social justice in colleges explained

originally posted by: ketsuko
That will never happen. We aren't even equal in our circumstances as babies emerging from the womb thanks to genetics. So give it up.

So, unless you can do something perfectly, you give up trying? I don't think so.

a reply to: Bluntone22

This video is probably closer to the truth of how our educational system is operating today than we care to imagine. I always wondered why it is so hard for some people to realize that if we are all equal and all treated the same way, what incentive is there to excel in anything. One could excel in a chosen field but receive no acknowledgement for pushing the boundaries of their chosen occupation/profession.

originally posted by: Aazadan
Free speech means that the government can't silence you. Private individuals are free to ignore you or organize boycotts of you. Which actually gets into an interesting question, corporations actually have a lot of control over what people are allowed to say. Just look up how many people have been fired from their jobs for an "offensive" comment they've made on Facebook. There's an argument that there should be a Bill of Rights governing corporate/individual interactions just as there is one for government/individual interactions. Right now this all falls under the realm of contract law, and that field is under equipped to handle this because the employer and employee don't have equal negotiating power in employee code of conducts.

That wouldn't be a bad idea, if done properly. Nothing anyone does on FB, unless indicative of a crime, or something totally against their employment, should affect their job. Personal opinions, stated out of work, don't affect someone's work. I could imagine a few things that might be indicative of a problem, but not many. Just having an opinion that isn't popular, though, isn't a reason to fire someone, and that's usually what we seem to see. If employees had clear guidelines, it would help. These days, though, it ends up being a case of who has the most rank, when there is any political disagreement. How to have the government handle it, though, without massive intervention, is the real problem. Government controlling private business bothers me. Any law in such an area would have to be very specific, and they seldom are that! Most such laws are deliberately vague, so that they can be manipulated.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: ketsuko
That will never happen. We aren't even equal in our circumstances as babies emerging from the womb thanks to genetics. So give it up.

So, unless you can do something perfectly, you give up trying? I don't think so.

If it means I have to let my life be guided by a bunch of control freaks who think they can centrally plan Utopia ... then, yes. Give it up. I don't want to play in your sand box.

Whenever the word "equality" is used as a justification for anything, I get suspicious. Equality has never and will never exist. Our universe promotes diversity, not equality. If the opposite were true, everything would just be one big sea of hydrogen atoms.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Sure did. Do you know how the First Amendment works?

a reply to: TheLaughingGod

ET-phobic? What's that supposed to mean? I'm scared of extraterrestrials? First off, no. Second off, that has nothing to do with this topic. Like I have no clue what you are talking about here. Are you trolling me?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Sure did. Do you know how the First Amendment works?

You clearly do not. You stated:

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Social justice is a punishment for someone saying something stupid and insensitive. It is the consequence one must accept for being insensitive in this day and age. Don't like it? Too bad. That's how things are. That is unless you want to infringe on people's Freedom of Speech.

You are claiming that people can be punished for having opinions for being "insensitive". Such a statement is completely against the First Amendment. Free speech doesn't mean "free unless someone has his feelings hurt". Don't like it? Don't claim you want a free country. You don't want a free country; you want a country in which some control what others say and think.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Free speech only applies to speech between yourself and the government. Corporations or other people (especially corporations) are allowed to limit your speech in any way they want, and they frequently do. Social justice doesn't refer to the process of using the state to shut down what a person is saying, but rather to form real or digital groups to shut people up (usually with protests, harassment, or boycotts) because they disagree with what the person says.

That is completely in line with the concept of free speech.

"Social Justice" is nothing more than a modern rendition "Ochlocracy".

It is extremely interesting how it is patterned after military tactics, though.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I take it you're not familiar with sarcasm?

I think it would be obvious to most that I was ridiculing the rhetoric of the emotionally infantile oxygen wasting social justice warriors that have hijacked the media these recent months..

originally posted by: introvert
I'm unable to watch the video at this time, but I have to ask why you think education is moving towards indoctrination?

Is it because of videos you see on youtube or the stories of people doing and saying controversial things on campus'?

Have you considered that you believe that because you surround yourself with media sources, information and like-minded individuals that push that idea as truth?

Is it possible that you are, in fact, indoctrinated in to a certain belief?

