PaleIsTheNewTan Posted June 20, 2015 Posted June 20, 2015 is getting out of hand. Look at this lunacy that was recently posted by UCLA. [Link below] This group think of demanding self censorship and bully tactics to shut down ideas and dialog they don't like is frightening. More so that this permeates academia. As a college student myself, I'm constantly on the lookout for this toxic ideology to creep into my university (luckily I haven't seen it in the 3 years I've been here). What are FDR members thoughts on this? http://www.ucop.edu/academic-personnel-programs/_files/seminars/Tool_Recognizing_Microaggressions.pdf
Anuojat Posted June 20, 2015 Posted June 20, 2015 Sound like using using irrational behavior of some to broadly classify and then silence other. Sexism is bad, racism is bad. Therefore anothing that MIGHT be racist in totally indirect and broad and vague way is SEXIST and/or RACIST. therefore peoples thoughts and intentions are bad. This is thought police. This is taking words an assighning meaning in them completely arbitarely AND not only that by suggesting these idea are either wrong or bad.
David Ottinger Posted June 20, 2015 Posted June 20, 2015 "I'm outraged by this thread!" Hehe... my bad jokes aside, here is a better bit that I think hits the nail on the head: 2
Eternal Growth Posted June 20, 2015 Posted June 20, 2015 Just looking at the pdf, as it is all you have given to go by: parts of it are positive from an individualist perspective, and encourage treating people as individuals rather than the groups they happen to have been born into (e.g. not assuming a black woman isn't a scientist), as well as being more inclusive and representative of individual variation (e.g. that forms should have more options than just "Single" or "Married"). Other parts of the document implicitly promote a collectivist ideology, such as the "Myth of Meritocracy" section, and the idea that "colour blindness" is not a value, when in fact it is the most rational way to approach skin colour.
PaleIsTheNewTan Posted June 20, 2015 Author Posted June 20, 2015 I read it like 'Lets take the worst possible context of these phrases and MAKE them racist/sexist/other-ist's.' The "I never would have guessed you were a scientist" to a woman, in almost every realistic case I can fathom, would have nothing to do with her (or even his) gender, but likely her/his personality or behavior. Like if I ran into a person (man or woman) say at the gym, and they were supper funny and goofy and outgoing, then later revealed to be a scientist, I would say just that. "Wow I wouldn't have guessed! You're such an extrovert! Fascinating!" It doesn't NEED to be about gender, but I feel they force it. Basically context.
shirgall Posted June 21, 2015 Posted June 21, 2015 How many feminists does it take to change a light bulb? . . . That's not funny! In all seriousness, this perceived offensiveness tactic is a ploy to avoid true empathic connections.
J. D. Stembal Posted June 21, 2015 Posted June 21, 2015 The social justice tears, they taste bitter. 1
Recommended Posts