CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Movie Miscellany › Western Society, Pop Culture, and the Cacophony of Social Media
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Western Society, Pop Culture, and the Cacophony of Social Media - Page 44

post #2151 of 4551

That's a great read.

post #2152 of 4551
.
Edited by Agentsands77 - 5/10/17 at 6:23pm
post #2153 of 4551
Quote:
Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny View Post
a highly-constructed, artificially aberrant image of a gay male

 

Forget where it is from, but I think the best description I've seen is "gay minstrelsy". Might have been the same article that speculated the online persona might actually be the work of a dozen or more people, including ghostwriters on social media.

post #2154 of 4551
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agentsands77 View Post


It's challenging in the best sort of way. I'm going to be mulling it over for a while.

A nice segue into this news!

 

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/08/judge-sets-aside-rape-charges-for-probation-so-ex-athlete-can-enjoy-a-college-experience/

post #2155 of 4551
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agentsands77 View Post

DeBoer writing about Nate Parker:
 

Quote:

I want to argue that this situation demonstrates an absolute fissure in contemporary progressive politics, that there is a direct and unambiguous conflict between our efforts to address mass incarceration and the insistence that people accused of crimes such as sexual assault should be presumed to be guilty and that those who are guilty are permanently and existentially unclean. I want to argue that there’s nothing particularly hidden about this conflict, that acknowledging it is as simple as noting the direct contradiction of two progressive attitudes: the belief that certain crimes, particularly sex crimes and domestic violence, should be treated not only with harsh criminal punishments but with permanent moral judgment for those guilty of them; and the idea that we need to dismantle our vast criminal justice industrial complex, to oppose the carceral state, and to replace them with a new system of restoration and forgiveness. I further want to argue that progressives are not doing any of the moral and legal reasoning necessary to resolve these tensions, and that if we don’t, eventually they’ll explode.

 

While it's not really fair to the spirit of the article as a whole,  he's in trouble here because he kicks off with a straw man argument.

In most instances, when people inquire,  the response is that people don't want harsher and more permanent damnation for sex crimes, necessarily.  But in the current broken system/rape culture/whathaveyou this level of shunning and extra-legal punishment, as it were,  (which, hey, it's not setting upon someone with bike chains or anything.  Small mercies, bright side etc) is necessary or even the only truly effective course of action available.

(although I'm sure someone could find someone arguing for nothing but  summary execution for all sex offenders in our delightful social media buffet).

 

It's a mistake for anyone to think that their own assessement of action X amounting to long term effect Y is 1) the intended universal normalised outcome or 2) the intended or even the actual outcome at all.  All of those things would need to be argued for and in all likelihood the people doing it are going to disagree at every step (but would be needlessly distracting here).

It's an error that underpins most anti-feminist and neo-con-ish outrage culture thinkpiece (not that this is one of those).  But it's only really the outsider's truism that feminists, racial activists, "leftists" et al are warping society out of shape and winning.  They don't really think so.  Not in the areas that really piss them off anyway.  I'd even say they're mostly not expecting to 'win' much of anything a lot of the time (which sounds paradoxical, but chuck it in with my sociology of social activism theorising I guess).

 

Maybe they're wrong, but that's not really the point.  If you're wanting to open a dialogue, as in this case,  I wouldn't lead with that.

 

It's a worthy discussion to have though, ultimately. 'What if you win?  What's the end game here?'.  And attempting to steer the thinking towards tangible, practical outcomes is always good.  With any luck that paragraph isn't too distracting and the discussion continues.

post #2156 of 4551
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack1289 View Post

For those of you who haven't falled into the Twitter plague, the favorite seven films were announced and the results are...boring.



CqAN_arVYAAYBuF.jpg:large
Why are some listed singularly but others get the whole franchise?
Quote:
Originally Posted by commodorejohn View Post

I don't care much what popular opinion is on a movie, but "uplifting" Oscar-bait treacle is like nails on a chalkboard to me. It's the Chicken Soup for the Soul of film.
With prison rape!

