Oregon State University To Force Incoming Students to Take "Social Justice Training"

[DesMephisto]

Most universities already force you take shit like this. Some force you to take Women Studies, some force you to take a ethnic study.

[Barnabas]

This reminds me of a video i saw yesterday, on the topic of Sargon of Akkad's petition, where the dude was saying he was in this US university to take a Stem degree or whatever and he was "forced" to take social justice classes anyway



From minute 1.25 and at min 2 he mentions the requirement of having to take 3 social justice related classes.

I see it as the shoe is on the other foot and you can see how others feel.

[Eleccybubb]

You mean training like this?

[May90]

Lol, you are pretty firmly entrenched in "Group X I belong to is awesome, and Group Y opposing mine is baaaaaaad"

It might seem that way, since these forums are nearly dominated by "anti-SJW" and "anti-feminist" folks, and I end up, more often them not, criticizing their points. In those few threads that come from the opposite side, you can see that I just as much argue against theirs. But, again, people see what they want to see; you see everyone disagreeing with your agenda as defending the opposite side, so... Not my business how you see it.

Just wait for one more Tennisace thread, and you'll see it, if I don't miss it.

[Mehrunes]

Your toxic sarcasm does nothing but demonstrate that you dismiss inconvenient points of view by shrugging them away. My points aren't philosophical masterpieces, and they are really easy to understand for someone who wants to. Some people willingly choose to straw man everything they disagree with - well, it is their right.

Yes, they are really easy to understand. Which was my point, so you can leave the straw man comment in a barn or whatever. It's really fucking hysterical that that you're talking about dismissing inconvenient points when you just pulled "you just don't understand my points hurr durr" out of thin air. You know, kinda how you didn't even address the definition of feminism from Merriam-Webster that shits all over your "not real feminists because dictionary definitions" narrative. But I guess it's OK when the inconvenient thing is a mere dictionary definition.

Then you didn't have arguments as to why feminists in question don't fit even your cherry-picked one other than Sarkeesian where you stretched what she said (Jesus, I'm defending Sarkeesian). The cherry on top was when you said something along the lines of "they disagree about equality being achieved in all areas" when defending the "true" feminists still being active in the west, while also not addressing how the "not true" ones do just that.

You see, I have this thing called memory and I remember threads in question. And thanks to this being a forum I can also link and quote them, and expose the intellectual bankruptcy of your "points" in question. Laughing at that isn't dismissing them or shrugging them away though. And there's no straw needed to show how bad they are. They do that just fine on their own.

And in light of this, given the heights of dishonesty you needed to climb to avoid admitting that *gasp* some feminists are fucked up, you going on some patronizing power trip to showcase your superiority about how some people (stances of whom you misrepresented with your lazy projection) can't admit flaws in their groups is unfiltered hypocrisy.

How many times do I need to smack you on the head with a moon scepter to make you remember the US has 3 levels (or 4 if you include post doc) of post-secondary education. Bachelors, masters (which I just finished) and PhD (which Im going to wait a while for)

Which, to tie this back into the topic, I found the higher you go, the less social activism you will find.

:< Though I swear this time I just forgot the one you were attending now, not as much confusion about the (weird) nomenclature!

[May90]

Yes, they are really easy to understand. Which was my point, so you can leave the straw man comment in a barn or whatever. It's really fucking hysterical that that you're talking about dismissing inconvenient points when you just pulled "you just don't understand my points hurr durr" out of thin air. You know, kinda how you didn't even address the definition of feminism from Merriam-Webster that shits all over your "not real feminists because dictionary definitions" narrative. But I guess it's OK when the inconvenient thing is a mere dictionary definition.


Then you didn't have arguments as to why feminists in question don't fit even your cherry-picked one other than Sarkeesian where you stretched what she said (Jesus, I'm defending Sarkeesian). The cherry on top was when you said something along the lines of "they disagree about equality being achieved in all areas" when defending the "true" feminists still being active in the west, while also not addressing how the "not true" ones do just that.

You see, I have this thing called memory and I remember threads in question. And thanks to this being a forum I can also link and quote them, and expose the intellectual bankruptcy of your "points" in question. Laughing at that isn't dismissing them or shrugging them away though. And there's no straw needed to show how bad they are. They do that just fine on their own.

