FoldN posting at 4:15AM; looks like another meth binge.

I used to be quite recreationally curious but if this is what meth does **** that.

Using her definition that Chez quoted, this is completely circular. Any ideas that are eventually triumphant are "politically correct," and thereby they necessarily are no longer rebellious and don't participate in a struggle for freedom. By her definition, your assertion that PC has gutted the struggle is incorrect. Her definition is that PC is the consequence of the struggle being largely over and won. This definition is completely different from the more colloquial definition of political correctness, which has to do with not being a dick to minority groups, which is the definition you want to use when asserting that this has gutted the struggle. You two are talking about different things.

I had actually forgotten about that, so there is a bit of egg on my face. Only by a technicality though. Since it was a self-moderated thread, I wasn't really "asking" for a ban so much as actually administering a ban on fly for being a douche.

Turns out fly *surprise* was the only one who wouldn't even attempt to be civil, and pretty much demanded to be banned from the thread out of some weird principle. Too bad, really. I think he could have contributed a lot.

This leads to a common misunderstanding brought up ITT out of a strange need to be dense, I suppose, and avoid the point. As I've mentioned numerous times, I take no issue with the stated cause of safe spaces. Most of the examples I've read about mention the ideal of fostering, not squashing, speech by setting up groundrules. This is not a new principle, we have it here. There are lots of forum rules aimed at keeping the conversations on track, forming an "intellectual" space, where ideas can be freely discussed without being overly distracted by spam, trolling, personal attacks, so on.

The problem being pointed out ITT if anyone takes the time to read my posts and the supporting articles, is the groundrules being formed are often really silly (strange ideas of what is a microaggression, for example) meaning enforcement of rules leads to a one-sided sham of a discourse worthy of ridicule -- sort of like how in here one can be banned for racism, but calling someone a racist has been defined out of the definition of personal attack.

Another problem is there are differing definitions of safe space, some that claim to want to foster discussion, and then there are other definitions that make no bones that discussion isn't the goal, fostering safe feelings is. They are a place to escape difficult discussions. Fine, those are not a problem as long as they aren't confused with the other and forced on the classroom or entire campus. Nobody is learning much new under those conditions, and it's been pointed out this is not why people should go to college.

I suppose by now the issue is sort of getting stale. I've proven my point dozens of times. Society at large has pretty well thoroughly mocked and rejected the weird misuse of safespaces, and the tide is turning as a lot of kids are apparently seeing the error of their ways and schools are making the necessary adjustments. Thanks Obama. Hopefully this great progress maintains!

lol, there's no tide to turn. The examples you've found have been horrible for that argument.

Wait. FoldN. Beyond that you literally created a safe space and then enforced that safe space with NO PLATFORMING CENSORSHIP OMG when it was time for YOU to tell everyone how people need to ease up about complaining about dead black kids....

Are you now spiking the football on how there aren't "safe spaces"? There never were! That's like taking credit for valiantly creating a bogeyman-free closet. Our whole point was that the "weird misuse of safe spaces" was a tiny handful of out-of-context ancedotes, not a real thing. It's exclusively been a way for people to argue against a strawman to puff themselves up as SUPER OPEN MINDED(ldo the thing that they are most often "open minded" about is how talking about racism is #WhiteGenocide).

No.

Yeah, she was more or less illustrating how and why it comes about, it's purpose in a general sense. More a description and then a criticism than a definition. I was just trying to paraphrase her for chez. As you know if you've been reading this thread, I don't have any problem at all with PC defined as good manners with empathy toward minority groups. It's the abuse of that concept to further a political argument and agenda to the detriment of reason that I take issue with. I think Paglia would agree.

Well guys I guess FoldN has proved his point. Totally dunked on us liberals by invoking our feminist hero Camille Paglia. Time to declare the BruceZ ****posting campaign a success and head back to SMP.

Really? Because you went hard in the paint for the guy who wanted to hijack a class discussion with his unrelated point that gays really are an abomination before God.

To say nothing of the professor who launched an online smear campaign against the TA, who wound up having to leave for another institution after getting death threats --that prof was the *hero* in his last story.

Haha, well maybe the war isn't completely won...

http://m.townhall.com/tipsheet/mattv...ation-n2150356
Mmm updating this thread and watching yall run around clucking denials over and over is going to be such a great source of entertainment for me!

Man phew! I'm glad we've solved the safe space problem. For an existential threat to democracy and western liberal values we managed to beat it pretty easily. All it seemed to take was whatever Obama is supposed to have done. Mocked dumb teenagers or something?

Their graffiti of the wall and subsequent victory dance is the equivalent of your posting in this thread. It doesn't demonstrate in any way that "safe spaces" are some out-of-control problem that is ruining our country; it shows that conservatives are furiously and needlessly angry about political correctness, as you've demonstrated repeatedly.

If you want to make it unstale then you try moving onto the Paglian type view that being PC nowadays means avoiding educating women about the problem of men being rapists by nature. I think that's the sort of thing she is trying to get at - that the great cause of taking on the problem of 'rape being accepted' has resulted in accepting 'not talking about the problem of rape'.

But I'm not sure there's enough of Trolley's meth to go round (or any Paglians around these parts)

A liberal exercised his or her first amendment rights and said something dumb on the twitters that had no real world consequences?! THE INTENETS MUST KNOW ABOUT THIS TRAVESTY!!!!!!

In which chez tries to deduce Paglia's views from first principles, and concludes that liberals don't want to talk about rape.

Ahaha, yeah, nothing to see here...example after example after example have been posted itt, and I've done no great research, clearly, just google. After each one some yahoo writes " thats all you got?" Lol, google has also turned up article after article by pundits and politicians from all over the political spectrum outlining the silliness. Still there are tiny little bubbles on the internet like this who manage to ignore reality so well.

Are they an out-of-control problem? I hope not, but they sure would be if everyone were like you goofballs!

That's an impressive amount of wrong there Trolley.

Maybe have a reread and a rethink. I guess not but let me know if you want to have a go.

You have illustrated a handful of incidents, some of which don't even support your hypothesis, and have not shown any real-world consequences except Jerry Seinfeld refusing to go to liberal campuses and maybe 1-2 profs fired for inappropriate behavior. I guess if that was worth the effort then good on you.

Should students be barred from tweeting in support of safe spaces?

What party was injured by the student who tweeted that there should be an investigation into the anit-safe-space graffiti?

Hahaha whooosh

Woosh? Why should any of us here give a **** about pundits saying things when no one is harmed, and no corrective action is proposed? If you can't show those things, the existence of people saying things about it doesn't matter in the least.

Given your stance on raping someone and then calling them crazy, Im guessing "minority groups" doesn't include women?

Lol, I just think it's hilarious and indicative of a culture of crybaby bitches on campus who think it makes sense to cry to authorities when someone writes something completely mundane and non threatening that doesn't conform to their delicate world view on a wall dedicated to free speech on campus. Like, you can't make these things up. Wouldn't you agree?