OT: Mizzou black football players taking a stand

[junglehusky]

I took the time to actually read the study. You didn't. The study confirmed my beliefs, but in no way shape or form do I think it PROVES it.

Isn't it just as telling that you are endorsing a study that you haven't even taken the time to read? Do you believe that all published studies are flawless and beyond reproach?

Maybe I'll have time this weekend to look at some papers (bye week). But really, why should I even bother when you're going to dismiss whatever points I have a priori?

 

[TasteofUConn]

Maybe I'll have time this weekend to look at some papers (bye week). But really, why should I even bother when you're going to dismiss whatever points I have a priori?

Maybe it will make you a more informed person.

 

[junglehusky]

I desperately appreciate your thoughts here. Frankly, however, the recent trends in college intolerance of diverse expression, and the generally shrill, irrational, bludgeoning approach taken by the loyal opposition in this thread, are frightening.
Those who wish to suppress open discussion of race in this country are bordering on religious zealotry in their efforts to stifle discussion.
The great irony here is that they are hurting the people they are trying to help, notwithstanding any short term gains they may attain.

There is some validity to the point about zealotry and stifling discussion. I'll concede that. Interesting that it comes from both ends of the spectrum. But at the same time there are also people on campuses and elsewhere who are diligently trying to facilitate an open discussion and protect free speech. I think the president of Yale has been doing okay on this.

 

[Carl Spackler]

I don't agree. We see a world we don't know everything about ... but we collectively don't believe a skin color means that the person is inferior. We listen to the studies and have a thoughtful concern of what we hear. Stating categorically that Blacks are where they are due to their own choices ... or ANOTHER extreme example - Native Americans (raised on reservations) are in distressed situations due to their own choices ... just doesn't square with the last 25 years of history nor particularly the history since 1865.

That's a fair response, and TasteofUConn, IMSHO, took a very strong position for sure, but you're inflated his words with your own now.

In no way, will I ever suggest that fighting racism and racial bigotry of all shapes and forms is something that can be minimized or marginalized. The problem is that it can be incredibly abused and overblown, and it become a tool that is misused greatly by all kinds of people. I think that is the point that many seem not to get about Missouri. What the black students did there, is an incredibly powerful and important thing. I believe based ont eh words that were published prior - as well as the words that came out after - that it was misguided and has potentially accomplished nothing except a greater divide.

FWIW: I went ballistic on another board around here around Benghazi. It's personal to me - there was a guy killed there, that believe it or not, remotely - but still - connected. That guy was instrumental in fighting something that I've fought for years - and that is bigotry and racism among a highly specialized branch of this country's armed services - and the way things have gone with contracting - it's spread to places, where the accountability factors are even more difficult to get to. I have seen things done to other human beings because of nothing more than intolerance that keep me up at night, believe me.

As for the matter at hand. UMissour and now incorporating the elites at Yale - nothing I've read here ahs been written to suggest hat any of it is wrong or unwarranted, just misguided.

I find it difficult to understand why this point can be lost so easily. It's almost as if because of the importance of the events, that the fact that it could be so misguided and have negative effect as a consequence - doesn't matter?

 

[SubbaBub]

You're scary here, and your assessment of the law is incorrect.

It's actually dead on. Race can no longer be used as a qualifier for admission. Schools are still allowed to promote a diverse campus as an educational benefit.

You can say we need representatives from multiple ethnicities, income levels, states of residency, gender and other demographics.

What you can't say is we only have so many spots for white people and those are all filled up.

 

[upstater]

You're scary here, and your assessment of the law is incorrect.

Since your post lacked anything of substance, affirmative action admission policies were eroded through Baacke initially (quotas), but then also Gratz (points systems, non-quotas), and finally Schuette.

Most people are aware of this. In fact, at both private and public institutions, we know that both scholarships and admissions processes in schools now include a host of other criteria in order to pass the new legal tests. This is why schools award for instance McNair Fellowships to poor white students.

http://mcnairscholars.com/about/

The program used to be there for underrepresented minority groups, but this is no longer the case run because of the Supreme Court decisions.

