Categories
#gamergate antifeminism antifeminist women evil SJWs irony alert literal nazis misandry misogyny MRA post contains jokes YouTube

Sargon of Akkad launches petition to save free speech by censoring SJW professors

Remain alert! Even white dude professors can be secret SJWs
Remain alert! Even white dude professors can be secret SJWs

When a college feminist decided, one cold night in 2014, to burn her personal copy of pseudofeminist Christina Hoff Sommers’ book The War Against Boys, the internet’s antifeminists responded as if Hitler himself had risen from the grave.

“Universities bring book-burning back, one page at a time,” declared a blogger at TheRebelMedia. After an extended comparison with the infamous book burning campaigns of the literal Nazis, he declared that “[t]he burning of Hoff Sommers’ book is a striking visual synecdoche for the malaise afflicting free expression across not only North American college campuses.” In a featured article, A Voice for Men described the burning as a “disturbing” example of “misandry in academia.”

On the Men’s Rights subreddit, meanwhile, one angry dude declared that

If you’re burning a book, you’re basically admitting to being not just a bigot, but one who doesn’t even have enough confidence in the strength of their own views to believe that they can stand up for themselves without needing to silence and censor those that oppose them.

If we set aside the fact that, unlike the Nazis, who confiscated the books they burned, a person burning their own copy of a book that is readily available to others is not actually censoring anything, he’s got a point.

So it’s interesting to see how many of the Internet’s antifeminsts and Anti-Social-Justice-Warrior-Warriors are embracing a proposal from one of their own to literally censor all academics who teach stuff they don’t like.

On Change.org, professional feminism-hater Carl Benjamin, known on YouTube as Sargon of Akkad, has started a petition demanding that “UNIVERSITIES” — presumably, every single one of them — immediately “Suspend Social Justice Courses” because he thinks that “social justice” professors are up to no good.

In vague but melodramatic language Benjamin proclaims that

Social justice has become scientifically illiterate, logically unsound, deeply bigoted and openly supremacist.

He doesn’t specify exactly what kind of supremacism he’s complaining about here; presumably not white.

Nor does he ever define exactly what courses count as “social justice courses.” There aren’t any departments of Social Justice that I’m aware of. [EDIT: Oops! Turns out there are.] Does Benjamin mean a tiny handful of, say, women’s studies courses taught by radical feminists? Or does he hope (at least in his wildest dreams) to take down the humanities and social sciences as a whole?

Social justice professors are indoctrinating young people into a pseudoscientific cult behind closed doors that is doing damage to their health, education and future.

Well, technically, I guess, virtually all college courses are taught “behind closed doors,” since the doors of lecture halls generally do get closed before class begins. Technically, I’m writing this post behind closed doors, because I don’t leave the doors of my apartment wide open. (People might wander in; the cats might wander out.) I suspect that Benjamin himself wrote up his petition behind closed doors!

Benjamin goes on to declare that

[s]ocial justice … has become another ideology fit only to pave the road to Hell, so it is time to turn around and choose another path that is concerned with reason, science and improving the lives of every human.

If only some evil Social Justice English professor has indoctrinated Benjamin in the devilish art of writing without resorting to hackneyed cliches.

But that’s pretty much all there is to Benjamin’s petition. Somehow, thought, the vagueness of Benjamin’s plan hasn’t stopped 9,878 people — so far — from signing the petition.

It is, however, possible that some of the signers are a little bit confused as to what exactly they’re signing.

Indeed, the top two most-liked comments on the petition, for example, were written by people who seem to think that Benjamin’s proposal to peremptorily censor all college courses that he thinks are excessively social-justicey is, somehow, a defense of free speech?

TOP COMMENTS What I see in universities in the US and many other countries is a totalitarian government in the making. Samuel Braun, Germany19 hours ago 144 Report Free speech has no limits. Santiago Uscocovich, Clarksville, ARBenjamin has posted a video in which he explains his crusade in a little more detail. It’s possible that somewhere in it he answers the question of how exactly his plan to drive all professors he doesn’t like from all the college campuses in the world is actually a crusade for free speech.

Here’s the video in question:

Oops! Wrong video. Let me try again:

Huh. I don’t think that was it either.

No, that’s clearly not it.

Ok, ok. I found the real one here.

But it’s 40 minutes long. I sampled the first 2 seconds, and that was about all I could bring myself to watch. So I guess I’ll just have to resign myself to a life of servitude under the jackboots of the Social Justice warlords. Still, that’s a far better option than actually watching a Sargon of Akkad video all the way through.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

415 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
katz
5 years ago

I misread his name as “Aaron Carter,” which…is kind of fitting, in terms of how immature, unrealistic, annoying, and forgettable he is.

WeirwoodTreeHugger
WeirwoodTreeHugger
5 years ago

I can never tell which threads are destined to be necro’d. Apparently, this is one of them.

Richard Via
Richard Via
5 years ago

I don’t see how it’s censoring free speech when it’s the SJWs that censor anything that offends them. I guess they think when they are on the receiving end of the censoring it’s a bad thing. I for one am glad to see someone standing up for what they believe in. I’ve been on a few forums and SJW chat rooms and you wouldn’t believe how these people operate. They can’t keep a straight thought going without deviating into a completely unrelated topic, bouncing from one idiotic idea to the next.

What’s even more outrageous moderator is your own use of censoring ideas YOU find bigoted or offensive.

MRAs, MGTOWs, PUAs, Red Pillers, “Equalists,” #GamerGaters and the like: you will be allowed to post here.

If someone finds your ideas to be bigoted or wrong, you get all defensive and immediately disregard the matter as a joke or smut. You never give the thought of another person, to whom you disagree with, as being a being of reasonable intellect. I personally feel most of these people have a sound mind, I just think their intentions are misguided.

Have a nice day.