Shawshank is solid. Darabont should be making more films.
post #2157 of 4551
Quote:
Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny View Post


What I'd like to know is if any of these people would chastise someone for being "ableist" when said person uses an adjective like "crazy" in real life and in mixed company. I somehow doubt they do. You can only get away with that shit if you're on the internet or surrounded by like-minded people who you know won't challenge, clown the shit out of you, or whip your ass senseless. 
When you type it on the internet, it just kinda hangs there in view, just waiting for someone to find it, screengrab it, analyze it, and overreact to it. Again and again. You dont have to remember what someone once said while others have forgotten. You can search for it and share it in a million different ways.

And in this year in particular (election 2016), I have seen MANY things come from friends and family I never knew they thought or felt before. Bold opinions for sure. And plenty of lines drawn in the sand ("if you think THIS, go ahead and unfriend me!"). So much extreme insular thinking and discourse being shut down.
post #2158 of 4551

triggrrrr warning: there will be no trigger warnings here

 

http://www.mediaite.com/uncategorized/university-of-chicago-cautions-incoming-students-no-trigger-warnings-or-safe-spaces-here/

 

Quote:
 

The University of Chicago, regularly ranked as one of the nation’s best and most selective colleges, is taking the opposite approach of many other schools. Case Western Reserve University, for instance, provided counseling and safe space haven for students triggered by — get this — the Republican National Convention in Cleveland last month.

“University Counseling Services will continue to offer walk-in services for students who want to talk with someone about their concerns related to recent events and/or the upcoming convention,” said the school via an online newsletter.

Openly-gay conservative journalist and star of the “Dangerous Faggot Tour” Milo Yiannopoulos has been the subject of ridicule by college campuses often looking to stifle free speech from the controversial pundit. DePaul University found itself front and center earlier this year of this controversy after a highly contentious appearance from the Breitbart editor. The University president Dennis Holtschneiderannounced his intention to resign as a result of the flap, when student protestors storm the stage and denied Yiannopoulos’ event from continuing.

But if you’re entering the University the Chicago, suck it up, kids, andtake a page out of Mike Bloomberg‘s book: “The whole purpose of college is to learn how to deal with difficult situations, not to run away from them. A microaggression is exactly that, micro.”

post #2159 of 4551
Ooh, shots fired!
post #2160 of 4551

Agreed in theory, but I think there's a line that can be drawn between conservative speakers (politicians, REAL journalists, academics etc. etc.) and universities spending money to host trashy hate-mongers like that Milo guy.

post #2161 of 4551
Thread Starter 
Like it or not, Milo Yiannapolous has a voice in the current discourse as much as any "social critic". I get not wanting to indulge frauds like him, but a reasonably informed and articulate person can engage and expose him. They shouldn't be denied the opportunity.

Jon Stewart wasn't afraid to go toe-to-toe with Bill O'Reilly and look what happened there; he exposed O'Reilly's specious political views and intellectual dishonesty every time.
post #2162 of 4551
Quote:
Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny View Post

Like it or not, Milo Yiannapolous has a voice in the current discourse as much as any "social critic". I get not wanting to indulge frauds like him, but a reasonably informed and articulate person can engage and expose him. They shouldn't be denied the opportunity.

Jon Stewart wasn't afraid to go toe-to-toe with Bill O'Reilly and look what happened there; he exposed O'Reilly's specious political views and intellectual dishonesty every time.

Bingo. Instead people storm the stage and refuse to move or yell and disrupt him. That gives him so much more power in the long term.

post #2163 of 4551
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post
 

triggrrrr warning: there will be no trigger warnings here

 

http://www.mediaite.com/uncategorized/university-of-chicago-cautions-incoming-students-no-trigger-warnings-or-safe-spaces-here/

 

 

Quote:
Our commitment to academic freedom means that we do not support so-called “trigger warnings,” we do not cancel invited speakers because their topics might prove controversial, and we do not condone the creation of intellectual “safe spaces” where individuals can retreat from ideas and perspectives at odds with their own. 