This is a picture of the recent recipients at a Cal. State school of (former) affirmative action scholarships:

 

[junglehusky]

absolutely.

What you'll find as you get older and more experienced, is that the motivations behind the brutality have a wide spectrum.

The motivations may come out of competitiveness, but the editors can sort through this stuff. Are we still talking about reviewer anonymity?

 

[TasteofUConn]

. . . stifling discussion. I'll concede that. Interesting that it comes from both ends of the spectrum.

I fear both the left and the right when it comes to suppression of speech/discussion. Not sure which I fear more. The right I fear because their suppression tends toward homogeneity of culture (a culture that I do not share). The left I fear because their suppression tends toward oppressive statism and the blacklisting of intellectual dissent.

 

[TasteofUConn]

. . .

If you believe that colleges aren't permitted to use minority race status as a factor in admissions, then you don't understand the law.

 

[tzznandrew]

I fear both the left and the right when it comes to suppression of speech/discussion. Not sure which I fear more. The right I fear because their suppression tends toward homogeneity of culture (a culture that I do not share). The left I fear because their suppression tends toward oppressive statism and the blacklisting of intellectual dissent.

We may disagree on a number of things--hell, vociferously in the previous pages--but this we can agree on.

 

[SubbaBub]

I desperately appreciate your thoughts here. Frankly, however, the recent trends in college intolerance of diverse expression, and the generally shrill, irrational, bludgeoning approach taken by the loyal opposition in this thread, are frightening.
Those who wish to suppress open discussion of race in this country are bordering on religious zealotry in their efforts to stifle discussion.
The great irony here is that they are hurting the people they are trying to help, notwithstanding any short term gains they may attain.

Diversity of thought does not apply to insulting or denigrating other people for their appearance or background.

The religious argument is a terrible one. No one restricts a person from their faith as an individual. The objection is to the imposition of that dogma upon others in the public square.

 

[Carl Spackler]

The motivations may come out of competitiveness, but the editors can sort through this stuff. Are we still talking about reviewer anonymity?

I was wrong to question you the way I did before in that post about you being serious. Even I can get emotional and react poorly to things at times. We most likely have very different life experiences and backgrounds. the concept of an anonymous peer review, in my view - is kind of an oxymoron. It's is true that in academic literature review processes - that you probably won't have an idea who has actually reviewed something. I do hold my position though, that the more you are involved in things, that involve review procedures of performance/writing - whatever it may be - the less the concept of "anonymous' has meaning.

 

[TasteofUConn]

The religious argument is a terrible one. No one restricts a person from their faith as an individual.

I saw an older woman professor screaming at a student with a camera to "leave" a public place on campus where he was taking pictures. She called for "muscle" to remove him.
I saw a young Yale student screaming in the face of an administrator and yelling f-this and f-that about a dispute over the intricacies of costume choice on halloween.

We probably define "religion" differently. These people are frightening zealots.

Think what you will of me, but you'll never see me screaming in the face of another human being.

 

[TasteofUConn]

Gotta get actual work done.
It's been informative.

On a side note, race relations in the U.S. are fascinating to me for many reasons, but they won't affect the future of this country substantially, no matter how they play out.

Oil on the other hand . . . world supply glut just hit critical. Something is going to give. It's like a fault line with built up energy just waiting to slip. And when it does - massive and rapid change that will make all of our 1st world issues seem silly.


See you around campus.

 

[SubbaBub]

I fear both the left and the right when it comes to suppression of speech/discussion. Not sure which I fear more. The right I fear because their suppression tends toward homogeneity of culture (a culture that I do not share). The left I fear because their suppression tends toward oppressive statism and the blacklisting of intellectual dissent.

Dissent is the crucible of enlightened thought. There is no other way. It's the stubborn in the face of all reason who are the villains. It's not right or left. It is the side with reason and compassion on their side that is correct, premise by premise and question by question.

To devolve it into a political assignment of my side vs your side is to derail the entire process. Which, incidentally, is the objective of the various party media machines. So, my advice is to see the advertisements for what they are and investigate what's going on in the back.

