• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

So Lets Talk About the next Woke College to Fall.... Syracuse

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

dainthomas

Lifer
Dec 7, 2004
13,776
1,948
126
So any chance you guys can read the points and offer a viable point of argument? Because based on your response time it's very clear you haven't read anything.

Or are we just doing more virtue signal grand-standing?
How do these declines compare to the general decline resulting from the ongoing student loan nightmare (that Trump is doing shit about)?
 

pmv

Diamond Member
May 30, 2008
7,601
2,760
136
I’m talking about treating human beings as human beings - what, pray God, are you going on about?

some aren't worth treating as human, especially neo-nazis and the like.

they treat others as sub-human so why not return the favor.

Don't think I agree with that. Not exactly as it's stated, anyway. (Though it occurs to me it's the logic of an awful lot of the movies I've watched on Netflix recently - ruthless righteous vengeance seems to be the salt, fat and sugar of story telling)

But I don't really know what the OP means by 'treating human beings as human beings'. It sounds virtuous, but does it actually mean anything, in practical terms? Historically I don't see any clear standard or consensus on how one treats human beings.

In particular I see no basis for a rule that says you must be polite to all human beings, and must always listen to them or must ignore the fact they pose a threat or have disproportionate power, or any other part of the wider context. What's the rule that Ajay is appealing to here?
 
Last edited:

Ajay

Diamond Member
Jan 8, 2001
8,151
3,097
136
Don't think I agree with that. Not exactly as it's stated, anyway. (Though it occurs to me it's the logic of an awful lot of the movies I've watched on Netflix recently - ruthless righteous vengeance seems to be the salt, fat and sugar of story telling)

But I don't really know what the OP means by 'treating human beings as human beings'. It sounds virtuous, but does it actually mean anything, in practical terms? Historically I don't see any clear standard or consensus on how one treats human beings.

In particular I see no basis for a rule that says you must be polite to all human beings, and must always listen to them or must ignore the fact they pose a threat or have disproportionate power, or any other part of the wider context. What's the rule that Ajay is appealing to here?
I'm not the OP, someonesmind is. My comments have been taken out of their original context. Apparently, it is pointless to correct that misunderstanding.
 

Ajay

Diamond Member
Jan 8, 2001
8,151
3,097
136
lotsa of antisemitism still alive in Europe, whole sections of soccer stadiums chanting racists shit at black players, there's never been any love lost for the gypsies either. Some governments put up a good front trying to combat it and others encourage it.
I was aware of the anti-semitism (a plague never far from them). Not of the racism towards blacks. What the hell is wrong with the west. So much for the benefits of liberal democracies, in this regard. Has this behavior been on the uptick in the recent 10-15 years?
 

pmv

Diamond Member
May 30, 2008
7,601
2,760
136
I'm not the OP, someonesmind is. My comments have been taken out of their original context. Apparently, it is pointless to correct that misunderstanding.
Well, by 'OP' I meant 'the poster who quothe the first quote in the two quotes that I quoted'. So should have said PWQTFQIT2QTIQ, but OP was quicker to type, though unfortunately open to misinterpretation.

I followed the exchange of comments back to the original context and I didn't understand what you were trying to say, i.e. what the practical concquences would be of 'treating people as human beings'. It just seems a vaguely benevolent-sounding point that I'm not convinced has much real meaning.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
12,288
6,936
136
What was disingenuous about asking, what have these college kids actually done to exert control over your speech?
He doesn't seem to have answered beyond calling your question "disingenuous." But I'll tell you why I think the question is disingenuous in this context. First, because it's a loaded question and an implicit straw man. I don't think he ever argued that these students could affect his personal speech but the way you frame the question implies that he did.

Most importantly, however, is the way the question seeks to narrowly define the concern he expresses. It's as if you're suggesting that if he can't articulate how college students being hostile toward the expression of certain opinions affects his personal speech, there is no reason to be concerned about it. It's the equivalent of suggesting that there is no reason for someone to be concerned about gay rights if they themselves aren't gay because after all, it doesn't affect them personally. That is not a fair standard for defining what we as individuals can find problematic in society.

I'm not really trying to defend Starbuck here as I disagree with many things he says and some things he says in this thread, most significantly for his tendency to blame liberals for practically all bad behavior on the part of conservatives.

But much of the discussion in this thread isn't entirely constructive. Eskimospy made the outstanding point earlier that fringe voices are often amplified in order to support broad generalizations about opposing tribes. I would add that both sides do this, but the right does it most often and has practically elevated it to a fine art.

The core question here is entirely factual in nature. It is, to what extent has extreme leftism on college campuses resulted in students embracing such illiberal notions as feeling safe is more important than feeling free to speak one's mind. What we have in terms of factual evidence is something in between a few anecdotes where a kooky student says something idiotic and real population wide data showing a pervasive problem. It's a fairly sizable clutch of anecdotal evidence, enough to warrant further inquiry but not enough to be definitive. But that, nonetheless, is the real issue here, not whether a given poster's personal speech is being directly affected by this.
 

Ajay

Diamond Member
Jan 8, 2001
8,151
3,097
136
Well, by 'OP' I meant 'the poster who quothe the first quote in the two quotes that I quoted'. So should have said PWQTFQIT2QTIQ, but OP was quicker to type, though unfortunately open to misinterpretation.

I followed the exchange of comments back to the original context and I didn't understand what you were trying to say, i.e. what the practical concquences would be of 'treating people as human beings'. It just seems a vaguely benevolent-sounding point that I'm not convinced has much real meaning.
I posted off topic and screwed the thread up for a bit. Someday, I’ll learn my lesson. Sorry to waste your time.
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,624
1,872
126
What was disingenuous about asking, what have these college kids actually done to exert control over your speech?

I guess some people just get triggered when I ask them questions they don't like the answer to.
You called me out to answer a question, which I answered and you dismissed, which means you never truly wanted an answer to the question. You’re welcome to ask questions.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY