U-MD gone the way of Mizzou

[agent00f]

So basically students and society shoulder a $50k+ degree and four years of minimal/non-employment just so coffee house managers save a little time in hiring. Sounds sensible. Would invest in our kids' futures again.

For every liberal arts student serving coffee there's another or two who used what they learned to get a job in tech (even if it's not programming) or any number of other paying industries, or end up as manager at the coffeehouse. That's why the chart linked above looks the way it does. Of course it confirms the ego of STEM degree holders to believe they somehow hold a monopoly on earning smarts, even if they have a leg up in personal investment. Most jobs outside specialties like the ivory tower are simply not difficult enough to exclude those without the best background.

 

[realibrad]

Make the distinction between a threat and other kinds of speech.

Also, I didn't bring up mental illness, I brought up non-physical violence and the affects it has. Your inability to understand the distinction is no surprise to me.

You are a dumb wise and beautiful woman and I hope you get hit by a car. That is an example of hateful speech but is not reasonably a threat.

You are a dumb wise and beautiful woman and I'm going to kill you. That would reasonably be a threat in most contexts. Not here as obviously it's an example. Pretty simple.

PTSD as far as I know is mental illness. I do believe you are the one that brought it up.

 

[desura]

Looks to me like all those "student led movements" have some of those "very small number of admins and faculty" helping them craft their demands. Those people don't like to be on camera, but they always seem to be there.

In any rate, I haven't been in any non-engineering courses (I'm including physics and higher math here) since maybe '81. But being in engineering, it never applied to me. A circuit (or a girder or an air handler or a chemical reaction) does not give a fuck if one is triggered, or not being self-actualized, or suffering microaggressions, or suffering anxiety without one's comfort animal. It is what it is, and beautifully, it's exactly the same for everyone.

I've definitely thought this.

These kids are impressionable and too young to really have a grasp on the issues they are talking about. What has happened over the past few years is an explosion in University administrators. And these older adults tend to have a well-developed ideology of hierarchies of oppression. Conveniently, this also keeps them in a nice middle class job doing important stuff where they get to feel righteous and wage Crusades while again, leading a comfortable salaried life.

 

[Starbuck1975]

I've definitely thought this.

These kids are impressionable and too young to really have a grasp on the issues they are talking about. What has happened over the past few years is an explosion in University administrators. And these older adults tend to have a well-developed ideology of hierarchies of oppression. Conveniently, this also keeps them in a nice middle class job doing important stuff where they get to feel righteous and wage Crusades while again, leading a comfortable salaried life.

You mean like Melissa "I need some muscle" Click?

 

[bshole]

I think there is a lot still going on in philosophy and very relevant, very interesting questions which really can't be touched with science...not now, anyway. Conscience is a weird thing and while I've no doubt we are going to make it super boring at some point by distilling it down to a cascade of predictable and controllable biochemical processes, we are far from that point.

Until then, philosophy has always been a pretty awesome, creative, and very illuminating way to address those complex questions. In nearly 3k years of practice, philosophy is still very relevant. Hell, it's how we got science!

Thing is, I'm a bit of a dummy and never did very well in my one or two philosophy classes.

Religion is interesting, too, but too much of it is basically controlled and overrun by sociopaths that think religion is truth, rather than "mystical" philosophy.

I concur that philosophy gave birth to the scientific method. The laws of logic which I believe were first postulated by philosophers spawned the field of mathematics which is a necessary foundation for science.

The problem with logic is when it is used to prove things in the absence of evidence. A great example of this is the presuppositional argument for God which attempts to prove God's existence without reference to evidence and by use only of logic. Using logic alone, one can prove that unicorns live on the moon. Logic alone can tell us nothing real about the universe and can allow us to believe delusions on no physical evidence.

I guess I can't see the useful application of philosophy in the world we inhabit. There may be a few jobs in academia, literature, etc,,, but the number of jobs in that field capable of feeding and clothing the graduate are reserved for a very few of the most eloquent and intelligent.

Now with all that being said, I did a little google search and found this:

Careers in Science
No other degree in the humanities produces as many scientists as philosophy. That may be because some students major in philosophy and in science as well. But it also helps that the department teaches philosophy of biology, philosophy of physics, and cognitive scientists.

For the testimony of Mark Lupisella, an astrobiologist at the NASA, Goddard Space Flight Center, about how his study of philosophy at Maryland pointed him in the right direction, click here.

For the testimony of Doug Powell, a statistician at the National Cancer Institute, about how his philosophy degree of Maryland has helped him, click here.

Now I don't know what to think....

http://www.philosophy.umd.edu/undergraduate/careers

 

[desura]

You mean like Melissa "I need some muscle" Click?

Yes, like her. Safe spaces, trigger warnings, those are pretty technical terms you know. The average teenager is typing away on Snapchat.

 

[jackstar7]

You are a dumb wise and beautiful woman and I hope you get hit by a car. That is an example of hateful speech but is not reasonably a threat.

You are a dumb wise and beautiful woman and I'm going to kill you. That would reasonably be a threat in most contexts. Not here as obviously it's an example. Pretty simple.