And in light of this, given the heights of dishonesty you needed to climb to admitting that *gasp* some feminists are fucked up, you going on some patronizing power trip to showcase your superiority about how some people (stances of whom you misrepresented with your lazy projection) can't admit flaws in their groups is unfiltered hypocrisy.

I addressed your point on Marriam-Webster more than once; not my fault that you keep ignoring this. You didn't understand my objection at all. Think about this line of reasoning:
"Democracy is flawed, since DPRK is democracy and it is a terrible place to live in".
If it doesn't make sense to you, then you will understand why arguments against feminism from some folks here don't make sense to me.

In general, my stance on this is very well explained by Michio Kaku. With regards to democracy, he likes to say, "I do not support everything attempts to build democracy lead to, but I support the idea." When things go awry, it is not as much because democracy is flawed (well, it is flawed, but not in this way), as it is because the implementation is flawed. Same way, feminism is a great ideology; equality is an amazing thing - not everyone striving for feminism does it the correct way though, much like North Korea striving to be democracy doesn't become democratic per se.

Speaking of the topic, same goes: political correctness is a good thing, there is nothing wrong with saying things in a way that doesn't make anyone feel bad - it is when it is twisted and perverted that problems begin, but the idea itself is not always to blame for it; more often than not, it is its misguided implementation.

---

You will hand-wave it all anyway and build some straw man to dismiss it. So go ahead.

[Aehl]

There are no words to describe this piece of nuclear level stupidity.

[Nynax]

Something that was said on these forums a few months ago has stuck with me ever since. 'Offense is only taken, not given.' My wording might be off, but the point remains the same. I struggled with this when I first heard it. I tried to find fault with it, thinking, "well, people say things specifically to offend you, so by that offense is given." But in the end, it is still up to the person being spoken to, whether they take offense to it or not.

After much internal debate about this, I decided it would be in my best interest to avoid taking offense by anything at all. I feel it has allowed me to think about things more rationally, and to put my personal feelings aside and view things more objectively.

So who ever said that quote here, I thank you for educating me.

I personally have two general categories of people in regards to how I personally let them affect me.

Those important to me, and whose opinions I care about.
Those unimportant to me, and whose opinions mean literally nothing.

And for new people I weigh their opinions, even critical ones, to either be of sound logic and merit....or completely unimportant, thus meaning nothing to me.

It creates kinda a funny situation where it is VERY hard for coworkers and random people to make me angry. But my girlfriend can really get to me sometimes.

[May90]

I personally have two general categories of people in regards to how I personally let them affect me.

Those important to me, and whose opinions I care about.
Those unimportant to me, and whose opinions mean literally nothing.

And for new people I weigh their opinions, even critical ones, to either be of sound logic and merit....or completely unimportant, thus meaning nothing to me.

It creates kinda a funny situation where it is VERY hard for coworkers and random people to make me angry. But my girlfriend can really get to me sometimes.

There is also such thing as varied sensitivity. We are more sensitive to some things than to other, especially to those that are an issue in our lives. A person who hates the form of their nose, for example, will be much more likely to be offended by jokes regarding their nose, than, say, ears. Personally, for example, I am very sensitive to comments on my accent: I consider it horrible, and even though countless people have told me that it is fine, it hasn't convinced me. So, while I myself joke about my accent a lot, someone else making inappropriate joke might make me a bit mad.

But, obviously, those we care about have much more influence on us too. Some random dude from the street telling me, "You are a stupid piece of arse", will make me shrug, at best; my mom telling me that (she would never say it, but suppose she would) will be another matter entirely.

[Kellhound]

How many times do I need to smack you on the head with a moon scepter to make you remember the US has 3 levels (or 4 if you include post doc) of post-secondary education. Bachelors, masters (which I just finished) and PhD (which Im going to wait a while for)

Which, to tie this back into the topic, I found the higher you go, the less social activism you will find.

You forgot Associate.

- - - Updated - - -

Most universities already force you take shit like this. Some force you to take Women Studies, some force you to take a ethnic study.

Take it P-F then troll the class just enough not to fail it, but enough to make it fun.

[breadisfunny]

Jesus Christ, are you guys so anti-PC, social justice that you don't realize all of this shit you did while in school? You remember when those kids got caught smoking pot on campus and then a couple weeks later the school had an assembly with D.A.R.E? Or when there was a fight or a suicide or something and then you had an assembly on bullying? I'm sure your Freshmen orientation had some shit like this. But anything to be outraged eh?

all i remember is having a bunch of seminars on dare and suicide prevention and abstinence education. they wouldn't tell us why though.

