What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Political Correctness Police (1 Viewer)

avoiding injuries said:
Loss of job, boycott, ratings drop, embarrassment, forced to make public apology, football forum topic, etc. 

why do you think people get nervous, or don't you?
Click to expand...
So basically people have to think before they speak?

Definitely one of the great tragedies of our time.

 
avoiding injuries said:
Loss of job, boycott, ratings drop, embarrassment, forced to make public apology, football forum topic, etc. 

why do you think people get nervous, or don't you?
Click to expand...
Someone lost their job?

I have to tell you, if I am thinking about reasons why  PC is a bad thing, public apologies and forum topics aren't on it.  

This story is some proof of the nightmare of PC culture?  

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
http://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/gmas-amy-robach-says-on-air-racial-slur-a-mistake/ar-BBvUD0O?ocid=ansmsnent11&OCID=ansmsnnews11

- While I agree with this call - I have always thought 'CP' (like 'colored') was a rude and racist term - I can't get over how the phrase 'people of color' has come into vogue. I see zero substantive difference in the terms.
Click to expand...
A couple things:

- there is too much instant over-reaction in the media when someone says something that is taken as an offense.  The person should be corrected and told why the term is offensive.  If the use of offensive words continue then ideas like boycott should be brought up.

- CP referred to black people while PoC is supposed to refer to all non-white people (not really used for Asians though because they make too much money).  Not sure why it's better either since everyone has a color.  I'm advancing the term "people with higher than average melanin levels", PHAML for short, hopefully it catches on.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Careful. One day, the word 'larryboy' might even be thought of as a slur if this keeps up. Or even 'slur'. Or 'even'. Freakin myself out now. Gotta go.

 
So blacks are the only people with color? Oh, ok. 

Maybe the term "easily offended people" is more accurate.

 
cstu said:
A couple things:

- there is too much instant over-reaction in the media when someone says something that is taken as an offense.  The person should be corrected and told why the term is offensive.  If the use of offensive words continue then ideas like boycott should be brought up.

- CP referred to black people while PoC is supposed to refer to all non-white people (not really used for Asians though because they make too much money).  Not sure why it's better either since everyone has a color.  I'm advancing the term "people with higher than average melanin levels", PHAML for short, hopefully it catches on.
Click to expand...
I get a tad obsessive about niggling things so that to me is inherently funny even if no one else thinks so. That someone would develop the acronym PHAML even as a joke is also to me funny.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
http://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/gmas-amy-robach-says-on-air-racial-slur-a-mistake/ar-BBvUD0O?ocid=ansmsnent11&OCID=ansmsnnews11

- While I agree with this call - I have always thought 'CP' (like 'colored') was a rude and racist term - I can't get over how the phrase 'people of color' has come into vogue. I see zero substantive difference in the terms.
Click to expand...


BRIAN: Are you the Judean People's Front?

REG: #### off!

BRIAN: What?

REG: Judean People's Front. We're the People's Front of Judea! Judean People's Front. Cawk.

FRANCIS: Wankers.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Can Cries of ‘Free Speech’ Be a Weapon? Students Say Yes



The conventional wisdom surrounding American college life these days views campuses as hotbeds of intolerance for free speech, with students themselves leading the charge.

But a new report by PEN America, to be released on Monday, questions that story line while warning of a different danger: a growing perception among young people that cries of “free speech” are too often used as a cudgel against them.

The report, titled “And Campus for All: Diversity, Inclusion and Freedom of Speech at U.S. Universities,” covers a broad range of hot-button topics, including trigger warnings, microaggressions, safe spaces and controversial campus speakers. While it cites “troubling incidents of speech curtailed,” it finds no “pervasive” crisis.

But it does worry about an “apparent chasm” between free speech advocates and student activists, thanks in part to a conversation that sometimes dismisses students’ demands for equity and inclusion instead of parsing how they do, or don’t, infringe on the “bedrock principles” of free speech.



“A rising generation may be turning against free speech,” the report warns. “Before these developments deepen and harden, PEN America hopes to open up a wider, more searching dialogue that can help all sides to these debates better identify common ground.”

Campus speech debates are somewhat new territory for PEN, a writers’ organization that historically has been concerned with protecting authors and journalists around the world, whether from censorship and imprisonment or more amorphous threats like electronic surveillance.