Scildfreja
Scildfreja
5 years ago

@Mr. Via,

Hello Sir! Pleasure to meet you. I’m not sure if you’re watching this thread or if you just decided to post and run; I’ll assume that you’re watching for the sake of the audience. I’ll try to be brief, to save everyone’s time.

http://orig12.deviantart.net/ed97/f/2013/078/9/f/fluttershy_dance_by_heilos-d5ymglw.gif

First! You aren’t addressing the central questions of the article, you are using a tu quoque appeal to hypocrisy. We can even assume that everything you’ve said here is true (it isn’t) and you still haven’t defended Sargon’s ideas as being appropriate. So, if you came here to try to defend the idea of “auditing” “s.j.w. professors”, you have yet to start down that road.

Feel free to do so, I could use the mental exercise. Cracking apart arguments is like eating lobster; a little hard work gets you to the tasty meat.

Second! Examining what you are addressing … sure, there are certainly communities on the internet which are misguided, unfair and close-minded, and who censor a lot. Humans, and their associations, exist in a spectrum, after all. Some people who are sympathetic to men’s rights are very reasonable – you will even find some here! – and some people who are sympathetic to feminism are bigots. That’s how people work.

However, just because some communities are terrible doesn’t mean that they all are. Even the ones you’re calling censorious! Some people aren’t at a place in their lives where they can face hard truths or uncomfortable realities, and it’s not up to you to decide when they get to face those things. They do, along with their loved ones and the people they trust.

We laugh at bigoted, wrong ideas, yes. The reason we think they are wrong is because we have never been shown good evidence that they are right. The reason we laugh is because it is important to confront hate with joy and misery with laughter.

Looking forward to your reply!

Richard Via
Richard Via
5 years ago

Yeah, but some of these colleges Sargon mentions sound like complete echo chambers. I get not everyone is able to except reality and toughen up to the sad world we sometimes live in.

The notion of safe spaces with coloring books and puppies was very off putting, instead of preparing young adults for the real world it seemed like they were sheltering them from it.

I don’t want academia to be wideled away to the point of people unable to debate topics that might be offensive to other people. Their are uncomfortable topics that are discussed, and we need to address them.

I think college should be a growing expierence, hearing ideas that challenge their own. Social Justice does sound like one of those ideas, however the intolerance “some” have put forth has been off putting. Being the white cisgender heterosexual male, it seems as though some groups are targeting me and I don’t like that. I don’t want professors teaching children they are oppressed and born racist.

Again, actions of a few, I’d wager to bet most social justice courses are not as bad as Sargon makes them out to be.

weirwoodtreehugger
5 years ago

Being the white cisgender heterosexual male, it seems as though some groups are targeting me and I don’t like that.

What’s that saying? When you’re privileged, equality feels like oppression. You are being the embodiment of that. Nobody is targeting you.

And isn’t it a little hypocritical to be complaining about how colleges these days are coddling students and protecting them from the harshness of the world while simultaneously complaining about how very mean it is for marginalized people and their allies to point out the system is set up to unfairly advantage people in your demographic? I mean, really. You think whole fields of study should change because you, personally don’t like them?

Also, you should probably learn about what safe spaces and trigger warnings are and how they work before you start clutching your pearls about how they’re ruining academia.

Diptych
Diptych
5 years ago

D’you know, I would not have described universities’ mission as “preparing people for the real world.” They’re -part- of the real world, and their mission is to provide educational facilities, resources and guidance so that students can become qualified in various fields.

Professors aren’t teaching children that they’re oppressed or born racist – in fact, they’re not teaching children at all. They’re teaching adults – adults who have chosen, and worked hard, to be there. If those adults have chosen to pursue classes that analyse and criticise social structures, then that’s their prerogative – and whatever the professors’ own views, there’s no shortage of diverse texts and schools of thought for students to read about.

(An aside: you know who wants to convince people they’re “born racist”? Racists. Certainly, one might find a social justice-minded academic arguing that some folks are “born privileged”, because, well, they are. But that’s not nearly the same thing, and working out that the term “privileged” isn’t used to mean “irredeemably evil” seems to be a stumbling block for the “anti-SJW” crowd.)

Paradoxical Intention - Resident Cheeseburger Slut

Richard, I’m assuming you’re here in good faith, so I’ve tried to respond to your post as best I can. If you think it’s too long, I’ve bolded some questions I have for you, so even if you ignore the rest of my post, I’d still very much like to hear your thoughts on them. Thanks in advance.

Richard Via | May 2, 2016 at 11:48 pm
Yeah, but some of these colleges Sargon mentions sound like complete echo chambers.

Of course they would, coming from Sargon. He makes money off of drumming up faux outrage among his fans. So, he’s going to do his best to make these classes sound like they’re taught by Lucifer himself, because that’s going to drum up outrage and get his fans to pay him attention (and money).

Let’s be honest, Sargon’s biased as they come when it comes to social justice. He’s made a living off of shouting about it on YouTube.

I get not everyone is able to accept reality and toughen up to the sad world we sometimes live in.

May I have some clarification on this? What do you mean by “accept reality”?

The notion of safe spaces with coloring books and puppies was very off putting, instead of preparing young adults for the real world it seemed like they were sheltering them from it.

Asking for a place where you don’t have to hear about things you don’t want to hear about isn’t asking to “shelter” young adults. It’s asking for a break from them.

I’ve suffered trauma in my past. Therefore, I don’t want to hear about what traumatized me (abuse and rape) all the time. There are times where I can’t, or won’t handle it, and asking me to do that is a really shitty thing to do, because it’s only going to lead to a deterioration of my mental state. I already suffer depression and anxiety from what I survived, and I don’t need it shoved in my face all the time because you feel like they need to be talked about.

I’m not a coward for not wanting to talk about it, and I don’t really appreciate the insinuation that I can’t “face reality” when I’m currently living with my traumas the best damn way I can.

Asking for a space where I can get away from that kind of discussion and focus on other things isn’t asking to be “sheltered from the real world”, it’s asking that I have a break for my own mental health.

No one should have to face their traumas 24/7 just because it’s “the real world” or “reality”. We already stigmatize and harm people with mental health issues enough without this sort of mentality that people can just “get over” their traumas.

