Professor Uses 'N-Word,' Student Shouts 'F-You,' 'Free Speech' Class Canceled at Princeton

a reply to: intrptr

I thought it was at university, not a school? Populated by young adults and not children? Sorry if I'm incorrect on that point.

If it is a university then i don't take issue with the use of the F word.

My Latin teacher at high school would occasionally use swear words and, when someone complained, he explained the origin of the words used and demonstrated how it was an appropriate application of the language, given the context. Nobody had any issue after that.

Like I said, its just a word.

I wonder what word somebody will choose that still has the power to foment anger in another person, especially of color?

They are giving that particular word too much power by not allowing it's use! Whenever the nuclear option arises, and it will, why not use your nuclear weapon? Especially if it is already set to devastate?

If people are allowed to use that word and others, like JT using "ninjas" causing a stir a few years ago, then that word still has power! Instead of allowing society to see how narrow minded, and stupid the person using it is, then that word will always have that power. And ninjas should stop calling each other ninja, if you know what I mean. We get it, you are black and relate to other black people because of a shared history. So what? Doesn't give you the right to use an offensive term in polite society...

You guys already know all this! Besides, who says society is polite anymore?

Some slurs seem to be more powerful than others.

I can type the word 'crackers' and it comes up just as I typed it.

The 'n-word' is different.

If we are homest, black people have a lot to complain about.

They wouldnt need to if we reformed our laws by analyzing adverse impacts. Why should our criminal justice system seem to imprison one demographic more than the others?

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
If we are homest, black people have a lot to complain about.

They wouldnt need to if we reformed our laws by analyzing adverse impacts. Why should our criminal justice system seem to imprison one demographic more than the others?

As a black guy, I can unequivocally state that black people do not have a lot to complain about. Yes, there are still some racists out there, but racism is probably literally responsible for like 1% of the stress in my life. The last thing I am worried about is getting lynched by some toothless hick. However, I have to watch my back daily so I don't get car jacked by Dontravious.

When I look at the black community, 99% of the problems are symptoms of a dysfunctional culture that has been encouraged by the black community and progressive liberals.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
If we are homest, black people have a lot to complain about.

They wouldnt need to if we reformed our laws by analyzing adverse impacts. Why should our criminal justice system seem to imprison one demographic more than the others?

They tried equalizing outcome of discipline in the Minneapolis schools as per Obama admin regulatory recommendations. They set quotas on the numbers of each demographic that could be remanded for each type of disciplinary action to ensure that no one group was unfairly targeted by the disciplinary rules.

The result was the very quickly order in the schools broke down.

Not every school had a proportional population for just the first problem, but there were others.

What you talk about is bigger than just thinking it's a problem on one level. There is no simple fix to this.

a reply to: ketsuko

Thats the problem: you don't equalize outcome of discipline. You look at what is getting people put in jail, then figure out if you are over enforcing. Not based on "conventional wisdom", but based on the fact that you can only police the willing, and the laws should not be something the people do not seem to support.

MJ is an example, but its not the only one. If you are running up hundreds of these arrests per week....you have to ask yourself if you are acting in the best interest of the public you police.

Some of it seems to be common sense. Police higher crime areas more heavily. This means that affluent people can violate laws with a much greater frequency, and get caught much less. If you have zero police patrolling a neighborhood, or any police who wander in don't look to enforce due to criminal history of the geography, then you yield far, far fewer arrests for crimes like teenage kids smoking pot while driving down the street, or public drunkeness, etc. I don't have an answer, because it does make sense to police high crime areas more frequently/heavily. But the impact of that is that people who live there get caught up far more frequently than people who live in more affluent areas.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

It is almost like the old Jim Crow laws were morphed into the new War on Drugs (back in 70's it became law. And we all know that it is a war on "some drugs" but not others). This has been noticed in the percentages of prison populations where blacks, Latinos, and Native Americans, are over represented by percentage of population. Asian/Pacific Islanders are making up ground. This is even true in state where pot is legal!

That is how our justice system has institutionalized a racist mentality. That mentality shapes society's perception at that knee-jerk, stereotype level, leading to a negative feedback loop which further reinforces the ideals of society. When those attitudes are not stopped at the national level and appear to be even tacitly embraced, there are serious issues. And even the Ivory Tower of academia cannot explore a stupid word and the effects upon society without the real world creeping in.

Vox.com - After legalization, black people are still arrested at higher rates for marijuana than white people.

a reply to: Krakatoa

a female student of color had shouted at Rosen, as the first was approaching, “do you feel safe right now.”

"how people treat you is their Karma, how you react is yours"

I wonder how many students thought that the class would be about the oppressive whitey and how other skin colors can combat that. The students that reacted immaturely are, by far, the stand-out racists by the simple fact that they can't address or discuss anything race based if the discussion is about their own skin color and all the nuances that go with that skin color but they have zero issue discussing other skin colors and the nuances that go with that skin color.