 

[junglehusky]

I fear both the left and the right when it comes to suppression of speech/discussion. Not sure which I fear more. The right I fear because their suppression tends toward homogeneity of culture (a culture that I do not share). The left I fear because their suppression tends toward oppressive statism and the blacklisting of intellectual dissent.

This is reasonable, although I don't know how avoiding "homogeneity of culture" from the right jibes with the line of thought that "thug culture" and nothing else is responsible for economic disparities.

There was a recent article about "coddling" the minds of college students that raised good points. Have to balance protecting actual victims of sexual assault, etc, the "safe spaces" thing, but hopefully students can also grow so that, they can eventually have the ability in Spackler's words, to better "deal" with it, or at least have a dialouge about it. I have no idea how you do that, but they have to try. Off campus, I wonder if polarized media on the right and left are falling into the safe space category so that it's not just students whose minds are being coddled.

 

[SubbaBub]

I saw an older woman professor screaming at a student with a camera to "leave" a public place on campus where he was taking pictures. She called for "muscle" to remove him.
I saw a young Yale student screaming in the face of an administrator and yelling f-this and f-that about a dispute over the intricacies of costume choice on halloween.

We probably define "religion" differently. These people are frightening zealots.

Think what you will of me, but you'll never see me screaming in the face of another human being.

I have yet to hear anyone defend those actions. In fact, just the opposite. Don't confuse the emotions of the moment with the underlying condition.

 

[Carl Spackler]

I desperately appreciate your thoughts here. Frankly, however, the recent trends in college intolerance of diverse expression, and the generally shrill, irrational, bludgeoning approach taken by the loyal opposition in this thread, are frightening.
Those who wish to suppress open discussion of race in this country are bordering on religious zealotry in their efforts to stifle discussion.
The great irony here is that they are hurting the people they are trying to help, notwithstanding any short term gains they may attain.

You took a stand that I didn't want to get into - in this discussion, and it was great to read. Makes me feel kind of weak for backing off actually, and that's not easy to do - so bravo. I still hold that anyone reading, needs to really think about the words on the digital screen and figure out how they would react, if those words were spoken face to face, and play out the scenarious of those words coming out of a piehole that's white, or black, and yellow or red - when speaking the actual words.

The Marines would say Semper Fi.

A Navy guy might say Bravo Zulu.

Army and Air Force would be too busy trying to keep their butts in working order right now to say anything.

A guy like me, just blends into the woodwork.

Keep fighting the fight, and open up minds.

 

[upstater]

If you believe that colleges aren't permitted to use minority race status as a factor in admissions, then you don't understand the law.

Way to totally twist everything I wrote.

 

[upstater]

I have yet to hear anyone defend those actions. In fact, just the opposite. Don't confuse the emotions of the moment with the underlying condition.

The Comm. professor even apologized. Called up the student directly.

That being said, the reason people are zealots (in her case) is in showing solidarity with students who for so long have been slighted. Hardly something to get upset at her about.

I find the recourse to "decorum" or "informed debate" at precisely the moment when people are frustrated beyond belief in their protests to be pretty hollow. It took two years for the Pres. of Missouri to even acknowledge them. So people are angry. And then suddenly people bring up "intellectual dissent." That's some passive-aggressive stuff right there.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Diversity of thought does not apply to insulting or denigrating other people for their appearance or background.

The religious argument is a terrible one. No one restricts a person from their faith as an individual. The objection is to the imposition of that dogma upon others in the public square.

You're interpretation of what people are capable of when it comes to religious intolerance and ignorance is elementary.

 

[superjohn]

http://dcist.com/2015/11/violent_threats_made.php

 

[Carl Spackler]

Gotta get actual work done.
It's been informative.

On a side note, race relations in the U.S. are fascinating to me for many reasons, but they won't affect the future of this country substantially, no matter how they play out.

Oil on the other hand . . . world supply glut just hit critical. Something is going to give. It's like a fault line with built up energy just waiting to slip. And when it does - massive and rapid change that will make all of our 1st world issues seem silly.


See you around campus.