Hell, even people who haven’t suffered traumas can benefit from a room full of coloring books and puppies.

Why do you think that people shouldn’t have a way to get mental downtime in college when dealing with stressful topics or classes? Or, if you think that they should, what would you suggest as an alternative?

I don’t want academia to be wideled away to the point of people unable to debate topics that might be offensive to other people. Their are uncomfortable topics that are discussed, and we need to address them.

I agree. There are plenty of things that are unpleasant that need to be discussed. Can you provide examples of things you don’t think these classes are covering properly and/or things you personally feel are ignored or are deemed “offensive”?

Hell, this site is dedicated to discussing unpleasant things. David mentions in the site’s description that this blog cannot possibly be a safe space due to the subject matter we deal with daily. We deal with sexism, racism, homo/transphobia, other bigotries and disgusting violence on a regular basis.

However, I don’t feel like that these discussions need to be done at the expense of people who don’t need or want to talk about them for whatever reason. I wouldn’t force people to read this site just so they’re aware of the kinds of things that we talk about. I don’t feel like I need to force everyone to talk about sexism or other kinds of bigotries all the time so they’re being addressed.

To callback to my previous example: Yes, we need to discuss child abuse, because it’s a horrendous thing that happens way too often to too many kids.

However, sometimes I don’t want to discuss it because I will start to have flashbacks and I will either start to dissociate, or have a panic attack, complete with hyperventilating and out-of-control sobbing. Or in layman’s terms: I’ll be really fucking triggered by it.

“Triggering” isn’t “Oh, this makes me feel really uncomfortable and I don’t like that”, it’s “I’m literally having a mental breakdown that’s going to take me a few hours to recover from”.

Should I be forced to sit down and have a discussion about something that’s traumatized me like that, because you feel it needs to be addressed? Should my mental health be ignored so you can have your discussion?

I think college should be a growing expierence, hearing ideas that challenge their own.

Again, I agree. But I think you should elaborate once more: What do these classes that Sargon wants to “audit” not do to challenge their student’s ideas, in your opinion? What do you think that these classes should teach or discuss to challenge those ideas that you feel aren’t being addressed?

Social Justice does sound like one of those ideas, however the intolerance “some” have put forth has been off putting. Being the white cisgender heterosexual male, it seems as though some groups are targeting me and I don’t like that.

No one’s targeting you, as WWTH mentioned. No one automagically hates you solely for being a cishet white dude. People just point out that you have advantages that no one else has. True, you didn’t ask for them, but you’re still afforded them, and pointing that out doesn’t do you, or other cishet white dudes, one iota of harm.

You are not profiled or stereotyped negatively for being a cishet white dude, you are not denied work because of your cishet white dude-ness, you do not suffer any sort of society-wide disadvantage from it, therefore you are not harmed one bit by it.

It’s like the difference between “cracker” and the N-word. One is fucking harmless, and only references the bad things that white people have done to black people, and the other has a history of being used to degrade, dehumanize, and otherwise oppress black people.

I don’t want professors teaching children they are oppressed and born racist.

Telling young adults (because we are talking about college here, remember?) that they can suffer from systematic oppression isn’t news to them. All of them have lived in the system for all their lives, and most of them have “woken up” to it.

For instance: Black kids are told to always be weary of, and hyper-courteous to, police officers, from the moment they’re old enough to go to school. You, as a white kid, were not.

Women are always told that they have to be on their guard 24/7/365 or else anything that happens to them will be blamed on them for some reason. You, as a man, are not.

LGBT people are constantly worried about coming out to family, friends, or other loved ones because they’re worried about being treated like shit for their sexual orientation/gender identity, something they have no control over. You, as a cishet person, have never had to worry about this.

So, since most oppressed kids are already aware of it, no one is “teaching” them they are oppressed.

However, I do have a question: What is your objection to children (or young college-aged adults, for that matter), learning about oppression and how it affects people? Why do you think it’s a bad idea that children are taught that racism, homo/transphobia, sexism, etc, exist, and that it could affect them?

And no, no one is “born” racist. We are, however, taught racism by society as a whole. For instance, I’ve personally had to unlearn lots of racist behaviors as a white person, and I understand that media, other people, and stereotyping all conditioned me to believe this, until other people pointed out to me that I was wrong and why it was wrong of me to believe these things.

Again, actions of a few, I’d wager to bet most social justice courses are not as bad as Sargon makes them out to be.

Back to my first point: I’d wager that none of them really are, considering Sargon is hyper anti-Social Justice, regardless of the context. He doesn’t give a s’wit if the classes aren’t as bad as he thinks they are, he just wants them to be harassed and singled out because he doesn’t like the fact that they exist.

Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
5 years ago

Being the white cisgender heterosexual male, it seems as though some groups are targeting me and I don’t like that.

So now you feel that you have some insight – if only a tiiiny bit – into the daily life of an oppressed group, and are going to channel that insight into being a good person or even a good ally?

Oh, no, wait. You’re going to piss and moan about nonexistent “Misandry” and “Reverse racism.” Because MRAs think “Irony” is the aftertaste of chewing on a golf club.

mockingbird
mockingbird
5 years ago

As are a few others, I’m going to assume that you’re here in good faith.

Here’re my two cents:

I think college should be a growing expierence, hearing ideas that challenge their own.

Agreed.

Social Justice does sound like one of those ideas

How would you define the idea of social justice?

however the intolerance “some” have put forth has been off putting.

I’ll say that there are some who, flush with concepts new to them, misuse ideas. I’m not going to tell you that there’s no one out there who uses the term “privilege” as a cudgel. I’ve run into them.
And they’re wrong.
Not just as in “what they’re doing is wrong” but that “they’re wrong in that what they’re doing misses the point of the definition”.

This is a pretty useful cartoon. I especially like it because it touches on intersectionality in privilege (that is, that there’s more than one thing that defines how we approach the world and how the world approaches us).