 

I can't find the original letter currently, so I'm kinda wondering if they even try to comprehend what these things actually are.  That tends to make an institution's reputation for intellectual rigor too.  Or do they get their definitions of these things from..well, Milo?

post #2164 of 4551

As I said before, if you're actually getting triggered you have PTSD and need to see a psychiatrist so you can stop getting triggered. If you don't have PTSD you're just getting upset. In which case you can go fuck yourself.

post #2165 of 4551
Thread Starter 

I just read up on some of the Leslie Jones stuff. I don't get it, man. That is insane and I do not understand how someone can put in so much work to attack and humiliate someone they don't know. 

post #2166 of 4551

The trick with humans is that we see someone on TV/movies/media/social media enough... we DOOOOOO know them!

post #2167 of 4551
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelios View Post
 

As I said before, if you're actually getting triggered you have PTSD and need to see a psychiatrist so you can stop getting triggered. If you don't have PTSD you're just getting upset. In which case you can go fuck yourself.

So what about people who are actually undergoing therapy for PTSD and are also attending classes?  Wouldn't a trigger warning for a curriculum be of some assistance to them as they continue on their academic career?  Or do they have to wait until treatment is completed before having a chance to attend them?

 

We've had this discussion already, but the warning itself is not censoring anything.  It's just indicating that such material is there with a disclaimer.

 

I mean, definitely continue with the discussion over whether or not the very existence and use (or misuse) of trigger warnings correlates with far more insidious and sinister censorship practices.  That's a valid dialogue to have.  But like so many of these kinds of ideological battlefields where people zero in on the most obvious and easy target... is the trigger warning itself the thing to focus on?  Or whatever it is that gives rise to 'unreasonable' levels of trigger warnings and safe spaces?  

 

In terms of the never ending series of reactions to reactions to reactions... it seems like its defenders eventually get really upset over trigger warnings because its critics seem to get so outraged by them because its proponents get defensive about them... to the point that all that anyone seems to be able to focus on is the minutiae of trigger warnings.

 

I'm very very interested in how the University of Chicago's decision will play out in the long run.


Edited by mcnooj82 - 8/25/16 at 6:47pm
post #2168 of 4551
Quote:
Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny View Post
 

I just read up on some of the Leslie Jones stuff. I don't get it, man. That is insane and I do not understand how someone can put in so much work to attack and humiliate someone they don't know. 

 

We can ask Milo about it at his next speaking engagement! I'm sure lulz will be mentioned. 

post #2169 of 4551
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post
 

So what about people who are actually undergoing therapy for PTSD and are also attending classes?  Wouldn't a trigger warning for a curriculum be of some assistance to them as they continue on their academic career?  Or do they have to wait until treatment is completed before having a chance to attend them?

 

We've had this discussion already, but the warning itself is not censoring anything.  It's just indicating that such material is there with a disclaimer.

 

I mean, definitely continue with the discussion over whether or not the very existence and use (or misuse) of trigger warnings correlates with far more insidious and sinister censorship practices.  That's a valid dialogue to have.  But like so many of these kinds of ideological battlefields where people zero in on the most obvious and easy target... is the trigger warning itself the thing to focus on?  Or whatever it is that gives rise to 'unreasonable' levels of trigger warnings and safe spaces?  

 

In terms of the never ending series of reactions to reactions to reactions... it seems like its defenders eventually get really upset over trigger warnings because its critics seem to get so outraged by them because its proponents get defensive about them... to the point that all that anyone seems to be able to focus on is the minutiae of trigger warnings.

 

I'm very very interested in how the University of Chicago's decision will play out in the long run.

I actually kind of agree with this,  mostly in the way that it doesn't really effect me or censor anything. The reason I always shrugged them off is because in general life isn't going to give you trigger warnings. Meaning people could be triggered by something else during the day. Reading about rape in class isn't the only thing that can trigger a rape victim. 

post #2170 of 4551
but you still don't like me!!!
post #2171 of 4551
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post

but you still don't like me!!!

If only you just agreed with everything I say.

post #2172 of 4551
I WILL TRY!

(continues waxing all over))
post #2173 of 4551
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waaaaaaaalt View Post
 

 The reason I always shrugged them off is because in general life isn't going to give you trigger warnings. Meaning people could be triggered by something else during the day. Reading about rape in class isn't the only thing that can trigger a rape victim. 