But Suzanne Nossel, the group’s executive director, said the report was consistent with PEN’s broad mission, which includes promoting more diverse voices through projects like its annual World Voices Festival of International Literature.

It is also, she said, a departure from the “doctrinaire ‘free speech or bust’ position.”

“There’s a lot of attention in the world of free speech advocacy to barriers to expression,” Ms. Nossel said. “There has been somewhat less given to what needs to be in place to enable and unleash expression.”

The report arrives at a moment when many free-speech advocates see a growing, and troubling, generational divide. A Gallup poll last spring showed that college students were overwhelming in favor of free expression on campus in general but also significantly in favor of some restrictions on “intentionally offensive” speech.

“From an old-fashioned free-speech perspective, it strikes one as contradictory,” said Alberto Ibargüen, the chief executive of the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, a sponsor of the poll.

The PEN report digs right into those seeming contradictions. It outlines the cases for and against demands for safe spaces, trigger warnings (which some students demand be given with class assignments relating to difficult topics, like sexual assault) and campaigns against so-called microaggressions (small, often unintentional racial or other slights), and then explores the ways they do, or don’t, conflict with free expression.

Jerry Kang, the vice chancellor for equity, diversity and inclusion at the University of California, Los Angeles, said he appreciated PEN’s efforts to understand students’ point of view.

“It’s very smart and thoughtful and avoids caricature,” Mr. Kang, a legal scholar who has studied implicit bias and was interviewed for the report, said. “They are fully committed to robust, uninhibited speech. But they also recognize that words matter.”

But some prominent free-speech advocates who have seen the report had a more mixed reaction.

“In terms of raising the issues and presenting the on-the-ground facts in a serious and fair-minded way, I think it’s a big step forward,” said Floyd Abrams, the First Amendment lawyer. “But I find it hard to read its extraordinarily powerful depiction of things that have happened on campus without concluding there is a crisis of great magnitude.”

The report’s three main case studies cover complex conflicts on three campuses that drew intense media coverage in the past year: over the line between criticism of Israel and anti-Semitism at U.C.L.A.; over sexual harassment, academic freedom and Title IX protections at Northwestern University; and over free speech and Halloween costumes at Yale University.

PEN finds significant threats to free expression in some of those cases. At Northwestern, the report cites both the difficulties of redress for victims of alleged sexual assaults, and the way the vagueness of Title IX, the federal law that prohibits sex discrimination in education, can “chill speech” and “encumber academic freedom.” (The report calls on the federal Department of Education to clarify that a subjective sense of offense is not enough to prove there is a hostile environment.)

But at Yale, the report suggests, the students who protested against an administrator who sent a now-famous email questioning prohibitions on offensive Halloween costumes were not attacking free speech rights, but exercising their own.

That depiction cuts against the pervasive narrative, as well as the position of the most prominent voice on campus speech issues, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, or FIRE, which has strongly defended the administrator who sent the email, Erika Christakis. (Ms. Christakis eventually resigned from both her administrative and teaching positions.)

Greg Lukianoff, the president and chief executive of FIRE, said that he welcomed PEN’s report, some of which was described to him by a reporter.

But he questioned both the thrust of its account of the Yale incident, as well as the perception among many progressive students and faculty that the campaigns to protect free speech rights have been put in service of a right-wing agenda.

“Right now, it’s true, some of the louder voices are libertarian or conservative,” Mr. Lukianoff said. “But free speech is something we should all be able to come together on.”

The PEN report may be broadly sympathetic to students, but some of them may be hard to win over. While it supports limited, voluntary “safe spaces” within campuses where students can “recharge” with those from a particular group, it calls for campuses as a whole to be seen instead as “safe places” — free of physical danger, but “intellectually and ideologically open.”

Storm Ervin, a co-founder of Concerned Student 1950, a group at the University of Missouri that organized protests last fall against what many students saw as a racially hostile environment, said that she recognizes the importance of free speech.

“Free speech is the reason we were allowed to protest,” she said in an interview.

But Ms. Ervin, like many fellow students, does not see untrammeled free expression as always the paramount value, or one that is easily reconciled with equality and inclusion.

