• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


IvanKaramazov last won the day on October 31 2016

IvanKaramazov had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

8,272 Excellent

About IvanKaramazov

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Previous Fields

  • Favorite NFL Team
    Buffalo Bills

Recent Profile Visitors

16,977 profile views
  1. I've never been a big fan of John McCain, but that was a good speech, and I would root for McCain in a punching match against Trump.
  2. There is lots of research on this topic. Here's one example. My understanding is that there's really not much dispute about this -- "ban the box" laws increase racial discrimination.
  3. If you were a racist and you wanted to encourage discrimination against law-abiding minorities (especially blacks), this is the kind of policy change you would support. Those are the people who are damaged the most by "ban the box."
  4. Hillary Clinton bringing up Donald Trump while discussing Harvey Weinstein is some kind of multidimensional apogee of whataboutism. Edit: I know know Hillary is kind of "damned if she does, damned if she doesn't" when it comes to criticizing Weinstein, but still, this is pretty awesome.
  5. Everybody knows that smoking ain't allowed in school.
  6. Exact same thing here. 3/10 overall. I got drilled on this batch.
  7. Ralph Ellison is the other example. He didn't completely drop off the face of the earth like Lee did, but I don't think anybody considers any of his other work to be in the same ballpark as Invisible Man.
  8. Exactly. This is one of those books that people are objecting to not out of ideology, but because of (what I see as) a misguided notion that kids need to be protected from racial epithets, even in the context of a clearly anti-racist novel. But obviously squis wants to blame it on conservatives, and you won't be able to convince him otherwise in 140 characters or less, so whatever.
  9. You might want to do a little research on why this particular book is a frequent target. Edit: So there's no confusion, of course it's insane that To Kill a Mockingbird would be banned. Just point out that -- as usual -- you don't know what you're talking about.
  10. When something like Crystal Palace happens, I marvel at the fact that twitter is free.
  11. You would be the first one in line to defend her, probably with a bunch of twitter material.
  12. Not really. The provost can credibly ####-can an associate dean, department chair, and a few academic advisors and make them the fall guys. It's honestly not far-fetched that the academic leaders of the institution had no idea that this was taking place.
  13. If you're a university president (or chancellor, or whatever title the top guy at UNC holds), this is the easiest decision in the history of easy decisions. Your choices are: A) Say that the university turned a blind eye to these fake classes to benefit your athletics programs. Result: The NCAA comes down hard on you, and your university loses millions and millions of dollars in revenue. B) Say that this had nothing to do with athletics at all, and it was just a byproduct of having ####ty academic procedures. This takes the issue out of the NCAA's hands and leaves the matter up to UNC's regional accreditor (the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools -- SACS). SACS isn't going to do anything because first of all you're UNC, and and secondly there's not much SACS can do anyway. Regional accreditors generally have the choice to either do nothing or nuke the school from orbit. There's no good "in between" penalty. It would be professional malpractice to choose A when B is available to you.
  14. Voter suppression is a good thing when it results in incompetent voters being removed from the electorate. That's the main reason why we have a minimum voting age in the first place -- people under the age of 18 are generally unqualified to have any sort of intelligent opinion on the issues of the day. Of course, there are lots of bright and well-informed minors out there, but you have to draw the line someplace unless you want to go with competency testing.
  15. This is not free speech. If these students were protesting outside or organizing their own speaking event in an adjacent room, they would be fine. You're trying to make a relatively easy distinction more difficult than what it is. People on both sides of any given issue should be able to state their views. If one side attracts more people or has a more persuasive case than the other, that's the marketplace of ideas for you. When one side engages in behavior that disrupts or short-circuits that process, that's when we've crossed over from free speech (good) to disruption (bad). Edit: Reading your other posts makes me think we may be talking about two different things.