Right.  Which I assume people with trauma would prepare themselves for when they're out and about in the world.  But perhaps that bit of kindness at school would still be appreciated to help them feel at ease while in a learning environment.

 

I mean... I don't know exactly what goes into a trigger warning at colleges.  Is it just a few lines of text on a course syllabus?

post #2174 of 4551
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post
 

Right.  Which I assume people with trauma would prepare themselves for when they're out and about in the world.  But perhaps that bit of kindness at school would still be appreciated to help them feel at ease while in a learning environment.

 

I mean... I don't know exactly what goes into a trigger warning at colleges.  Is it just a few lines of text on a course syllabus?

A guy in a ski mask holding duct tape comes up behind them and whispers warning into their ear. I thought it was weird but what they do with their funding is their business I guess.

post #2175 of 4551

effective!

 

benefits of generous endowments by alumni!

post #2176 of 4551
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post
 

So what about people who are actually undergoing therapy for PTSD and are also attending classes?  Wouldn't a trigger warning for a curriculum be of some assistance to them as they continue on their academic career?  Or do they have to wait until treatment is completed before having a chance to attend them?

 

We've had this discussion already, but the warning itself is not censoring anything.  It's just indicating that such material is there with a disclaimer.

 

I mean, definitely continue with the discussion over whether or not the very existence and use (or misuse) of trigger warnings correlates with far more insidious and sinister censorship practices.  That's a valid dialogue to have.  But like so many of these kinds of ideological battlefields where people zero in on the most obvious and easy target... is the trigger warning itself the thing to focus on?  Or whatever it is that gives rise to 'unreasonable' levels of trigger warnings and safe spaces?  

 

In terms of the never ending series of reactions to reactions to reactions... it seems like its defenders eventually get really upset over trigger warnings because its critics seem to get so outraged by them because its proponents get defensive about them... to the point that all that anyone seems to be able to focus on is the minutiae of trigger warnings.

 

I'm very very interested in how the University of Chicago's decision will play out in the long run.

 

I bet the ratio of actual PTSD sufferers to precious little snowflakes is astronomically low.

 

My main problem is that part of an actual life altering mental condition has now been co-opted and rendered meaningless. People who actually have panic attacks when they hear a car exhaust backfire or when a strange man walks up behind them at night must feel so grateful that discussion in art class about The Abduction Of The Sabine Women is preceded by "trigger warnings" and pearl clutching. 

post #2177 of 4551
yeah, any mental condition that eventually goes mainstream eventually gets co-opted as casually tossed out shorthand for a lot of flaky personality 'quirks'

eyyyy I totally have

depression
anxiety
low blood-sugar
autism
Aspergers
'on the spectrum'
ADHD
OCD
etc
post #2178 of 4551

My thoughts and prayers are with you.

post #2179 of 4551
I only accept trigger warnings
post #2180 of 4551
If modern co-ed campuses are as rife with "rape culture" as I'm led to believe (I graduated from a 98% men trade-school 18 years ago), college life in general should have a trigger warning pop up on your daily alarm clock.

WARNING!

My best friend attended PCU itself, Wesleyan Univ in CT. I hung out there many a weekend. You had triggers and trigger warnings on the way to class in the form of activists' picket signs, t-shirts, and face paint.

DOWN WITH PENIS POWER

Isnt a protest itself triggering/troubling? All that shouting and close proximity body odor.

raw
post #2181 of 4551
Quote:

Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post

 

We've had this discussion already, but the warning itself is not censoring anything.  It's just indicating that such material is there with a disclaimer.

 

I mean, definitely continue with the discussion over whether or not the very existence and use (or misuse) of trigger warnings correlates with far more insidious and sinister censorship practices.  That's a valid dialogue to have.  But like so many of these kinds of ideological battlefields where people zero in on the most obvious and easy target... is the trigger warning itself the thing to focus on?  Or whatever it is that gives rise to 'unreasonable' levels of trigger warnings and safe spaces?  