You might want to take a look at this video of lauren southern who went to one of these gender equality classes and tells you how that goes.

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Free speech only applies to speech between yourself and the government. Corporations or other people (especially corporations) are allowed to limit your speech in any way they want, and they frequently do. Social justice doesn't refer to the process of using the state to shut down what a person is saying, but rather to form real or digital groups to shut people up (usually with protests, harassment, or boycotts) because they disagree with what the person says.

That is completely in line with the concept of free speech.

When people use protests to tel other people what they are or are not allowed to think, then those people don't respect freedom. I agree, though, that isn't the same as government intervention.

However, when some claim there should be criminal penalties for speech they don't like, that's another matter. What's what these folks want. Harassment and violence are the typical means they use, too. "Don't oppress me, while I am at a university paid for by my rich parents, or I'll scream at you, call you names, demand your job, or attack you in the library!"

It's sick. That isn't what free speech is supposed to be about.

Im in college now, and while I agree that this is a little exaggerated, I see the legitimacy in both the video and your comments. All too often for my generation it's "woe is me, the world owes me something and if I don't get what I want I'm going to stomp my foot". Im all for equality. Hey man, you do your thing, I'll do mine, I've got no problem with it. What does bother me though is when people screaming "social injustice" go around and employ the same ideals they're against. Take what's been going on at mizzou right now. I have a good friend from high school who goes there and while they're addressing equality they're basically setting up segregated safe spaces, cost a man his job for not reacting the way he wanted them to, and they want to act on their first amendment rights but want to infringe on cameramen and reporter's rights. But as soon as the media leaves to cover another story they stomp their collective foot and put out things on social media saying "#f***Paris". Just at my school an advisor almost lost their job because they said "it's a shame the homecoming court doesn't show the amount of diversity that our school has" and that got turned around into them saying "this school is too much like an HBCU, we need to change it". Social injustice has become an answer for everything that happens that hurts someone's feelings.a reply to: Bluntone22

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Sure did. Do you know how the First Amendment works?

You clearly do not. You stated:

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Social justice is a punishment for someone saying something stupid and insensitive. It is the consequence one must accept for being insensitive in this day and age. Don't like it? Too bad. That's how things are. That is unless you want to infringe on people's Freedom of Speech.

You are claiming that people can be punished for having opinions for being "insensitive". Such a statement is completely against the First Amendment. Free speech doesn't mean "free unless someone has his feelings hurt". Don't like it? Don't claim you want a free country. You don't want a free country; you want a country in which some control what others say and think.

The first words of the First Amendment are "Congress shall make no law..." So as long as Congress isn't involved and no laws are broken then a punishment for your speech is just fine. You clearly DON'T know how the First Amendment works if you didn't know that.

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Free speech only applies to speech between yourself and the government. Corporations or other people (especially corporations) are allowed to limit your speech in any way they want, and they frequently do. Social justice doesn't refer to the process of using the state to shut down what a person is saying, but rather to form real or digital groups to shut people up (usually with protests, harassment, or boycotts) because they disagree with what the person says.

That is completely in line with the concept of free speech.

When people use protests to tel other people what they are or are not allowed to think, then those people don't respect freedom. I agree, though, that isn't the same as government intervention.

However, when some claim there should be criminal penalties for speech they don't like, that's another matter. What's what these folks want. Harassment and violence are the typical means they use, too. "Don't oppress me, while I am at a university paid for by my rich parents, or I'll scream at you, call you names, demand your job, or attack you in the library!"

It's sick. That isn't what free speech is supposed to be about.

If you think I was talking about criminalizing speech then you invented a strawman about me. Punishment for your speech can be something like getting fired for saying something at work that was racist.

originally posted by: TheLaughingGod
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I take it you're not familiar with sarcasm?

THAT was sarcasm? Looked like completely offtopic ranting to me, but ok.

I think it would be obvious to most that I was ridiculing the rhetoric of the emotionally infantile oxygen wasting social justice warriors that have hijacked the media these recent months..

Boohoo?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
The first words of the First Amendment are "Congress shall make no law..." So as long as Congress isn't involved and no laws are broken then a punishment for your speech is just fine. You clearly DON'T know how the First Amendment works if you didn't know that.

So, under your logic, as long as it isn't Congress that does it, it isn't a violation? Are you 100% sure about that?

