That's just a guy making an unsourced assertion. Find some links of students being punished for criticizing affirmative action in a relevant classroom setting, eh?

Absolutely incapable of anything but personal attacks. Wil has never put forth a convincing argument on anything on 2p2.

Incorrect, that's an actual professor speaking from experience. He also cites several other cases later on. Keep denying these things.

I mean let's think about this another way ... what possible reason could Haidt have for making any of these things up?

Me saying your posts amuse me is a personal attack? lol.

I was asked this:

I answered:

I'd call them "civil rights activists"

The focus MUST be on rights, not on discourse, or ideas or on depictions of people in media.

Also said this:

The only places that think colleges have changed dramatically the last few years are right wing publications. Ask yourself why they want you to think this.

The overwhelming majority of colleges don't have a safe space. The overwhelming.majority of students at he schools that do will never use one.

Lol, that is absurdity. College campuses have changed dramatically in just a few years. Don't let the rioting on TV give you any clues, though. Must be a conspiracy.

When was the last time you were on one? There has been rioting every decade for 50 years on campuses.

The biggest recent change on campuses is the uncovering of corruption involving sexual assault. Wonder why this isn't an issue for wil...

Physically in a classroom? Many years. On a campus? Maybe a few years ago, walking through Penn or temple.

None of that matters, though. The proof is from professors who actively tell people there is change on campus and news stories written on safe spaces and colleges taken stances on the issue. Or, is the news and first hand accounts from professors, you know, people who actually spend time there, not good enough for you, the resident expert?

As far as corruption involving sexual assault, I think we have threads about it. It's mostly hysterical nonsense.

So, your proof is a couple of dozen anecdotes that prove...what exactly? You think students are being radicalized in some sort of liberal fashion. If this were the case, wouldn't admissions to certain schools that favour safe spaces have been going up? Wouldn't admissions to faculties that cater to these new wave of people gone up? I'm sure this would be better evidence than anecdotes on conservative blogs, no?

These are the exact "kids these days" arguments made when campuses became the most accepting place to young LGBT people. The exact same bs.

Wil is so classy. Personal anecdotes about safe spaces gone mad is a national crisis. Schoolwide corruption that covers up rape with thoroughly documented sourcing at multiple major universities? "Hysterical nonsense." If you ever wanted to know the morals of Wil, you don't need to ever read a single other post he has ever made.

Your logic here is lacking. The safe space movement exploded and is a real issue. It's not so much that these campuses are creating safe spaces with their therapy dogs and coloring books and cupcakes, which some actually are doing. The issue is the power of the students who are changing the way things are handled on campuses. These have real-world consequences. These topics are discussed by liberal thinkers, not just conservative. Is there a single topic that you are honest about at all?

No, it is not.

You talk about me and personal attacks, yet all you do is attack people or imply they are something they are not. Your side loses credibility because they lie about things to a ridiculously degree. No, we don't believe that women make 77 cents on the dollar. No one believes that, because the number isn't correct. Yet, the President on the United States went on national television multiple times and said exactly that.

No dude, we don't believe 24% of all women will be sexually assaulted on college campuses. No, we don't believe there is a "rape culture" that is rampant at universities. I have a daughter, if I believed those numbers I would NOT send my daughter there. The thing is I don't believe that crap because it's exactly that - crap. It's NOT TRUE.

Are there rapes on college campuses? Of course there are. Is it a wide-spread problem? Absolutely not.

Institutions are only as good as the people controlling them. There are no real ideological or institutional guide rails, existing independently of good faith execution, which will protect us from tyranny. At the bottom of every policy, and every institution, always, is a human being making a decision. Ideas and institutions are ultimately hollow vessels which only perform as intended when animated with that intention by people acting in good faith.

So take the courts, since you mentioned them, for example. Sure, we have laws. So a cop can't, legally, walk up to someone and choke them to death for the alleged crime of selling loose cigarettes- right? The law would seem to be pretty clear on that. However, as we saw in the case of Eric Garner (or pick from any of 100s of other similar examples), competing values, like perhaps racial supremacy or class conflict, can supplant good faith execution of stated institutional values like equal justice. It was the prerogative of the grand jury, no doubt filled with racist scum, not to indict the offending officer- to not even sort out the matter in a jury trial. This is a pretty clear example of the simple willfulness of people trumping all institutional safeguards. What might not be clear is that this same exact dynamic exists for every single institution.