 

 

Exactly.  Trigger warning was a term that started in victim support networks and grew out  to become a bit of a marker of solidarity, it would seem.  That was kind of silly.  But other than that it's a content warning.  We have those all over the place already.  And previously it was mainly out of consideration, not for any actual mental illness and trauma association  (and then, of course, for other reasons like dealing with scared children and/or turning them into rapacious sexual beings or violent monsters).  People didn't take a whole lot of offense to the idea then.  It wasn't the harbinger of social dissolution (outside of extreme libertarian circles) until, y'know, feminists did it and had a funny word for it.

 

The thing is, most places I've encountered with a broad audience that took on the trend at its height, even the most pinko progressive places, have had a bit of think about it and gone back to regular content warnings by now.  Because it communicates more clearly than jargon.

 

So now what you get is dudebros arcing up about regular old content warnings, because they're "trigger warnings in disguise!" or something.  And conservative colleges try to ban them somehow, probably still having content warnings all over the place (or maybe the dean's wife has hardcore porn sprung on her every time she opens a door just to prove a point.  I don't know.  Assuming she didn't like that sort of thing.  No point if she actually did.  Ideological purity!)

 

The thing this tends to reveal is that free speech conservatives, "The Rationals" and the like are just as apt to turn a term into magic words, if not more so, than the pinko hippy over sensitive deconstructionists they purport to be fighting.  It's surely a branch of philosophy they'd prefer would disappear, but they just keep giving fuel to the theories behind it all.

 

'Safe Spaces' too are a pretty harmless and even useful idea.  Can they be over done?  Sure.  But most men's clubs and the Masons and so on run on broadly similar ideas:  you restrict the subjects of conversation to facilitate communication and limit conflict and disagreement.  That's not Free Speech.  But somehow the sky wasn't going to fall if it caught on.  It's only when weird and scary students say stuff like making the whole world a safe space!, ( such a delightfully twee college idea.  You don't even need to argue against it.  Just let them try it and see).  That's when we're inches away from the women's march on Versailles.

As a great man once said; no free will.

post #2182 of 4551
.
Edited by Agentsands77 - 5/10/17 at 6:21pm
post #2183 of 4551
Yup.
post #2184 of 4551

Seems like something you could easily apply to the early utopian promise of the internet.  (which people already have done...)

 

But social media is the juicier and more specific target!

post #2185 of 4551

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/09/the-rise-of-victimhood-culture/404794/

 

Microaggressions and the Rise of of Victimhood Culture

 

Quote:
 

It isn’t honor culture.

 

“Honorable people are sensitive to insult, and so they would understand that microaggressions, even if unintentional, are severe offenses that demand a serious response,” they write. “But honor cultures value unilateral aggression and disparage appeals for help. Public complaints that advertise or even exaggerate one’s own victimization and need for sympathy would be anathema to a person of honor.”

 

But neither is it dignity culture:

 

“Members of a dignity culture, on the other hand, would see no shame in appealing to third parties, but they would not approve of such appeals for minor and merely verbal offenses. Instead they would likely counsel either confronting the offender directly to discuss the issue, or better yet, ignoring the remarks altogether.”

 

The culture on display on many college and university campuses, by way of contrast, is “characterized by concern with status and sensitivity to slight combined with a heavy reliance on third parties. People are intolerant of insults, even if unintentional, and react by bringing them to the attention of authorities or to the public at large. Domination is the main form of deviance, and victimization a way of attracting sympathy, so rather than emphasize either their strength or inner worth, the aggrieved emphasize their oppression and social marginalization.”

 

It is, they say, “a victimhood culture.”

 

And this one I'm highlighting simply because it sounds so nutty to me (AAAAAND to be kinda fucked up, KINDA understand where they're coming from with the automated phone lines!)

 

Quote:
 In the mid-aughts, when I covered immigration politics and policy, many restrictionists that I interviewed—many of them working class whites in the Inland Empire—would say that they resented “having to dial one for English” on automated phone lines, or having to hear Spanish spoken while in line at the grocery store. They, too, were emphasizing small slights in hopes of casting themselves as victims while appealing to third parties, like politicians they were lobbying.
 
..........
 

A little bit farther afield is a Hispanic homeowner I once encountered who lived across the street from a high school. Sometimes she would call the police on black or Hispanic students who were standing on a nearby corner after school, arguing that they were loitering and that their loud conversation and laughter bothered her.