Being the white cisgender heterosexual male, it seems as though some groups are targeting me and I don’t like that.

There may very well be some individuals who make assumptions about you as a person based upon your identity. That sucks. They shouldn’t.
We all make assumptions about others based upon such things and we all have assumptions made about us based upon such things.
Recognizing and working through this is a struggle and it’s something that we must do every day.

I don’t want professors teaching children they are oppressed and born racist.

I’ve never met a professor who’s done either of these.
That’s not to say that there are none, but I think that you may be conflating a few things here. I’ll see if you respond to any of the above before addressing this last bit, though.

mockingbird
mockingbird
5 years ago

Oh! But one thing (I’m working backwards through the comments):

If someone finds your ideas to be bigoted or wrong, you get all defensive and immediately disregard the matter as a joke or smut. You never give the thought of another person, to whom you disagree with, as being a being of reasonable intellect. I personally feel most of these people have a sound mind, I just think their intentions are misguided.

If you’re addressing this site in particular, yes – we do both tend to find humor where we can and monitor the civility of conversation. Since David pays for and maintains this site without the benefit of US Government funding, he may direct its rules and guidelines as he sees fit free of the fear of falling afoul of laws regulating the right of free speech.

There are many other places on the internet with a much lighter hand in the comments section. Any commenter is welcome to seek out those if they find the terms here objectionable.

Richard Via
Richard Via
5 years ago

Thank you, you’ve all given me a lot to think about. To answer one question, I think it’s good to learn about oppression as long as it’s in context of overcoming that oppression and ways to put everyone on a more equal footing.

I think the notion of privilege is genuine, so long as it isn’t a crutch for someone to use. Life certianly isn’t equal for everyone, race, sex, gender, income all come with varying levels of privilege. For example, being born in America immediately affords you citizenship in a first world nation.

One thing that I seemed to take particular discomfort with was seeing protest from groups of social justice activist against people who spoke ideas at colleges that were deemed sexist or racist. People should be able to agree or disagree with any speaker, but the impact of the presence of these people seemed overdramatic.

Take Christina Hoff Sommers, sure many take offense to her feminist positions. I actually like to listen to her, I wouldn’t want to be called a misogynist for wanting to listen to her. That’s a bit unfair don’t you think?

Imaginary Petal
Imaginary Petal
5 years ago

Take Christina Hoff Sommers, sure many take offense to her feminist positions.

CHS has feminist positions?

I wouldn’t want to be called a misogynist for wanting to listen to her.

Listening to her does not make you a misogynist. Agreeing with her misogynist statements might make you a misogynist, though.

That’s a bit unfair don’t you think?

No, but who cares?

Richard Via
Richard Via
5 years ago

I’m the kind of person that loves to debate, so if it’s an issue like the gender wage gap, I love looking at data and variables and looking at the real evidence on both sides of the argument. It’s fun to me, same goes for issues like abortion, prison statistics, anything the FBI puts out. I never lean on one side too much without going back to the other. Which is why I’m hear now. I’ve lavished on one side for a while so now I will march on this side for a while. Each side says the other is incompetent and wrong about the issues, using them for attention and censorship. This helps me to view a well rounded opinion on a subject, usually I find neither side is entirely correct. There’s usually a solid middle ground both sides agree on. That however never gets the views or makes the news.

Diptych
Diptych
5 years ago

I’m glad you’re enjoying yourself, but do please take to heart that for a lot of people, this isn’t an abstract debate, or even a search for truth – it’s a fight for their rights, their health, even their lives. It’s fine to recognise your own distance from the issues, but for some, the issues are so close to home that they can never get away from them, no matter how hard they try.

Imaginary Petal
Imaginary Petal
5 years ago

There’s usually a solid middle ground both sides agree on.

So, what’s the solid middle ground between “ZOMG SJW PROFESSORS ARE RUINING FREE SPEECH” and “what’s that guy yelling about”?

Richard Via
Richard Via
5 years ago

I think there is a fair understanding that the overall premise of social justice means well and can do good. Their is some ridiculous sensationalism surround it currently, mostly what Sargon reports on.

The other side has outliers screaming patriarchy this and offened by everything. Maybe certain individuals like Anita Sarkesian saying everything is sexist, everything is racist (I know that’s not what she met) but it can be pretty funny at times and I don’t know whether to take it seriously.

I think Sargon and his followers are threatened by that group of people who don’t speak for the whole. Honestly some of them portray themselves as the totalitarian selves that would be scary if put in charge, luckily those types never do.

Imaginary Petal
Imaginary Petal
5 years ago

The other side has outliers screaming patriarchy this and offened by everything. Maybe certain individuals like Anita Sarkesian saying everything is sexist, everything is racist (I know that’s not what she met) but it can be pretty funny at times and I don’t know whether to take it seriously.

^Obvious bad faith. I’m not bothering.

isidore13
isidore13
5 years ago

There’s usually a solid middle ground both sides agree on.

You know, this is true when both sides have valid points to make, but honestly, I have done a lot of reading in the altright and the manosphere, and most of the points they seem to be interested in defending are ‘women are all manipulative cunts’ or ‘black people are lazy shits who don’t want to put in the hard work’ or ‘minorities are too stupid/submissive/aggressive to do anything as well as white people’ or ‘women are too stupid to work in STEM and too weak/emotional/hormonal to be in leadership roles’.

What I don’t see is a whole lot of ‘DV shelters often cater exclusively to women; let’s gather our resources and build some DV shelters for men.’ I don’t see a whole lot of ‘Our transgender and gay brothers face a lot of discrimination, let’s band together and see if we can’t make our local leaders see that we don’t support discrimination’. I don’t see a whole lot of ‘Let’s work hard on making sure our African-American brothers live without fear of being gunned down for no reason by organizing a protest’. In fact, I don’t see the alt right or the manosphere making any active, positive changes to the world. Please feel free to correct me if I’ve missed out on anything they’ve done.

