now some kind of victim, he wants to claim the victim status that he says all those other-people 'wear on their sleave'
It must be nice to just attack me since then you don't have to think. Thanks for not only an example of ad-hominem, but literally a textbook example. Now everyone can easily understand the fallacy you pretend is reasoning.
Ad hominem
Nick
Originally posted by bunge
If they have one of if not the worst education systems in the country. If they pollute worse than any other state. Both directly and indirectly degrade my quality of life.
Now, I've answered your question even though it was simply a way to avoid addressing my original statement.
Why don't you address that now?
You mean this?
Attacking everyone who is from Texas isn't the same as attacking everyone who is black. Making fun of a culture isn't the same as attacking a skin color.
First of all, I haven't heard anyone who describes the stereotype they are portraying proclaim it to be anyone but a white male. So yes it is attacking someone's skin color. Are you telling me that when they speak of pick up trucks, gun racks, and fake a slow drawl, you honestly think they are referring to someone else in terms of skin color? Most of the time they will even pretend they are speaking for the person, like a white male legislator, preacher, or some other such figure.
To me it is precisely about skin color.
Nick
Originally posted by Scott
I'm so glad my tax dollars are paying for this
If it's any consolation, your tax dollars aren't paying much at all for it. I wouldn't be surprised if this instructor were making less than $12,000 a year (if a TA) and less than $15,000 if an adjunct and less than $30,000 if a visiting faculty member.
The amount of money you personally paid for this person's salary (since we're talking about one person who apparently made a bad decision in the classroom and then apologized at the next class meeting) is most certainly less than I paid for Ken Starr's investigation into Clinton.
Despite her very public and lamentable mistake, you should be surprised that your tax dollars are providing college students with the quality of instruction at this level that they are. It's really quite miraculous.
Originally posted by bunge
Attacking everyone who is from Texas isn't the same as attacking everyone who is black. Making fun of a culture isn't the same as attacking a skin color.
How about attacking "white, heterosexual, Christian males?"
Of course, we are all the same and identical, so generalizing is fine.
Originally posted by bunge
If they have one of if not the worst education systems in the country. If they pollute worse than any other state. Both directly and indirectly degrade my quality of life.
People like you degrade my quality of life by lobbying for socialist, neo-leftist policy. I like all of the civil liberties I'm entitled to, and I don't enjoy being beset with what I consider to be foolish taxation. So as you can see, this isn't a matter of right and wrong. Unless you can somehow provide evidence that you are worth more than I am to this country, you have no basis to make an argument for welfare.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
Unless you can somehow provide evidence that you are worth more than I am to this country, you have no basis to make an argument for welfare.
The Veil of Ignorance, John Rawls.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
People like you degrade my quality of life by lobbying for socialist, neo-leftist policy. I like all of the civil liberties I'm entitled to, and I don't enjoy being beset with what I consider to be foolish taxation. So as you can see, this isn't a matter of right and wrong. Unless you can somehow provide evidence that you are worth more than I am to this country, you have no basis to make an argument for welfare.
I'm pretty sure you mean socialist, neo-leftist policy degrades your quality of life, not the act of bunge lobbying for it. You can avoid being hostile to Bunge and also say what you really mean that way- which is the best of both worlds. Anyway, you seem to be wading into the debate between socialism and unrestricted free-market capitalism- which really isn't the point of the thread.
Originally posted by trumptman
To me it is precisely about skin color.
You're absolutely incorrect. If it was precisely about skin color, then it wouldn't have any geographical connection.
Originally posted by midwinter
If it's any consolation, your tax dollars aren't paying much at all for it. I wouldn't be surprised if this instructor were making less than $12,000 a year (if a TA) and less than $15,000 if an adjunct and less than $30,000 if a visiting faculty member.
The amount of money you personally paid for this person's salary (since we're talking about one person who apparently made a bad decision in the classroom and then apologized at the next class meeting) is most certainly less than I paid for Ken Starr's investigation into Clinton.
Despite her very public and lamentable mistake, you should be surprised that your tax dollars are providing college students with the quality of instruction at this level that they are. It's really quite miraculous.
PAYING FOR THE FEDERAL INVESTIGATION!
Originally posted by Scott
PAYING FOR THE FEDERAL INVESTIGATION!
Um, ok. If that's what you meant, then I agree 100%