 

If “dignity culture” is characterized by a reticence to involve third parties in minor disputes, an argument could be made that many black and brown people are denied its benefits. In a city like New York during the stop-and-frisk era, minorities were stopped by police because other people in their community, aggrieved by minor quality-of-life issues like loitering or sitting on stoops or squeegee men, successfully appealed to third-parties to intervene by arguing that what may seem like small annoyances were actually burdensome and victimizing when aggregated.  

 

To what extent are non-collegians engaged in policing microaggressions by another name? How are their actions the same as and distinct from Oberlin Microaggressions and its analogs at other campuses? It seems clear that college students are coming into conflict as adherents of dignity and victim cultures collide; but to what extent are the same clashes happening in other realms, some of them on the political right? 

post #2186 of 4551

Creator Content, social media, joke thievery, who owns what on a public platform? Buzzfeed is shady and shitty for using a writer's stuff after firing her, but at least they gave her credit? Oops. BuzFEEEED

 

https://twitter.com/buzzfeed/status/766839925014573056

post #2187 of 4551
post #2188 of 4551
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muzman View Post
 

Let the internet's Id run wild and free!

 

I wondered why the trending section of my feed has been....odd.

post #2189 of 4551
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muzman View Post

Let the internet's Id run wild and free!

Reading the details of the firing makes me yearn for another tech bubble crash.
post #2190 of 4551

Yeah, that was very typical cold corporate bullshit: fired without warning, minimal severance, and escorted out as if you're a criminal.

 

I've seen it happen more than once. Always awful, and always infuriating to see people treated that way.

post #2191 of 4551
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelM View Post

Yeah, that was very typical cold corporate bullshit: fired without warning, minimal severance, and escorted out as if you're a criminal.

I've seen it happen more than once. Always awful, and always infuriating to see people treated that way.
Yep, been there before. Nothing to make you want to torch your former employer like them treating you like a criminal.

Plus that same "hey, thanks for helping us train in your replacement, now get the fuck out of here!" fun fun fun-ness. With my former employer I just had to take solace in the fact that they laid off the person who could actually get shit done and behave in a quasi-professional manner after having me train in the spaced-out dipshit who took ten times as long to get the morning reports out even after I'd shown him how to do it. Well, ha ha, in this case the joke's on you, Zuckerberg, you loathsome little fuck.
post #2192 of 4551

This may have been mentioned already (it's been up a while) but this ad just came up while I was watching YouTube:

 

Good on ya YouTube. That took some brass ones.

post #2193 of 4551
In a bit of a lull in hostilities (that I've noticed anyway) On The Media attempts to inject some calm discourse into the proceedings.

Free Expression Takes Work
In Defense of Trigger Warnings
Freedom To Disagree
The Truth About (The Narrative About) Millennials

(I'd just post the episode but the bookend segments aren't relevant)

Also, the article from one of the interviewees.

I’m a black UChicago graduate. Safe spaces got me through college.
post #2194 of 4551
Thread Starter 

From the last article...

 

"You want low-income and first-generation students to focus in class and thrive in your elitist institution, then you better fund the Student Support Services (for undocumented and low-income students) and address the classist onslaught inherent in UChicago culture. When the dining halls closed on Saturday nights, low-income students (myself included) went hungry. Where did we go? The Office of Multicultural Student Affairs."

 

 

This I agree with. The rest of it is just shit you'll have to deal with.

post #2195 of 4551

I think they'd probably say that creating safe spaces and things of that ilk is dealing with it.

post #2196 of 4551
Thread Starter 
"I don't want to be a product of my environment, I want my environment to be a product of me."

Probably the best line in THE DEPARTED and I think a good maxim. He says he doesn't view safe spaces as a way to escape conflict, yet names the conflicts that drove him to value safe spaces.

This is all subjective, but I value the opportunity to challenge stupid and personally offensive shit. I did four years in Louisiana and I am not a Louisiana kind of guy by any stretch of the imagination. I can't say that I enjoyed it, but I wouldn't trade that time for the world because it helped forge who I am today. My outlook on life and my assessment of who I am and want to be as a person was formed via persistent and often ugly conflicts with other people.
post #2197 of 4551
Quote:
Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny View Post

"I don't want to be a product of my environment, I want my environment to be a product of me."