Richard Via
Richard Via
5 years ago
Reply to  isidore13

I don’t doubt that to be true, however not everyone subscribes to that alt right mindset that follows him. Their seems to be a critique of his work within his own chatter of people.

Certainly the issue you discussed are problem each group has to face. I’d like to add to black people being gunned down, crimes that happen within their own neighborhoods are starting to change. The act of speaking up without being called a snitch or getting involved in other people’s problems, community problems. I follow black issues and crime in black communities closely.

You’re right, I don’t see the alt right doing anything in the way of that. Starting conversations like that could be a way to pave a new path for everyone to start working together, reaching the olive branch across and finding common interest to work on.

mildlymagnificent
mildlymagnificent
5 years ago

Richard

It’s fun to me, same goes for issues like abortion, prison statistics, anything the FBI puts out.

There’s usually a solid middle ground both sides agree on.

Fun? Solid middle ground? On abortion! Or prison statistics.

I realise you’re trying to put your pov in favour of “debate” and “argument”, but this was pretty clumsy. Most of us would see both of these two issues as less than fun – more along a spectrum from life changing through life threatening to life or death. Not fun at all.

Imaginary Petal
Imaginary Petal
5 years ago

Their seems to be a critique of his work within his own chatter of people.

Where?

EJ (The Other One)
5 years ago

@IP:
The man’s either arguing in bad faith or is an idiot. There is no sense in engaging further. He’s simply here because masturbatory sophism is a thing that he enjoys, and you’re helping him indulge in it.

Scildfreja
Scildfreja
5 years ago

Thank you for your replies, Richard (and thank you to everyone else who’s written, too!). You’re by far the most reasonable passer-by to hit this board in awhile! I appreciate it.

http://orig12.deviantart.net/b1ce/f/2013/006/0/0/fluttershy_skips_by_eeglfethr-d5qpka8.gif

I’m going to reply to some bits and pieces – others have already done some of the points far better than I could.

some of these colleges Sargon mentions sound like complete echo chambers. I get not everyone is able to except reality and toughen up to the sad world we sometimes live in.

Sargon is not painting a complete picture for you. One reason he’s being unfair is that the professor has a certain amount of time (not enough) to communicate the ideas in the course outline. If she’s being confronted in each class by students who haven’t even yet read the source material, she can’t get through the content that the people in class have paid for. She’ll answer questions and encourage debate, but at the end of the day she’s still got to get through the content, so sometimes she has to cut discussion short.

This is doubly a problem in courses that deal with societal forces, because a) everyone feels qualified, since they all live in society, and b) everyone feels that their viewpoint is representative, since that’s how brains work. So the “social-justice’y” courses get challenged a lot by students who feel more qualified to speak, even though they aren’t.

comments on safe spaces

Paradox’y said it best. Safe spaces aren’t to block out ideas you don’t like, they’re to give you a place where you can be relatively sure you aren’t going to be traumatized or re-traumatized. Society at large doesn’t provide that assurance. It’s a place for people who have suffered to re-center and re-focus before confronting the world again.

The term “safe space”, like so many others, is misunderstood, misappropriated by MRA’s and their adjacents, and used as a generic slur. If you learned those words while on that side of the fence, you can safely assume that you’ve learned a bad definition of them.

Being the white cisgender heterosexual male, it seems as though some groups are targeting me and I don’t like that.

Good! Hold on to that discomfort! It’s important to remember that feeling of discomfort. Try to discard the outrage, but try to hold on to the feeling of being singled out as inferior, as a problem. It’s not true – you aren’t inferior, and you’re not a problem. But society does have subtle cues that inform women and minorities that they are inferior and problematic. Keeping a hold on that feeling will help you understand the sort of lens that they see the world through, and might help you understand some of the outrage and despair.

I don’t want professors teaching children they are oppressed and born racist

As was said before, they’re teaching adults, not children. I’ll assume you also don’t want this taught to young adults?

Unfortunately, just because something is uncomfortable, doesn’t mean it’s not true. Racism and sexism are systematic and unconscious. The only way to actually beat these things is to bring them into the conscious level and explicitly oppose them within ourselves. It takes discipline and awareness. That’s what education is about. It can feel uncomfortable to bring into conscious knowledge the fact that you’ve got advantages others lack, but it’s an important tool in being able to fight societal bigotry.

(And, before you ask, I’d be okay with setting up a space for white, cishet males to digest the things they learn without fear of being confronted. Everyone needs a quiet ground to prepare themselves for the world.)

One thing that I seemed to take particular discomfort with was seeing protest from groups of social justice activist against people who spoke ideas at colleges that were deemed sexist or racist.

“SJWs” don’t so much protest because CHS and others are being given a platform to speak, it’s that they’re being given a bully pulpit. Generally in these things it’s a talk, where the speaker isn’t confronted until the very end, and even then is only confronted by audience questions, which can be ignored and filtered, and relies on luck of the draw. CHS and the like come to their conclusions by fabrication and lies-by-omission, and to give them a stage to do so on is irresponsible.

“SJW’s” generally relish the opportunity to confront opposing ideas. They’re just rarely given the opportunity to do so, and have to resort to protest instead.

if it’s an issue like the gender wage gap, I love looking at data and variables and looking at the real evidence on both sides of the argument. It’s fun to me, same goes for issues like abortion, prison statistics, anything the FBI puts out. I never lean on one side too much without going back to the other. Which is why I’m hear now.

Oh, good. I love breaking it down to evidence. Our trolls tend to run away when I do that, so I so rarely get to really get into the numbers.

You mention the wage gap, it’s one that keeps coming up and it drives me batty when they say the wage gap isn’t real, because they factor out things like individual career choice and hours spent.

You can’t do that! It’s begging the question! Career choice is determined by societal pressures as much as individual choice; educational opportunities are influenced by the same factors. By removing covariates which are entangled with sexism, the querant is making an assumption that sexism is not a factor in wages earned. It’s dishonest on its face, and any knowledgeable querant who does it should be ashamed of their deception (at worst) or lack of rigour (at best).