PTSD as far as I know is mental illness. I do believe you are the one that brought it up.

I brought it up as an example of non-physical effects of violence. You distinctly ignored the child raised in a home of mental abuse example that was also brought up. Is that not someone who has suffered violence? How about a spouse who endures mental abuse from their partner?

The question to you: does non-physical violence exist? You seem to keep dancing away from it.

Also, I meant to make the distinction in legal terms, since this is all about legislating speech (or irrational fears thereof).

 

[realibrad]

I brought it up as an example of non-physical effects of violence.

Good, so you are no confused anymore?

Also, I meant to make the distinction in legal terms, since this is all about legislating speech (or irrational fears thereof).

Not sure what you are talking about here. I explained that legally you are bound by how you can respond to speech. If its not a threat of immediate danger, you can only legally respond in a set number of ways.

If the argument is that people are unpredictable and you should keep that in mind, then I agree. I make the same argument for women and rape. It does not absolve the attacker because legally and morally.

So, calling someone the N word is likely racist and not nice, it is perfectly legal. A person does not get to do anything legally other than to express their dislike through legal means such as speech. I personally would expect to get popped in the face if I started going up to black people calling them the N word, but it does not make it legal.

Now, in that last case, any reasonable judge would look at doing such act as provoking and take that into consideration, but it does not absolve anyone of responsibility in most cases.

So, even if you believe that speech is a form of violence, it does not rise to the level of violence that would require physical self defense. The only defense can be to either walk away, or respond with more speech.

 

[jackstar7]

Good, so you are no confused anymore?

Not sure what you are talking about here. I explained that legally you are bound by how you can respond to speech. If its not a threat of immediate danger, you can only legally respond in a set number of ways.

If the argument is that people are unpredictable and you should keep that in mind, then I agree. I make the same argument for women and rape. It does not absolve the attacker because legally and morally.

So, calling someone the N word is likely racist and not nice, it is perfectly legal. A person does not get to do anything legally other than to express their dislike through legal means such as speech. I personally would expect to get popped in the face if I started going up to black people calling them the N word, but it does not make it legal.

Now, in that last case, any reasonable judge would look at doing such act as provoking and take that into consideration, but it does not absolve anyone of responsibility in most cases.

So, even if you believe that speech is a form of violence, it does not rise to the level of violence that would require physical self defense. The only defense can be to either walk away, or respond with more speech.

Ah, it was my mistake for engaging with you.

Be well.

 

[realibrad]

Ah, it was my mistake for engaging with you.

Be well.

You don't seem to have an explanation of how I am wrong. I imagine that it must be frustrating.

 

[agent00f]

You don't seem to have an explanation of how I am wrong. I imagine that it must be frustrating.

Strongman: "It would be terrible if you got hit by a car". Expect all the folks with the intellect of realibrad apologize for this the next 8 years.

 

[jackstar7]

You don't seem to have an explanation of how I am wrong. I imagine that it must be frustrating.

Wrong about what you want to talk about or wrong about what I was talking about? Because I pointed that out repeatedly and you just avoid it.

Play your rhetorical-masturbatory games with someone else, buddy. I am not being sucked down another cybrsage hole.

 

[realibrad]

Wrong about what you want to talk about or wrong about what I was talking about? Because I pointed that out repeatedly and you just avoid it.

Play your rhetorical-masturbatory games with someone else, buddy. I am not being sucked down another cybrsage hole.

Perhaps you are getting different conversations mixed up? The following is where we started.

You have a faulty premise. Free speech is already limited for all. But also, I don't actually need a policy against the language. What I prefer is recognition that bigoted language in a hateful context is violence, and if it is met with violence, let's just remember that freedom of speech isn't freedom from someone reacting to it, it's just freedom from the state's actions against it.

As I said before, I expect that people react but to say that only the state in prohibited in its reaction is incorrect. People are also limited in how they can react. Even if you accept that speech is a type of violence, you have to see it as a gradient. That is why, as I said twice before, you cannot shoot someone in the head for saying something racist to you. If you assume that the racist speech is a type of violence, it does not rise to the level of allowing a person to kill in defense.

You want to protect bigoted speech? Are you openly throwing around n-words? I'll guess no and also suppose you just think people should be free to say what they want. News flash: they effectively are. But the moment it leaves their brain/mouth and enters someone's ears they ought to be prepared for a response. You're watching the end of the era of people just taking it and keeping the higher ground. The low road won the presidency, so clearly the high's value showing its limits...

This is where I argued that people can react, but only with more speech. If someone is throwing around the n word, and you are upset, you cannot defend your self physically.

Perhaps you are mixing our conversation with ones you had with others?

 

[agent00f]

Perhaps you are getting different conversations mixed up? The following is where we started.

As I said before, I expect that people react but to say that only the state in prohibited in its reaction is incorrect. People are also limited in how they can react. Even if you accept that speech is a type of violence, you have to see it as a gradient. That is why, as I said twice before, you cannot shoot someone in the head for saying something racist to you. If you assume that the racist speech is a type of violence, it does not rise to the level of allowing a person to kill in defense.