Probably the best line in THE DEPARTED and I think a good maxim. He says he doesn't view safe spaces as a way to escape conflict, yet names the conflicts that drove him to value safe spaces.

This is all subjective, but I value the opportunity to challenge stupid and personally offensive shit.

 

As do I, but I think this quote is telling:

 

Quote:
You want me to elevate mediocre conversations about race with my personal experience and critical lens, then you better do something about the students muttering about affirmative action every time I speak, or the campus police who stop me on the street for not looking "UChicago enough." During my time on campus, I met more than couple people who believed in the genetic inferiority of black people. I was never afraid of their thinly veiled bigotry, just bored and disappointed. I needed a space where I, a biology major, was not expected to give free race theory classes.

 

I think there is a difference between being able to engage, and being engaged by default. For a person of color, or certain transgender individuals, or people who can be identified as gay (couples for example), it's not so much an opportunity as a requirement. As a straight white guy, it's up to me whether I want to get into it with someone being bigoted. If I constantly felt like I was at war with society, I could understand wanting a place to take a break from that. I think there's a difference between, say, calling for segregated schools and asking for some personal space. If I was married, I may love my wife but that doesn't mean I want to live in a studio with her. 

post #2198 of 4551
Quote:
Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny View Post

"I don't want to be a product of my environment, I want my environment to be a product of me."

Probably the best line in THE DEPARTED and I think a good maxim. He says he doesn't view safe spaces as a way to escape conflict, yet names the conflicts that drove him to value safe spaces.

 

We can wish to be purely self actuated individualists all we like.  Try as we might, both will always be true regardless.

In the interview he mentions how the discussion didn't actually stop in these spaces.  Only that the implicit and explicit rules of decorum therein changed the tone of conversation quite dramatically.

Anyway, it's university, not the army.  The former doesn't have quite the same moral or intellectual grounds for simply ignoring or cutting people out who can't hack it.  They might want as many kinds of people as possible to enrich and be enriched by the institution.  (I really didn't want to sound like a brochure there, but words failed me)

post #2199 of 4551
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muzman View Post

In a bit of a lull in hostilities (that I've noticed anyway) On The Media attempts to inject some calm discourse into the proceedings.

Free Expression Takes Work
In Defense of Trigger Warnings
Freedom To Disagree
The Truth About (The Narrative About) Millennials

(I'd just post the episode but the bookend segments aren't relevant)

Also, the article from one of the interviewees.

I’m a black UChicago graduate. Safe spaces got me through college.

There's a frustrating tendency for these terms to be used in an elastic way, where they'll start out describing something neutral that no reasonable person would object to, and then subtly expand in ways that have much stronger implications, before snapping back to the innocuous original definition in the face of pushback.

Take that second interview: the way she defines "Trigger Warnings" is as a simple content warning for potentially vulnerable people - "just a heads up". Who could have a problem with such a harmless thing??

But then as she keeps talking her scope gets wider and wider. There's nothing inherently political in the idea of that kind of content warning, and yet... before you know it she starts talking about members of marginalized groups morally criticizing members of privileged groups, and celebrating the power of students to collectively shame lecturers for opinions or behaviours they deem problematic, and she makes it fairly clear that she expects lectures to back down and concede the point. Already we've traveled a fair distance from "just a heads up".

Likewise, that guy characterizes 'safe spaces' as environments where like-minded people can meet and interact knowing that certain shared values or assumptions are taken as given. Who could have a problem with such a harmless thing??

There isn't anything inherently political in that idea either, but once again, before you know it he starts reading from the same script about the marginalized and the privileged, and his expectations of safe spaces start expanding away from the self-contained voluntary community he was originally describing, to public areas. That's a very different conversation.

My feeling in the arguments over Trigger Warnings and Safe Spaces are a proxy war, and the real question at the heart of things is: to what extent should members of allocated privileged demographics be expected to defer to the demands of members of allocated marginalized demographics?
post #2200 of 4551
Thread Starter 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Movie Miscellany
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Movie Miscellany › Western Society, Pop Culture, and the Cacophony of Social Media