This helps me to view a well rounded opinion on a subject, usually I find neither side is entirely correct.

It is true that in any confrontation, both sides are wrong to a degree. This is simple probability.

It is also true that in any confrontation, one side will be more right than another. This is also simple probability.

Confrontation, therefore, involves determining the side which is less wrong.

Other things have been posted since I’ve been able to reply; I’ll get to them later.

Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
5 years ago

This helps me to view a well rounded opinion on a subject, usually I find neither side is entirely correct. There’s usually a solid middle ground both sides agree on.

BZZT. Logical fallacy. Please hand in your STEMLogic™ card at your nearest False Neutrality Troll Copypasta Talking Points Depot and try again never.

maistrechat
5 years ago

I’m honestly still not quite sure what “Social Justice” courses are. The only school I can think of that actually has a named Social Justice program is Roosevelt. The Social Justice Studies BA at Roosevelt requires both economics and statistics courses in addition to the social sciences component. The other coursework includes readings by such notorious SJWs as Aristotle.

WeirwoodTreeHugger
WeirwoodTreeHugger
5 years ago

Our old friend, the golden mean fallacy.

Because I really want to find a middle ground between “consent is necessary” and “she shouldn’t have been drinking if she didn’t want to be raped.”

Scildfreja
Scildfreja
5 years ago

I jumped on the “wage-gap” thing without fully reading the rest of the sentence.

Richard, while it’s fine to enjoy doing stats and discerning trends and whatnot, these numbers are lost lives, lost homes, broken families and broken lives. It’s enjoyable to do stats, but you have to tie it back to society and the people in it. Otherwise your results lose meaning, and you end up dehumanizing the most vulnerable of us.

Statistical methods are the words of power. Don’t play with them.

Richard Via
Richard Via
5 years ago
Reply to  Scildfreja

See, now this makes me feel better. I can have civilized talks with real people and not be shunned away. I wouldn’t lie to you, I was on another site called patheos.com and maybe I can on a little strong but I wanted to have a serious discussion. They said I was blatently sexist and misigynist and blocked me. So this site has similar rules, their’s had “disagreeing is welcome” but I guess I disagreed too much. I look forward to learning a lot with all of you, I have research studies I’ve read and would love you know your thoughts on all of them. I’m actually kinda excited. So if I come off as just another fool, please don’t disregard me, I’m still learning too.

Richard Via
Richard Via
5 years ago

Statistical methods are the words of power. Don’t play with them.

They are and I value them. I’m not some super fortunate sheltered white kid. So while I have an interest in statistics, I know it relates back to the real world, where people live and people die. I’ve learned to cope really well with death since it’s changed my life so much. We always have a joke in my family, the current ratio of funerals to weddings is pretty bad. There is a face, a name and story behind every victim of rape, of murder, of anything, it’s very important to remember that when dealing withe sensitive information.

Scildfreja
Scildfreja
5 years ago

@Richard,

We’re happy to have disagreement here. People are banned for not actually engaging – for being repetitive in the face of solid rebuttal, for not actually interacting with replies, for being racist or sexist in the face of being told not to. Internet’s full of people who will happily come here and fill up a board with hate, and we don’t want that.

You’re free to post studies and ask our opinions on them; many of us here are professionals who deal with statistics and can approach it at that angle, and many more can approach it from a human-impact level very well. There are great resources here for learning, if you’re willing to listen.

For starters: complaining about Anita Sarkeesian, then saying that “it’s only a joke and I don’t actually believe it” is a way to shield oneself from facing the uncomfortable truth she’s telling. This is what jokes are often for.

Stop shielding yourself from it. Face it directly. Assume she’s right, and look at the evidence for contradictions. If you don’t see any, then she’s probably right.

EJ (The Other One)
5 years ago

My apologies, IP, for engaging after I suggested that you shouldn’t, but I feel I have to pick up on this.

In my experience, people who say “I like to debate on the internet” tend to mean “I like to say provocative things to strangers in order to cause them emotional hurt, usually without their consent.”

Before you object to this, Mr Via, please remember these four things:

A) You have not asked the consent of the people you’ve chosen to debate with before doing it.

B) You’ve intentionally picked topics which are emotionally distant to you but not to them.

C) You’re doing it with strangers, rather than with friends, which is a strange way to do one’s hobbies.

D) If you would like to prove me wrong, you can invite me to debate whether or not a G-class main sequence star can have its equilibrium dominated by gas pressure rather than radiation pressure. It is true that I am an astrophysicist and you are not, so it might be an uphill fight for you; but surely a person who indulges in debate for the pure joy of the topic isn’t only going to pick weaker opponents, are they?

Richard Via
Richard Via
5 years ago

Our old friend, the golden mean fallacy.

Because I really want to find a middle ground between “consent is necessary” and “she shouldn’t have been drinking if she didn’t want to be raped.”

I’m on your side when it comes to this, although it doesn’t seem that way I know.

I think you want to argue consent, what does and does not constitute consent.

“Can two drunk people have sex and both wake up next to each other not remembering the night before”

MRA’s tend to say that drunk sex always equates to men being the rapist and women being the victim, regardless if there was no clear yes or no from either party.

I’m not about to victimize a woman’s choice of drinking and that being her asking for rape, that’s ridiculous. I don’t know anyone with that position, certainly no middle ground there.

I like to discuss this further, just maybe on a separate thread.

kupo
kupo
5 years ago

@EJ (TOO)
I would pay good money to see that debate.

Richard Via
Richard Via
5 years ago

@EJ (The Other One) You’re absolutely correct. I would certainly like to think I’m in this for more than something as petty as emotional damage to the other side. At the end of the day, where does that leave us, certainly not understanding the issues any better.

I’d like to state that I really don’t want to use THIS thread to debate any topics as of now. Seeing how this section pertains to Sargon and his petition, a more comfortable setting is in order, one in which people agree beforehand to give consent about topics they may or may not want to talk about.