Trump is currently going through a process of nullifying institutional integrity by appointing those whose values run antithetical to the mandate of the institutions to which they are appointed into key decision making positions. There are still courts which can challenge what these people positively do, but courts have a passive nature. You typically have to bring them cases of something bad positively being done. You can legally challenge an institution doing something bad, but it is a lot harder to challenge the absence of faithful execution. People at the head of large government institutions can simple choose not to fulfill those functions and it is very difficult to, going through the courts, force them to positively do things they are mandated to do.

Trump is certainly testing safety guards and valves that haven't been tested in a very long time or ever. That much is clear.

A therapy dog would probably do wonders for wil, tbh.

Best make sure it's a male dog though.

Duece, I flip flop back and forth between guarded optimism that the institutions upon which our flawed, but much improved liberal democracy has been built can withstand a Trump presidency, even become stronger for it, and complete hysteria that we're headed for civil war. I'd appreciate if you would shut up and let me play with some playdoh for awhile with my therapy bitch.

For people who don't (or don't want to) remember the student riots in Paris in May of 1968, or the student riots outside the US Embassy in London the same year, or the turmoil on American campuses throughout the Vietnam war, there's not much hope. If you're that thick, there's nothing anyone can do or say.

Even outside of specific protest movements, right-on campus radicalism goes back about half a century. Malcolm Bradbury's novel The History Man was published in 1975 and set in 1972 on a British redbrick campus. The anti-hero Howard Kirk, memorably played by Anthony Sher in the 1981 BBC adaptation, is a Zapata-tashed sociology lecturer who's a big cheese with the campus right-ons and gives talks to campus-right-on societies with titles like, 'Begin The Armed Struggle Now?' (The author was a professor at the new University of East Anglia and had also visited American campuses.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_History_Man

'No-platforming', as far as I know, dates from the later 1970s. It was pushed on British campuses by something called the Anti-Nazi League, now known to have been a front for the Socialist Workers' Party. I remember declining to sign their no-platform petition against 'racist and fascist speakers' because first, no one at our university was likely to invite a National Front member to speak and second, if they did, it might be more fun to let the Nazi appear and then turn up and throw rotten tomatoes at them. The bearded Trot bringing round the petition said, 'You might not think that if you were black or Asian.' (He was white, obviously, and wasn't from our university.) I said I thought black or Asian students might welcome the chance to pelt a Nazi with rotten tomatoes, actually. The bearded Trot didn't get it, just pugged his chin sulkily and turned round and left.

There's nothing new going on. And I doubt that Foldn or wil or Lord would ever voluntarily admit that the National Guardsmen who murdered four students at Kent State on 4 May 1970 were violating the First Amendment, which guarantees the right of the people to peacefully assemble. The protest against the bombing of Cambodia was peaceful, the reactionary governor had not declared martial law or taken any special powers, and two of the murdered students were not even taking part in the demonstration, they just happened to be walking past in the distance. (A .30-calibre round fired from a Garand M-1 is lethal out to a very considerable range.) One of those two was a member of the university ROTC battalion.

But that doesn't matter in Murrca. Despite a grand jury indicting eight Guardsmen, there was no trial. The murderers' claim of 'self-defence' (by heavily armed troops against unarmed and peaceful students) was deemed to trump all possible charges.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings

Right-ons, or SJWs if you want to call them that, can be silly and annoying. But they are not a danger to Western society. Reactionaries are.

People who seek to blame the behaviour of reactionaries on liberals are siding with the Kent State murderers, and therefore one knows what to think of them.

Right-ons also basically helped Richard Nixon into the White House, so there's that.

Nixon's dog helped him get re-elected.

You're going to try to re-write the counter-counter-culture effect that happened in the late 60s now?

Nixon actually engineered something called positive polarisation.

More people hated the protesters than they hated him. And he won.

Nice post. Thx.

I was too young to even consider being involved but I knew members of the anti nazi league at school. They used to got to National Front rallies to protest - pretty violent events is my recollection. It all seemed to die out after the riots.

One organised a pupil strike at school as well. No idea what it was for (maybe I did once) but it was fun.

I'd say that "safe spaces" on campus/ campus culture has changed pretty dramatically when the University of Chicago has to make an explicit statement denying it and when there are people in academia dedicated to defining and understanding it. I think it's pretty self evident it's a "thing".

Probably because we all know intuitively that people that get into/ are succesful enough to go to college usually are socially adept enough to have avoided commiting violent acts or even entertaining the idea of committing a violent act is pretty rare. In fact, notice I said fact, it is much less likely that a women would be raped on a college campus than any where else if you look at crime stats.

Hey, if it doesn't fit your lame marxist theory just disregard it.