Maybe I was unclear. My point is exactly that racists don't like being called racist. But that if the term gets diluted by people who want to call people racist even when it isn't warranted, it becomes a less effective deterrent.

I didn't see that post so probably not. But ok.

(It had far more to do what you and spank were saying)

even if you are clearly left leaning these sjws gotta call you on your ideological purity

I'll call him on his untruths

why don't you post the truth about evergreen so we can understand it better

instead of telling madcap and jiggymac they are truthers

I mean Jesus ****ing Christ 'Islamophobia' was supposed to be the cutesy term to avoid calling you people stupid ****ing ignorant deplorable bigots.

damn 5ive why you gotta be so intolerent

I actually know exactly what happened. I can't believe anyone actually thinks the students are in the right here..

There had been a 'day of absence' at the school for years where minorities would leave the school. It was in reference to a play where minorities left a town to show how much they meant to it and the town fell apart. All that is totally fine.

This year they decided to have a day where white "ally's" would leave the campus in solidarity. The professors email pointed out the (what I thought should be a self evident) point that there is a major difference in a group absenting themselves and a group suggesting another group leaves the campus. (implicit in this suggestion is that if you stay you are not an ally to minorities)

[citation ****ing needed]


scroll back to last nightish

Yea you're probably the 20th person that talks about some unspecified dilution with some unspecified effects. It's so common that I've called it the "Boy crys wolf" gambit. The reason I do because the assumption is that people actually don't know what racism is and so they have to be told what it is like the boy telling the villagers about a wolf, but if you tell them wrong then they'll realize they've been tricked and won't believe you.

Here's why I don't think that's the right assumption. Literally anyone who's grown up in the US has some conception of what racism is. So when people talk about if something is racist or not it's not a foreign concept to either person, they just may have different definitions of what racism is. If someone tells me that a white person wearing cornrows is racist, I'll say that they're probably wrong. A white person wearing cornrows usually looks tacky as hell, but they may wear cornrows for a myriad or reasons. We could go back and forth, but the other person isn't explaining racism to me, we have different conceptions of what racism is.

What people mean to say is that if you say racism too much then people will be off put by you, which is true, but that's also true of everything. Jesus Freaks, the jokes about anyone saying taxes are good for anything is a RINO, etc are all off putting. But if you already know about the overall concept, Christianity, Conservativism and take them seriously then those people are merely off putting to you.

I think the deep seating reason is that people are afraid to be called racists, which could be a legitimate fear, but also a convenient cover, or people really aren't that serious about racism and if so, no amount of "correctly calling" racism will matter and worries about "dilution" are just concern trolling.

http://www.theolympian.com/news/poli...153826004.html

As you can see the initial letter makes it very clear that this is a choice.

It's weird that you would lie about this.

lol at this professor saying that asking people to leave (but giving them a choice to do what they want) is an "act of oppression." What a special snowflake!

When this guy goes to a museum, does he write a letter about how the "suggested donation" is actually extortion?

White people are the biggest whiners ever. Geez.

Sometimes I wonder if people have been taught to be a bit too explanatory in their emails. Literally 3 lines could have done it.

It's not mandatory, we're simply asking white people to go off campus instead of POC this year. There are sign ups because space is limited. No need to protest as there is no compulsion to leave campus, you and anyone else is free to go around campus as much as you like.

Signed,

There was a clear cost associated with not leaving campus. It wasn't a free choice.

"Allies" were to leave campus. If you stayed on campus you would be seen as not being an "ally".

But is their belief that abortion is wrong actually religious? Is abortion mentioned in the bible? I've always wondered whether the anti-abortion people are actually just expressing their repressed angst about chastity, which is more about their guilt complexes and sexual hangups than anything religious. They want women to bear the cost of having extra marital sex, pretty much as a punishment. It could all be a big slut shaming thing. All this concern over the unborn is probably just a pretext.

lol at people defending Evergreen. Even if the initial email was benign, their reaction to a perfectly reasonable email is indefensible.

"Silly minorities, I only want to do the things that make me feel like I'm an ally, not the things that make you feel like I'm an ally."

Unbelievable.

So you admit that there was coercion and you are just ok with that? And, more than that, my not being ok with that must have something to do with some underlying prejudice?

Ok then.

I do think on one hand it really does boil down to the philosophical question of when does a clump of cells become a human being. Muslims have all that repression, etc but allow abortion until the second trimester because theologically the soul doesn't enter the body until then. On the other hand, looking at it from a historical perspective the anti abortion movement really didn't take off until after the pill and women's rights came out. Before that American evangelicals really didn't put too much emphasis on it one way or another.

So? This is true of literally every request by anyone asking someone to do something. Per the emails, there were no insinuations about 'allyship' and it's repeated multiple times that it's optional. Even the set up of the event implies it's optional because they say there's only limited spaces. Hardly a forced march off campus.

What a load of ****ing bull****.

I think if you intentionally use speech to try to get someone to kill themselves that should be a crime. However, I don't agree that text messages can ever qualify as the sole support in establishing that intent. It would have to be a situation where witnesses heard her repeatedly try to convince him to do it, she wrote down her plan in a journal, the guy's mother testifies that the accused has been encouraging him to do it, etc etc.

Speech can affect those who hear it. Most of those effects are benign from a legal standpoint, but some aren't. If if can be shown that you intentionally realized some criminal ambition with nothing but speech then you should be held responsible. A lot of crimes, like many types of fraud for example, involve nothing but one person talking to another and, through that talking, one gets the other to do something under false pretenses. If lying to get money can land you in jail, then why can't lobbying someone to take their own life also land you in jail?

The bottom line is people have to be held responsible for the predictable consequences of their actions. In this case, some of the blame also goes to the suicider. However, under our legal philosophy more than one person can be held responsible for a crime, and can be held to equal account even if the role they played was minor relative to another party to the crime.

You're talking to separate people with separate opinions here.

And I don't know **** about Evergreen and that's kinda the point. I'm talking about your phrasing and how while you shouldn't concede the narrative, it's a bit arrogant to try to command the narrative. What you feel you are doesn't always supersede what you do.

Lol, Hue was much more clear and succinct:

It's pretty ****ing obvious, yeah.

But OMG the "coercion" here. How ****ing special of snowflakes are these dip****s?