Preaching to the choir w/ me.

Get to work.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

Maybe I'll have time this weekend to look at some papers (bye week). But really, why should I even bother when you're going to dismiss whatever points I have a priori?

You're already coming to conclusions before you even read the flipping study. Has it crossed your mind that after reading it you might actually agree with my assessment? You're being very close minded about this.

 

[SubbaBub]

You're interpretation of what people are capable of when it comes to religious intolerance and ignorance is elementary.

Elementary describes lack of respect of the rights of other people to not be hassled by your particular brand of fictional dogma in their daily lives.

It's akin to stealing someone's snack in kindergarten. It's irrelevant if you like pudding cups or not.

 

[HuskyHawk]

Diversity of thought does not apply to insulting or denigrating other people for their appearance or background.

The religious argument is a terrible one. No one restricts a person from their faith as an individual. The objection is to the imposition of that dogma upon others in the public square.

I think you're wrong about this. Not to say that we as individuals can't and shouldn't have a strong negative reaction to those who would insult or denigrate others for appearance of background, but it is diversity of thought. It's thought that exists in the real world, and college students damned well better learn how to deal with it. Colleges should no more be "safe" from conduct that some may find offensive (which can be nearly infinite) than anyplace else. They should reflect the real world.

By the way, the free exercise of religion includes the right to put forth your views, and to evangelize, even strangers, in the public square. That's true whether your religion or other dogmatic belief is Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Climate Change, Diversity, Communism etc. People have no right to be free from experiencing such beliefs anywhere but when they are home alone. Brandenburg v. Ohio is instructive.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Elementary describes lack of respect of the rights of other people to not be hassled by your particular brand of fictional dogma in their daily lives.

It's akin to stealing someone's snack in kindergarten. It's irrelevant if you like pudding cups or not.

Next time I step of an aircraft on the ground, it would be something if people like you would see and experience the same things. But you won't ever need to, so you can think and write the things you do, without ever really needing to self evaluate. There are times when people are simply not ever going to change their minds about things.

This discussion has gone in a way that I am very pleased to have read today, and hopefully there are a lot of people out there that have read, that can really look in the mirror about things, rather than project outward.

I had a very powerful and totally unexpected experience the other day, that I wrote about on this website elsewhere.

THe message is simple. You can set your goals, and set your challenges in life - always. THe choice is yours, to set your goals and challenges. But life will make choices for you too.

Life will make choices for you that no matter what your own goals are, you have to deal with. As you grow up, and find what your good at - you set goals as to what you want to do, and you set challenges to get there. Look at a guy like Bob Diaco - talking about UCONN and national chamiponships in football, when Randy Edsall would have wet himself saying the same things as a challenge and goal.

But life makes choices for you too. The road to a national championship for UCONN in football isn't easy. But what do you do? GIve up?

It could be that a life chose that you might have been born black in an inner city to a single mom that likes to drink, or it might be born white to rich married parents in an affluent suburb where heroin is rampant and every kid has $100 bills in their pockets and is bored. Maybe you're an elementary school teacher that's achieved every goal you've set, but one day life decides that in a classroom next door a maniac decides to start unloading magazines of .556 Nato into 6 year old children, or maybe you've become everthign you've ever wanted to be, and trained super hard but life decide to blow your legs off and stick you in a wheel chair.

No matter what your circumstances that life has chosen for you, You still have choices, and life is what you make of it.

 

[upstater]

I think you're wrong about this. Not to say that we as individuals can't and shouldn't have a strong negative reaction to those who would insult or denigrate others for appearance of background, but it is diversity of thought. It's thought that exists in the real world, and college students damned well better learn how to deal with it. Colleges should no more be "safe" from conduct that some may find offensive (which can be nearly infinite) than anyplace else. They should reflect the real world.

By the way, the free exercise of religion includes the right to put forth your views, and to evangelize, even strangers, in the public square. That's true whether your religion or other dogmatic belief is Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Climate Change, Diversity, Communism etc. People have no right to be free from experiencing such beliefs anywhere but when they are home alone. Brandenburg v. Ohio is instructive.