Primarily, I blame the parents, but also the TVs and finally their social media bubble they dwell in, for their reactions to the lecturers question(s).

Astonishing, that even on this site there are those that would encourage and applaud censorship and the abridgment of free speech.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
If we are homest, black people have a lot to complain about.

They wouldnt need to if we reformed our laws by analyzing adverse impacts. Why should our criminal justice system seem to imprison one demographic more than the others?

The Law of the United States, like the Constitution, is only as good as the humans that use it. You won't find any laws that reference a particular demographic or race where it's essence is to be all-inclusive with no prejudice.

Laws don't need reforming - the humans using the laws need rehabilitation to remove any unfounded biases which result in the imprisonment of one demographic over another - that goes for both those who enforce the law as well as those required to abide by it.

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: Willtell
The concept of the class was idiotic anyway.

What if someone brought in disgusting porn?


Many people would have been super offended.

Class, not a good idea.

I disagree. It is a topic of social unrest that, IMO, truly needs to be discussed openly. Without the threats of violence. Will it upset some folks, sure....and that too is a topic for discussion.

Why are you upset?

What about (hate speech, blasphemy, pornography) upsets you?

Social commentary over the use of it within a smaller group of like minded individuals too.

Why is it wrong for a non-black person to say a word, yet OK for a person of color to say it?

Why are you upset?

I'm not upset, just realistic.

They should have thought about the ramifications

a reply to: Sublimecraft

Here's an example: if a city has an ordinance against having your pants too low, it would seem to be a law targeting a specific demographic.

In the US we determine what is "racist" (or "sexist", etc) based off the test of "adverse impact". Meaning, does a rule/law/regulation have an adverse impact against a protected class of citizen? If demonstrably so, then it is illegal and a violation of civil rights.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Astonishing, that even on this site there are those that would encourage and applaud censorship and the abridgment of free speech.

Astonishing, people get upset over a historical despicable racial slur

Freedom, is not free

originally posted by: Blue Shift
All those hippies thought the world was always going to see things their way, since, being hippies, they always thought they were "right."

History is going to repeat, whether you learn its lessons or not.

We were right. Unless you count the Vietnam War , pollution of the waterways and airways as being good things.
But we were arrested , beaten , and even some shot and killed for our beliefs . Kids today do not know what true change is about...They want to crawl inside a safe place and hide. We were out in the streets , etc. with non-violent protests facing all kind of hazards and name calling. Yet , we got the country to start thinking of the future.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Here's an example: if a city has an ordinance against having your pants too low, it would seem to be a law targeting a specific demographic.

In the US we determine what is "racist" (or "sexist", etc) based off the test of "adverse impact". Meaning, does a rule/law/regulation have an adverse impact against a protected class of citizen? If demonstrably so, then it is illegal and a violation of civil rights.

Ah, OK, understood - you're referring to local/state laws - not Federal laws and in that regard, examples like what you have just given, are mindnumbingly unnecessary and an overwhelming public burden where none need exist - so yes, reformation of those laws/ordinances are an absolute must - especially since they go against the philosophy behind the Constitution that all men are born free and equal.

But here I'm now hoping that your example does not exist in real-life because I fail to see how wearing your pants half off your ass is criminal. Don't get me wrong - that's a crime against fashion, but hardly life-changing for those unfortunate enough to gaze upon that attire!!

originally posted by: Gothmog
We were right.

Of course you would say that. You were right when you were hippies. You were right when you were yuppies. And now you're going to be right as old people. You must sleep pretty well, being right all the time.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
If we are homest, black people have a lot to complain about.

If we're being completely honest, the biggest thing black people should be complaining about is African American culture.

originally posted by: Willtell

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Astonishing, that even on this site there are those that would encourage and applaud censorship and the abridgment of free speech.

Astonishing, people get upset over a historical despicable racial slur

Freedom, is not free

Actually, freedom is free.

The cost comes about because people constantly try to remove it.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Here's an example: if a city has an ordinance against having your pants too low, it would seem to be a law targeting a specific demographic.

In the US we determine what is "racist" (or "sexist", etc) based off the test of "adverse impact". Meaning, does a rule/law/regulation have an adverse impact against a protected class of citizen? If demonstrably so, then it is illegal and a violation of civil rights.

Many would argue that adverse or disparate impact are idiotic as well.

I can somewhat see what you are saying in regards to policing areas with a lot of crime resulting in creating a more criminals...

With that said, having lived in a sh*thole ghetto for about six years of my life, I can assure you that way more crime happens in these areas than more affluent areas. If it weren't for cops, it would literally be like a some third world favela.

Yes, people in affluent areas smoke weed just like in the ghettos. However, what happens more often than not, is that the weed is an accessory to another crime in the hood. In other words, guy catches a gun charge but also has a blunt on him and thus gets the MJ charge too. The cop isn't necessarily looking to arrest someone for toking on a blunt though.

I live in a very affluent area and I have on multiple occasions seen white teens puffing on a joint. The thing is... that is all they are doing.