[Jotaux]

Just wait for one more Tennisace thread, and you'll see it, if I don't miss it.

Tennisace is like a Mallsecurity thats in on the joke while you are like Mallsecurity.

[Mehrunes]

I addressed your point on Marriam-Webster more than once; not my fault that you keep ignoring this. You didn't understand my objection at all. Think about this line of reasoning:

It's almost as if I just said how I can link or quote the threads in question (of which there were three). Which I'm gonna do just now because this is just pathetic (opting for links, since quotes would take too much space). First thread where I mentioned it. Your only reply to that was you getting trigerred how I supposedly "lied" when I portrayed your discussion with Boomzy and Tradewind (notice the immense amount of not addressing the other definition). Weirdly enough me pointing out how the discussion went like I said it did, went unaddressed.

The second thread (well, chronologically it was the third time I mentioned it, but the thread itself is older than the last one; also, here it's just me referring to the other two threads). Your reply. This was the only point in time you addressed the Merriam-Webster definition. Also a lie, on two fronts. First, as I just showed, you didn't even touch the topic of Merriam-Webster when I mentioned it to you in the Trudeau thread above (or the last one). Unless I was supposed to know your mental processes without you expressing them in the topic at hand. Two, as the last thread will show, you didn't accept it for shit, because you repeated the same "here's the dictionary truth" rhetoric in there.

So here's the last thread (as I said, the post itself happened earlier than the one in thread #2, but I'm keeping the order of the threads and also it's better that way for editorial purposes). And since you didn't address it there whatsoever, and as such I can't quote a reply of yours that doesn't exist, I'm going to link your posts about you going on your dictionary definition that goes contrary to your vows in thread #2.

The first one. Look at all that acceptance. Wait, no, had you actually accepted other definitions you wouldn't tout that one as the be all, end all. Or at least acknowledge it's just one of them. You could even cal it the main one, or most common one. Alas, not what happened. Second post. OK, sure, you may have been just "attacking the people saying that the one I'm using is wrong", but it's rather disingenuous to do so before actually linking it, and assuming that the poster in question had the same definition in mind. Third. Of course, the people disagreeing with you aren't "simply following" the definition of feminism. In before of "I only said 'if'". That acceptance of the possibility of them using another one.

Fourth. Combo deal here. Unsubstanciated claim that Sarkeesian is not for equality, touting your definition as gospel, "accepting" the possibility that either MeHMeH or Sarkeesian use a different one. Fifth. Conjuring double standards that are only double standards if you acknowledge only the Oxford dictionary and "accept" other ones. Sixth. "Accepting" that they don't have to call themselves feminists specifically according to your definition. Also look at all that examples of how they are against equality. Seventh. More of the same.

Eighth. OK, gonna give it to you, MeHMeH did ignore part of your definition. However, still lack of substantiation to the other claims in the second paragraph and treating your definition as the be all, end all in the third. Ninth. Again, gonna give it to you. For a moment you acknowledged there being shades of gray (not in the context of other definitions though, and long after I pointed it out for the first time). But also said how it's still not enough to call them feminists, then went on some impressive mental gymnastics of why you won't call people like Sarkeesian feminists. And for the lulz, your "acceptance" of the Merriam-Webster definition in the first thread after I pointed it out. So accepting the people that don't fit the definition you stick to, but may fit the other one creates a "dangerous precedent". That acceptance. That not treating the other one as wrong. That awareness it even exists in the first place.

And here's your only attempt at substantiating how Sarkeesian isn't a feminist according to your definition. Which is wrong, she did not make it gendered. But even if she did, that would be amazing amount of self-awareness on your part. In a twofold manner even! First of all, here's this. So, let's apply that to what you think Sarkeesian has said at the UN. Just because she focuses on online harassment against women doesn't mean anything about her stances on online harassment against men. She's a woman herself, she focuses on what is more important to her and affects her personally (in her case, literally). And on what she thinks is more common and/or more problematic. She may have shitty data and bends the scope of what harassment entails so hard she almost altered the reality around her, but that says nothing about her being for equality or not.