So, every time a state says they don't accept something, no one can run and complain that it's a violation of teir rights, because Congress didn't do it.....right?

Do you really ant things that way?

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
The first words of the First Amendment are "Congress shall make no law..." So as long as Congress isn't involved and no laws are broken then a punishment for your speech is just fine. You clearly DON'T know how the First Amendment works if you didn't know that.

So, under your logic, as long as it isn't Congress that does it, it isn't a violation? Are you 100% sure about that?

Yes, as long as it isn't the government doing it then it is 100% legal.

So, every time a state says they don't accept something, no one can run and complain that it's a violation of teir rights, because Congress didn't do it.....right?

Huh?

Do you really ant things that way?

I have no clue what you mean. As long as the government (any part of government) doesn't make any laws restricting free speech it is fine. The wording says "Congress shall make no law...", but that has been interpreted to mean government as a whole. That is common knowledge. It still doesn't mean that you are immune from punishment for your speech though. I can call you a bigot or some other insult right now for something you said and it would be punishment for your speech. If you said something racist at work, your company has the right to fire you for it. That is punishment for your speech as well.

I'm not sure what you aren't understanding about how this is supposed to work. It's like you have cognitive dissonance and ONLY your speech is immune from retaliation. No, your speech is only immune from GOVERNMENT retaliation. As long as the government isn't involved, it's fair game.

Complaining because you got called a racist for being racist isn't going to get anything changed for the positive. If you were to successfully petition the government to ban political correctness (the dream of many conservatives), you will have successfully petitioned the government to censor free speech and thus make you EXACTLY what you've been complaining political correctness is doing to you. In other words, a hypocrite.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
The first words of the First Amendment are "Congress shall make no law..." So as long as Congress isn't involved and no laws are broken then a punishment for your speech is just fine. You clearly DON'T know how the First Amendment works if you didn't know that.

So, under your logic, as long as it isn't Congress that does it, it isn't a violation? Are you 100% sure about that?

Yes, as long as it isn't the government doing it then it is 100% legal.

So, the state government can do whatever they want, and you can't complain. No more complaints, then, about states that don't accept certain types of marriage. it isn't the federal government, after all.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

So, every time a state says they don't accept something, no one can run and complain that it's a violation of their rights, because Congress didn't do it.....right?

Huh?

Do you really want things that way?

I have no clue what you mean. As long as the government (any part of government) doesn't make any laws restricting free speech it is fine. The wording says "Congress shall make no law...", but that has been interpreted to mean government as a whole. That is common knowledge. It still doesn't mean that you are immune from punishment for your speech though. I can call you a bigot or some other insult right now for something you said and it would be punishment for your speech. If you said something racist at work, your company has the right to fire you for it. That is punishment for your speech as well.

If someone can legally be punished for their speech, then some form of government is involved. Make up your mind, already. Either it's always wrong, or it's only wrong if it's the federal government. You can't gave it both ways. If someone is fired for free speech, that's a violation of their rights. Unless they are shouting and disrupting the work environment, they shouldn't be able to be fired for simply holding a different opinion on this or that topic. Nor should social injustice bullies be able to demand that someone is fired because they don't like the person's opinions. When that is allowed, freedom isn't present.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
I'm not sure what you aren't understanding about how this is supposed to work. It's like you have cognitive dissonance and ONLY your speech is immune from retaliation. No, your speech is only immune from GOVERNMENT retaliation. As long as the government isn't involved, it's fair game.

Odd, because that's what you are claiming. Certain groups demand free everything, and then claim that others don't have the same freedom, and you defend them. When others, myself included, point out that this isn't fair, or freedom, you act like the other person is confused. We aren't confused at all.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Complaining because you got called a racist for being racist isn't going to get anything changed for the positive. If you were to successfully petition the government to ban political correctness (the dream of many conservatives), you will have successfully petitioned the government to censor free speech and thus make you EXACTLY what you've been complaining political correctness is doing to you. In other words, a hypocrite.

No one complained for being called a racist hen they were one. People complain about being called racists for being born into white skin. Catering to people that behave in such a fashion is flat out idiotic, and the universities ought to know better.

As for hypocrites, that would be the people claiming others are racist for being a certain color. That is a perfect picture of real racism.