This is where I argued that people can react, but only with more speech. If someone is throwing around the n word, and you are upset, you cannot defend your self physically.

Perhaps you are mixing our conversation with ones you had with others?

"Separate but equal and such ain't physical violence either so can't see why these folks get so uppity".

 

[realibrad]

"Separate but equal and such ain't physical violence either so can't see why these folks get so uppity".

Does it bother you that I have not responded to you?

Separate but equal was often enforced by physical violence. The laws themselves were protested most effectively by non violence. That said, I already stated that people can react, but legally and morally they are limited in their reactions. If in response to separate but equal minorities went around disemboweling children, it would not be legal or moral.

Are you saying that the brutality of Jim Crow allowed for all reactions and absolved those of their reactions?

 

[agent00f]

Does it bother you that I have not responded to you?

Separate but equal was often enforced by physical violence.

It was a mindset and ideology which kept these democratically enacted laws in place.

The laws themselves were protested most effectively by non violence. That said, I already stated that people can react, but legally and morally they are limited in their reactions. If in response to separate but equal minorities went around disemboweling children, it would not be legal or moral.

Are you saying that the brutality of Jim Crow allowed for all reactions and absolved those of their reactions?

I'm saying that the jim crow crowd reacted much as the conservatives of today.

 

[realibrad]

It was a mindset and ideology which kept these democratically enacted laws in place.

Yes, a bigoted and racist mindset.

I'm saying that the jim crow crowd reacted much as the conservatives of today.

That does not make the situation the same. For example Hitler ate food, and so did MLK. Hitler is not even in the same universe as MLK, yet they both reacted the same way to hunger.

Also, the people upset by Jim Crow did far worse than the Conservatives of today. You do not see Conservatives of today forming lynch mobs for homosexuals like they did during Jim Crow. In both cases, people were trying to limit the rights of others, but modern day Conservatives are actually doing much better than before.

 

[agent00f]

Yes, a bigoted and racist mindset.

That does not make the situation the same. For example Hitler ate food, and so did MLK. Hitler is not even in the same universe as MLK, yet they both reacted the same way to hunger.

Also, the people upset by Jim Crow did far worse than the Conservatives of today. You do not see Conservatives of today forming lynch mobs for homosexuals like they did during Jim Crow. In both cases, people were trying to limit the rights of others, but modern day Conservatives are actually doing much better than before.

Actual lynchings were rather uncommon, but certainly not the mindset which didn't mind the idea because it kept the uppity in line. Worth noting political correctness was to prevent those ideas from being openly expressed in polite company, and the people sick of that just elected a president.

 

[realibrad]

Actual lynchings were rather uncommon, but certainly not the mindset which didn't mind the idea because it kept the uppity in line. Worth noting political correctness was to prevent those ideas from being openly expressed in polite company, and the people sick of that just elected a president.

So what is your point? Originally you said that Conservatives were reacting the same way, but that is literally untrue when you look at facts.

You cannot morally justify all reactions to Jim Crow.
MLKs non violent reaction was far more effective then violence.

So?

 

[jackstar7]

Perhaps you are getting different conversations mixed up? The following is where we started.



As I said before, I expect that people react but to say that only the state in prohibited in its reaction is incorrect. People are also limited in how they can react. Even if you accept that speech is a type of violence, you have to see it as a gradient. That is why, as I said twice before, you cannot shoot someone in the head for saying something racist to you. If you assume that the racist speech is a type of violence, it does not rise to the level of allowing a person to kill in defense.



This is where I argued that people can react, but only with more speech. If someone is throwing around the n word, and you are upset, you cannot defend your self physically.

Perhaps you are mixing our conversation with ones you had with others?

Yeah, I'm obviously at fault and wrong here.

Good day.

/disengage

 

[realibrad]

Yeah, I'm obviously at fault and wrong here.

Good day.

/disengage

Good for you to admit that speech should be kept free and people should not hit others when they dont like what someone has said.

 

[agent00f]

So what is your point? Originally you said that Conservatives were reacting the same way, but that is literally untrue when you look at facts.

You cannot morally justify all reactions to Jim Crow.
MLKs non violent reaction was far more effective then violence.

So?

The point is that conservatives were reacting the same way by focusing on the uppity to validate their mindset, which is evident enough from just this forum that's hardly the worst of it; though it's easy to understand why you can't quite bear to implicate your kin.

Also rather revealing you should bring up MLK on this unrelated issue as your sort are wont to do.

 

[realibrad]

The point is that conservatives were reacting the same way by focusing on the uppity to validate their mindset, which is evident enough from just this forum that's hardly the worst of it; though it's easy to understand why you can't quite bear to implicate your kin.

Also rather revealing you should bring up MLK on this unrelated issue as your sort are wont to do.

So even though the Conservatives of the Jim Crow era were on a totally different level, they are still the same in your mind?

 

[agent00f]

So even though the Conservatives of the Jim Crow era were on a totally different level, they are still the same in your mind?

As mentioned, it's rather clear they hate having to hold back these days.

 

[realibrad]

As mentioned, it's rather clear they hate having to hold back these days.

So the desire is there, but they are forced to be better? So you are admitting they are acting better?