Secondly, the "I do not see her fighting for equality; she might believe she does that, but her actions state otherwise." bit. In the context of what I already mentioned in this thread earlier, i.e. this and this. As I pointed out numerous times, feminists like Sarkeesian also think that equality hasn't been met, but disagree with you as to why and about the scope of remaining inequality. Since you're not the God Emperor of what constitutes inequality or not, what authority do you have to dismiss them and brand them as "not feminists" on these grounds? The answer is obvious.

"Democracy is flawed, since DPRK is democracy and it is a terrible place to live in".
If it doesn't make sense to you, then you will understand why arguments against feminism from some folks here don't make sense to me.

The mental dissonance here. If intellectual dishonesty could be used as fuel, this would serve humankind till the heat death of universe. First of all, I can't recall even touching MeHMeH's talk of DPRK in the third thread. He kinda appeared to be lost in his own argument in later posts. Not that your counterarguments were much better. But the really amazing part here is that the argument was that DPRK isn't a democracy despite it calling itself so. And you applied the same logic to some feminists and went on how they only call themselves feminists, but actually aren't. But in case of feminists, it only makes sense if you use that particular definition (while being inconsistent about it and lacking proof for that in specific cases). And "accept" the other one. Your "addressing" of the other definition just committed seppuku.

In general, my stance on this is very well explained by Michio Kaku. With regards to democracy, he likes to say, "I do not support everything attempts to build democracy lead to, but I support the idea." When things go awry, it is not as much because democracy is flawed (well, it is flawed, but not in this way), as it is because the implementation is flawed. Same way, feminism is a great ideology; equality is an amazing thing - not everyone striving for feminism does it the correct way though, much like North Korea striving to be democracy doesn't become democratic per se.

There's a difference between "not everyone striving for feminism does it the correct way" and authoritatively stating that the the inconvenient feminists aren't feminists at all.

You will hand-wave it all anyway and build some straw man to dismiss it. So go ahead.

And I'm sure you will find a way to explain how quoting your exact words (well, linking them mostly) and in some cases applying your own logic to what you said is somehow "straw-manning" the poor, oppressed paragon of justice and intellectual honesty that you are. Either that, or you just won't address it at all.

[Tulune]

If I ever go back to college for geology and minerology and I am forced to take those shit classes, I'll tell them where they can stick them.

[Deletedaccount1]

I always thought universities was a place for learning and spreading knowledge, you know, education.
Not a place for a bunch of assholes to indoctrinate young people with their insane ideology, oh how wrong i was.

Almost all of higher education is signalling.

[muto]

I'm not sure what they are trying to accomplish through all of that. I guess they're trying to make themselves look stupid. They're doing a hell of a job at it, that's for sure. I see people acting like this, and I just think what a waste of time, you could be watching paint dry or grass grow.

[Deleted]

US and UK colleges and universities, the leaders in authoritarianism in the 21st century.

[Spectral]

It might seem that way, since these forums are nearly dominated by "anti-SJW" and "anti-feminist" folks, and I end up, more often them not, criticizing their points. In those few threads that come from the opposite side, you can see that I just as much argue against theirs.

Yes, we know that you're above the fray. There's something gratifying about scolding both sides for having positions, apparently.

[Mehrunes]

Yes, we know that you're above the fray. There's something gratifying about scolding both sides for having positions, apparently.

You're doing it wrong. You should be in awe of how unique, special and amazing he is.

[THE Bigzoman]

It's almost as if I just said how I can link or quote the threads in question (of which there were three). Which I'm gonna do just now because this is just pathetic (opting for links, since quotes would take too much space). First thread where I mentioned it. Your only reply to that was you getting trigerred how I supposedly "lied" when I portrayed your discussion with Boomzy and Tradewind (notice the immense amount of not addressing the other definition). Weirdly enough me pointing out how the discussion went like I said it did, went unaddressed.

The second thread (well, chronologically it was the third time I mentioned it, but the thread itself is older than the last one; also, here it's just me referring to the other two threads). Your reply. This was the only point in time you addressed the Merriam-Webster definition. Also a lie, on two fronts. First, as I just showed, you didn't even touch the topic of Merriam-Webster when I mentioned it to you in the Trudeau thread above (or the last one). Unless I was supposed to know your mental processes without you expressing them in the topic at hand. Two, as the last thread will show, you didn't accept it for shit, because you repeated the same "here's the dictionary truth" rhetoric in there.