C) You’re doing it with strangers, rather than with friends, which is a strange way to do one’s hobbies.

Maybe so, but everybody has weird hobbies here and there.

I’m not here to prove you wrong, you obviously know more about certain topics than I do, the same goes for me to you. I’m still learning, but isn’t everyone, we are all somewhere in life, always learning. I need some time to study and become an expert, part of that is being proven wrong myself. I think I know things that I may not, as a community, we should advance the knowledge of everyone around us.

What sparked this thought in my head was a statement I read many years ago on the internet of all places. It was two parts: 1) That debating usually on strengthens two opposing views to be even further apart, and 2) Internet conversations always lead to a comparison to Hilter.

It’s a little funny, I try to go into an argument with the knowledge the opposing side has some fair criticism.

isidore13
isidore13
5 years ago

I try to go into an argument with the knowledge the opposing side has some fair criticism

Many of the altright who criticize SJWs don’t do so using the things SJWs actually say; they criticize the strawmen in their heads; or they deliberately misunderstand or misinterpret SJW arguments, even when they are patiently corrected. Most fair criticism of feminism and other SJWs comes from within the movement.

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
5 years ago

@Richard

You’ll be banned if you violate the commenting policy, especially if you’ve been warned about it once (or more). If you become tedious and boring, you risk being banned. If you start spewing racist, misogynist, or transphobic attacks (among a few) you will probably be banned.

If you have a meltdown, you may be banned or you may not, because troll meltdowns are the most hilarious thing ever to some of us (others don’t find it so awesome).

This? This is bullshit:

I love looking at data and variables and looking at the real evidence on both sides of the argument. It’s fun to me, same goes for issues like abortion, prison statistics, anything the FBI puts out.

As others have said, this shit ain’t fun to those it actually affects. You want to talk about privilege? It’s privilege to be able to think prison statistics and abortion are just intellectual topics for a fun debate.

You want to know what privilege is? Privilege is the normal shit, that you take totally for granted, that everyone should be able to do but are not able to do. Everyone should be intellectually far enough away from prison statistics to be able to have a fun little debate about them! But not everyone is. It is your privilege that you are able to do this thing, a privilege that everyone ought to equally enjoy.

The nature of privilege is that we don’t normally see the privileges we have (because, remember, privilege is normal shit), but we are acutely aware of the privileges we lack. A white, cisgender heterosexual male person enjoys huge numbers of privileges, which, again, are hard to see because why in the hell would you think about being able to walk down the street without being harassed as some kind of special power that you have? That’s normal. Walking down the street without harassment is normal. So you don’t notice it unless it’s specifically called out to you, or you make a conscious effort to notice that this normal, and not special in the slightest, ability that you have is something that many, many other people lack.

But socioeconomic privilege is the one privilege that most white men do not have. So that’s the one that they notice the most and get hung up on, and talk about constantly as if it’s the only privilege that exists in the world, or is the most important thing ever. That’s the privilege that white men talk about more than anything else, because that’s the one they don’t usually have and they don’t even notice the many privileges that they do have.

Then they get upset when women, or people of color (or heaven forfend, women of color) or LGBT people, or whatever, tell them to cry a fucking river. It’s not that lacking socioeconomic privilege is great or that anyone thinks not having it is fine. It’s that these other groups also lack socioeconomic privilege plus a metric fuckton of other privileges that white men do have.

It’s like saying that yes, it’s not good that you have to carry a 10 lb weight with you in this race, but you have a long row to hoe if you expect me to care much about it when I am carrying 50 lbs, and the person next to me is carrying 200 lbs. And the more you bitch and whine and carry on about your 10 lb weight, the less sympathy I have for you and the more I want you to shut the fuck up.

And if you approach me expecting me to have a fun, lighthearted debate about the 50 lb weight that is dragging me into the ground, you are going to get a nasty surprise because I don’t think this shit is fun. At all. And your gaping, yawning privilege at being able to think it’s all in fun is not amusing to me. It’s not cute or precious. I have no time whatsoever for it, and neither will most people.

There’s usually a solid middle ground both sides agree on.

What’s the solid middle ground between my belief that women are real human beings with intrinsic worth, and the belief of misogynists that they are not? Or my belief that people of color are real human beings with intrinsic worth, and the belief or racists that they are not? Tell me the middle ground that people are supposed to find with those who think they are not fully human.

WeirwoodTreeHugger
WeirwoodTreeHugger
5 years ago

Isidore,

Exactly. Every time someone comes here who “likes to debate” or sees both sides as equivalent, tends to lead with “SJWs/feminists say – fill in the blank with a strawman -” without bothering to ask the commenters what we think about the issue and without arguing against something David actually wrote in his post.

That’s why I have a hard time believing they want to discuss things in good faith and aren’t just sealions.

Notice that Richard didn’t actually present evidence that universities are enacting some sort of fascist SJW regime and he didn’t respond to what anyone said about safe spaces and trigger warnings. He merely changed the subject to his love of debating and made general equivalencies between the sides.

EJ (The Other One)
5 years ago

I’m baffled that you said “you’re absolutely correct” and then disagreed with me on the very next sentence. Perhaps you simply didn’t understand; alternatively perhaps you deliberately didn’t care and just waited for your turn to speak.

Let me try to communicate better by interpreting my own statement as if it were a verse in a rap battle.

In my experience, people who say “I like to debate on the internet” tend to mean “I like to say provocative things to strangers in order to cause them emotional hurt, usually without their consent.”

In this passage, EJ is using the word “people” to mean “Richard Via”, and spells out the phrase carefully rather than simply saying “two-bit bully.” His intentional third-personness is intended to be polite and so not cause Via to immediately disregard it by going on the defensive.

A) You have not asked the consent of the people you’ve chosen to debate with before doing it.

Here, EJ brings the matter back to consent, reminding Via that he’s shown a fuzzy understanding of it; and also points out that Via has made the assumption that others want to debate with him, an assumption which is not only impolite but also shows a lack of empathy.