Disagree on both counts. Colleges don't have to include retrograde forms of thought and/or speech. Especially when students it is directed to feel muzzled.

As for religion, I believe by public square the reference was to state sponsorship, not the work of individuals.

 

[SubbaBub]

I think you're wrong about this. Not to say that we as individuals can't and shouldn't have a strong negative reaction to those who would insult or denigrate others for appearance of background, but it is diversity of thought. It's thought that exists in the real world, and college students damned well better learn how to deal with it. Colleges should no more be "safe" from conduct that some may find offensive (which can be nearly infinite) than anyplace else. They should reflect the real world.

By the way, the free exercise of religion includes the right to put forth your views, and to evangelize, even strangers, in the public square. That's true whether your religion or other dogmatic belief is Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Climate Change, Diversity, Communism etc. People have no right to be free from experiencing such beliefs anywhere but when they are home alone. Brandenburg v. Ohio is instructive.

It's not about safe, it's about respect. If is perfectly OK in this context to challenge ideas and beliefs. It is not OK to denigrate someone's identity.

The religious argument is false. It is an attempt by people who desire power through religious edict to combat those who would not be dictates to by a religion to which they do not subscribe.

As much as some like to base their identity soley on their faith, it is not a valid construct any more than one's occupation which we also see from time to time as if your job grants special rights outside of the context of that job.

No one in this country should be denied access to society based solely on which religion they choose or how they choose to abide by that faith internally.

The problem comes when people think their faith grants them special benefits or exemptions from societal requirements not explicitly granted by law. The contentious objector status is an example. Refusing to make a wedding cake if you are a wedding cake maker is not.

 

[SubbaBub]

Next time I step of an aircraft on the ground, it would be something if people like you would see and experience the same things. But you won't ever need to, so you can think and write the things you do, without ever really needing to self evaluate. There are times when people are simply not ever going to change their minds about things.

This discussion has gone in a way that I am very pleased to have read today, and hopefully there are a lot of people out there that have read, that can really look in the mirror about things, rather than project outward.

I had a very powerful and totally unexpected experience the other day, that I wrote about on this website elsewhere.

THe message is simple. You can set your goals, and set your challenges in life - always. THe choice is yours, to set your goals and challenges. But life will make choices for you too.

Life will make choices for you that no matter what your own goals are, you have to deal with. As you grow up, and find what your good at - you set goals as to what you want to do, and you set challenges to get there. Look at a guy like Bob Diaco - talking about UCONN and national chamiponships in football, when Randy Edsall would have wet himself saying the same things as a challenge and goal.

But life makes choices for you too. The road to a national championship for UCONN in football isn't easy. But what do you do? GIve up?

It could be that a life chose that you might have been born black in an inner city to a single mom that likes to drink, or it might be born white to rich married parents in an affluent suburb where heroin is rampant and every kid has $100 bills in their pockets and is bored. Maybe you're an elementary school teacher that's achieved every goal you've set, but one day life decides that in a classroom next door a maniac decides to start unloading magazines of .556 Nato into 6 year old children, or maybe you've become everthign you've ever wanted to be, and trained super hard but life decide to blow your legs off and stick you in a wheel chair.

No matter what your circumstances that life has chosen for you, You still have choices, and life is what you make of it.

You have no idea what I have and haven't experienced with includes piloting an aircraft. So, why should I listen to someone who completely disrespects people by attempting, poorly, to marginalize them because he can't effectively counter an argumentative point?

If we chose to compare, intellect, education and life experience in a game of I'm better than you so my opinion matters more, then I'd be quite comfortable betting on myself in that game.

If a drunk driver takes away your ability to walk as a kid, there is no way you are playing 3B for Yankees and highly unlikely you will do a whole list of things.

Environments matter, but you are implying that black people need to deal with their place in the pecking order and whatever disadvantages they are dealt because of their environment? My response to that would likely be a big and perhaps a punch in the face. No one should have to accept a less than existence because of who they are and those protesting are fighting that idea. Sometime well and sometimes not. But seriously, screw you if you think that.