“I understand what is meant by ‘the campus as a whole is better conceived as a safe place,’” she said in a subsequent email, citing a passage in the report. “But I think we, the author and I, can agree that that campus is not a psychological safe space for all, and part of the reason is that of free speech.”
Click to expand...

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/17/arts/pen-warns-that-college-students-often-see-free-speech-as-a-cudgel.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=1



 
Last edited by a moderator:
LSU Ends ‘Free Speech Alley’

By Sarah McLaughlin July 5, 2013

Last November, FIRE’s Azhar Majeed reported on a Louisiana State University (LSU) policy that restricted student expression to a 1,000 square foot area on campus called “Free Speech Alley.” Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) filed a lawsuit, Candler v. Jenkins, over the rights of a student to hand out pro-life literature in areas of campus outside of Free Speech Alley, and, indeed, without prior approval from school administrators. Thankfully, LSU has now reaffirmed those rights and revised its policies in order to protect students’ speech.

As Torch readers know, restrictive speech codes like this one are nothing new; FIRE has dealt with unconstitutional speech codes from schools all over the country. In 2012, FIRE successfully coordinated a legal challenge to a code similar to LSU’s at the University of Cincinnati, where student expression was limited to just 0.1 percent of the university’s 137-acre West Campus. In considering LSU’s policy, Azhar noted that other “memorably named zones all failed under the weight of public pressure or litigation” and he predicted that LSU’s “Free Speech Alley” would share the same fate.

LifeNews.com reported on Wednesday that Azhar’s prediction was correct; LSU has adopted a new speech policy that neither limits student expression to certain areas on campus nor requires students to obtain prior approval before distributing literature. ADF’s Legal Counsel Matt Sharp praised LSU for “promptly revising its student speech policy to clarify that students can freely express themselves on the sidewalks and open spaces at the university.” LSU’s speech code revision shows an encouraging step in the right direction for student expression. FIRE is happy to report that free speech is now right up LSU’s alley!
Click to expand...
https://www.thefire.org/lsu-ends-free-speech-alley/

- From 2013, but this is a mixed blessing. - Free Speech Alley was a hallowed area by the student union which had all kinds of open debates from all viewpoints in the best of times, a bit like Speaker's Corner in Hyde Park in London.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Apparently Hampshire College in MA has decided to stop flying the American flag because it is too upsetting for some students.

Since Election Day, Hampshire College’s U.S. flag has been discussed, set ablaze, replaced, and lowered to half-staff.

On Friday, Old Glory was removed indefinitely.

In an email sent to the campus community Friday, President Jonathan Lash announced that neither the national flag nor any other flag will be flown on the main flagpole in the center of campus. The decision comes after two weeks of discussion and controversy on campus about the meaning of the flag and the significance of flying it at half-staff.

“After some preliminary consultation with campus constituents (we understand much more is needed), we have decided that we will not fly the U.S. flag or any other flags at Hampshire for the time being,” Lash wrote.
Click to expand...
http://www.gazettenet.com/following-flag-burning-half-mast-lowering-Hampshire-College-removes-american-flag-entierly-6288338

Rather weird interview with a Hampshire student (on Fox).

 
How did this thread go from discussing mocking the disabled to discussing the flying of the American flag? 

 
Da Guru said:
It really is absurd...colored people or people of color??
Click to expand...
I agree it's maybe splitting hairs but it's the same reason we have gotten away from "a learning disabled person" or "autistic person"and replaced with a "person with a learning disability" or "a person with autism". The idea is to emphasize that they are a person first. Don't make the first and most defining characteristic that they have a learning disability. Again, kind of splitting hairs to some, but if you had a disability, you might appreciate people defining you as a person first and not as a disability first.  The idea whether it's color, creed, ability or anything else, we should see everyone as a person first. I'm not a white person, but a person who is white. Me being a person supersedes me being white. It's just a person first centered approach. 

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Ministry of Pain
A Christmas Movie I had never seen
Replies
5
Views
661
Frostillicus
Frostillicus
Senor Schmutzig
I had a heart attack this weekend...
2 3
Replies
115
Views
4K
Mr.Pack
Mr.Pack
Joe Bryant
A Glimpse of Beauty In an Ugly Place
Replies
0
Views
236
Joe Bryant
Joe Bryant

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top