So here's the last thread (as I said, the post itself happened earlier than the one in thread #2, but I'm keeping the order of the threads and also it's better that way for editorial purposes). And since you didn't address it there whatsoever, and as such I can't quote a reply of yours that doesn't exist, I'm going to link your posts about you going on your dictionary definition that goes contrary to your vows in thread #2.

The first one. Look at all that acceptance. Wait, no, had you actually accepted other definitions you wouldn't tout that one as the be all, end all. Or at least acknowledge it's just one of them. You could even cal it the main one, or most common one. Alas, not what happened. Second post. OK, sure, you may have been just "attacking the people saying that the one I'm using is wrong", but it's rather disingenuous to do so before actually linking it, and assuming that the poster in question had the same definition in mind. Third. Of course, the people disagreeing with you aren't "simply following" the definition of feminism. In before of "I only said 'if'". That acceptance of the possibility of them using another one.

Fourth. Combo deal here. Unsubstanciated claim that Sarkeesian is not for equality, touting your definition as gospel, "accepting" the possibility that either MeHMeH or Sarkeesian use a different one. Fifth. Conjuring double standards that are only double standards if you acknowledge only the Oxford dictionary and "accept" other ones. Sixth. "Accepting" that they don't have to call themselves feminists specifically according to your definition. Also look at all that examples of how they are against equality. Seventh. More of the same.

Eighth. OK, gonna give it to you, MeHMeH did ignore part of your definition. However, still lack of substantiation to the other claims in the second paragraph and treating your definition as the be all, end all in the third. Ninth. Again, gonna give it to you. For a moment you acknowledged there being shades of gray (not in the context of other definitions though, and long after I pointed it out for the first time). But also said how it's still not enough to call them feminists, then went on some impressive mental gymnastics of why you won't call people like Sarkeesian feminists. And for the lulz, your "acceptance" of the Merriam-Webster definition in the first thread after I pointed it out. So accepting the people that don't fit the definition you stick to, but may fit the other one creates a "dangerous precedent". That acceptance. That not treating the other one as wrong. That awareness it even exists in the first place.

And here's your only attempt at substantiating how Sarkeesian isn't a feminist according to your definition. Which is wrong, she did not make it gendered. But even if she did, that would be amazing amount of self-awareness on your part. In a twofold manner even! First of all, here's this. So, let's apply that to what you think Sarkeesian has said at the UN. Just because she focuses on online harassment against women doesn't mean anything about her stances on online harassment against men. She's a woman herself, she focuses on what is more important to her and affects her personally (in her case, literally). And on what she thinks is more common and/or more problematic. She may have shitty data and bends the scope of what harassment entails so hard she almost altered the reality around her, but that says nothing about her being for equality or not.

Secondly, the "I do not see her fighting for equality; she might believe she does that, but her actions state otherwise." bit. In the context of what I already mentioned in this thread earlier, i.e. this and this. As I pointed out numerous times, feminists like Sarkeesian also think that equality hasn't been met, but disagree with you as to why and about the scope of remaining inequality. Since you're not the God Emperor of what constitutes inequality or not, what authority do you have to dismiss them and brand them as "not feminists" on these grounds? The answer is obvious.




The mental dissonance here. If intellectual dishonesty could be used as fuel, this would serve humankind till the heat death of universe. First of all, I can't recall even touching MeHMeH's talk of DPRK in the third thread. He kinda appeared to be lost in his own argument in later posts. Not that your counterarguments were much better. But the really amazing part here is that the argument was that DPRK isn't a democracy despite it calling itself so. And you applied the same logic to some feminists and went on how they only call themselves feminists, but actually aren't. But in case of feminists, it only makes sense if you use that particular definition (while being inconsistent about it and lacking proof for that in specific cases). And "accept" the other one. Your "addressing" of the other definition just committed seppuku.




There's a difference between "not everyone striving for feminism does it the correct way" and authoritatively stating that the the inconvenient feminists aren't feminists at all.




And I'm sure you will find a way to explain how quoting your exact words (well, linking them mostly) and in some cases applying your own logic to what you said is somehow "straw-manning" the poor, oppressed paragon of justice and intellectual honesty that you are. Either that, or you just won't address it at all.

When mybinternet cones back, im going to engage in a serial ibtelectual spat with you