B) You’ve intentionally picked topics which are emotionally distant to you but not to them.

Here EJ reminds Via that we are human and thus what truly matters is our emotions, not any level of rational though. He invites Via to mention things that matter to him personally, revealing himself as a human and bonding on a personal level rather than simply attempting to protect himself by remaining aloof. This is both a reprimand to the alt-Right shibboleth of “rationality” but also a reminder that Via can be respected and welcomed as a fellow human being if he abandons deliberately antagonistic behaviour.

(He’s a sly lyricist, that EJ.)

C) You’re doing it with strangers, rather than with friends, which is a strange way to do one’s hobbies.

Here EJ once again sets up a double meaning. On the one hand he points out that Via is doing this in an SJW space rather than among his own people, thus reinforcing the impoliteness and unwelcomeness of his behaviour. On the other hand he delivers his first direct diss of the verse, suggesting that Via in fact has no friends.

D) If you would like to prove me wrong, you can invite me to debate whether or not a G-class main sequence star can have its equilibrium dominated by gas pressure rather than radiation pressure.

Here EJ issues a challenge, reminding Via that for all his white-boy-on-the-internet swagger, he is among people who know much more than him on many topics. By using the metaphor of astrophysics, he suggests that Via knows equally little about the topics that he has chosen to challenge the women in the community about, but is unaware of the depths of his own ignorance on these topics because he does not give them the prestige that he affords to the hard sciences.

(For the uninitiated, even a small G-class star is dominated by radiation pressure rather than gas pressure. This is an incredibly interesting topic but is not relevant here.)

It is true that I am an astrophysicist and you are not, so it might be an uphill fight for you; but surely a person who indulges in debate for the pure joy of the topic isn’t only going to pick weaker opponents, are they?

Here EJ ties the astro reference back to his starting point, echoing the first statement he made. He predicts that Via will probably decline, and suggests that if he declines here against an educated white man when he would not decline against a less educated woman or a person of colour on a topic he respects less, it’s because Via is tacitly admitting to being motivated simply by cruelty, sadism and contempt.

In summary, EJ both calls Via out as a two-bit bully, and also lays open the path to reconciliation if he were to acknowledge this and seek to become a better human being.

Note also the lack of mic drop: having learned from other members of the community that dropping mics is a bad idea from an electronics engineering point of view, he instead laid it down respectfully.

Scildfreja
Scildfreja
5 years ago

(nsfw, some bad words)

Richard Via
Richard Via
5 years ago

@ Policy of Madness, I’ll be sure to follow all those rules, which I have read already.

I understand what privilege is, I know where I stand in that group of people. Not all people are on equal footing, there are many many many different types of privileges out there, each with a different weight on their life experiences with different people and groups. The big three would be Male, White and First World, of which I have all three. Everything from the way you dress, what you eat, color of skin, orientation, everything comes down to how others will perceive you and how easy or difficult your life will be.

I think the middle ground on both sides is being taken a bit out of context here. There is no middle ground on certain things, like murdering someone or not murdering someone, or as you stated

my belief that people of color are real human beings with intrinsic worth, and the belief or racists that they are not?

I don’t think we’d find many people other than some white supremist KKK members hold those values. Even those groups have been cornered to a fringe minority of people.

I should have stated where topics often have 50/50 of near that of a split disagreement, you can often find things the two agree on.

I’ll love to talk some more, and learn from you and your experiences.

Imaginary Petal
Imaginary Petal
5 years ago

I don’t think we’d find many people other than some white supremist KKK members hold those values. Even those groups have been cornered to a fringe minority of people.

Donald Trump is the GOP frontrunner. Just saying.

Handsome "These Pretzels Suck" Jack (formerly Pandapool)
Handsome "These Pretzels Suck" Jack (formerly Pandapool)
5 years ago

Hmm, someone come searching for a debate, huh?

comment image

This should be fun.

Scildfreja
Scildfreja
5 years ago

I don’t think we’d find many people other than some white supremist KKK members hold those values. Even those groups have been cornered to a fringe minority of people.

Er…

The Republican front-runner for the US presidential election has a platform built almost entirely out of racism. Out of “We’re-better-than-them”, and fear-mongering, and scapegoating.

Further: The KKK may be the only ones that believe it explicitly, but there are a whole lot more who believe it implicitly, through thoughtlessness or more traditional bigotry.

EDIT: Yeah, what IP said.

Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
5 years ago

I’d like to state that I really don’t want to use THIS thread to debate any topics as of now.

Of course you don’t. Because you know you’d get your brain-dead arse kicked six ways ’til go fuck yourself.

Such empty posturing.

Richard Via
Richard Via
5 years ago

Donald Trump is the GOP frontrunner. Just saying.

As I read that I was bursting out laughing, why didn’t I think of him? I think he’s more of a nationalist than a racist, but that’s probably him just hiding that from the public.

Richard Via
Richard Via
5 years ago

Of course you don’t. Because you know you’d get your brain-dead arse kicked six ways ’til go fuck yourself.

I respectfully disagree, I’m simply following the advice, or at least trying to, of a certain EJ (The Other One) to ask for people’s consent before talking about topics they may not have wanted to. So, on another thread would be a better place.

Handsome "These Pretzels Suck" Jack (formerly Pandapool)
Handsome "These Pretzels Suck" Jack (formerly Pandapool)
5 years ago

As I read that I was bursting out laughing, why didn’t I think of him? I think he’s more of a nationalist than a racist, but that’s probably him just hiding that from the public.

Pffffffff yeah, this is gonna be good.

Imaginary Petal
Imaginary Petal
5 years ago

As I read that I was bursting out laughing, why didn’t I think of him?

Yeah, why did you not think of anything?

Richard Via
Richard Via
5 years ago

Yeah, why did you not think of anything?

Probably because I think he more nationalist than racist. Wanting to get rid of Muslims, Mexicans, beating China, ect. His views are definitely not ones I conform to, but knowing what I do about the Donald, he was probably raised to believe he was better than any other type of person.