Official War Room Awards 2017

[Jack V Savage]

Then no point in furthering the discussion.

Weirdly emotional response to a factual matter. And it's quite telling that you're so invested in a false understanding and so uninterested in the actual details of the events.

 

[Bullitt68]

The cake thing went to the SCOTUS, which means it has major policy implications. Civil rights issue. Affects everyone, theoretically. Who is affected by some students in a tiny college shouting?

Your view is what I believe is meant by that old forest for the trees adage.

FWIW, I think Cubo's right. Granted, as an academic, I'm automatically going to find stuff like the Weinstein saga more interesting than most other news stories. But Jack, you mentioned that you care about "philosophy and shit." Well, if that's true, then you should be very interested in the Weinstein craziness, because the philosophical implications would be hilarious if they weren't so terrifying.

I'll also throw this out there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodor_W._Adorno#Confrontations_with_students

 

[Jack V Savage]

FWIW, I think Cubo's right. Granted, as an academic, I'm automatically going to find stuff like the Weinstein saga more interesting than most other news stories. But Jack, you mentioned that you care about "philosophy and shit." Well, if that's true, then you should be very interested in the Weinstein craziness, because the philosophical implications would be hilarious if they weren't so terrifying.

Meh. My point was about media coverage. The story that has actual policy implications is going to get more coverage from the real media than another "random college students are obnoxious" story. What anyone individual finds to be more interesting isn't something I'm concerned with, though it is interesting that Cubo didn't find the Evergreen story interesting enough to be worth digging for the facts, and reading differing perspectives (for example: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/16/opinion/media-alt-right-evergreen-college.html?_r=0).

 

[Bald1]

Meh. My point was about media coverage. The story that has actual policy implications is going to get more coverage from the real media than another "random college students are obnoxious" story. What anyone individual finds to be more interesting isn't something I'm concerned with, though it is interesting that Cubo didn't find the Evergreen story interesting enough to be worth digging for the facts, and reading differing perspectives (for example: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/16/opinion/media-alt-right-evergreen-college.html?_r=0).

Lol.

This is the equivalent of some WN saying "but that's not the whole story" and posting pictures of counterprotestors at Charlottesville.

 

[Bullitt68]

@Arkain2K @Cubo de Sangre @Jack V Savage @Bald1

Just so you guys know, I figured it'd be better if we moved this to the Evergreen thread. No sense filling up an awards thread with an OT debate.

http://forums.sherdog.com/threads/e...gher-education.3539347/page-14#post-137193127

 

[Jack V Savage]

Lol.

This is the equivalent of some WN saying "but that's not the whole story" and posting pictures of counterprotestors at Charlottesville.

If you presume that the Breitbart framing of the story is correct, you are right. Like I said to Cubo, it says a lot that you guys are so invested a false understanding of the facts of the case that you consider research/misconception correction to be out of bounds.

 

[Bald1]

If you presume that the Breitbart framing of the story is correct, you are right. Like I said to Cubo, it says a lot that you guys are so invested a false understanding of the facts of the case that you consider research/misconception correction to be out of bounds.

Care to let me know which facts I'm misunderstanding?

 

[Bald1]

@Arkain2K @Cubo de Sangre @Jack V Savage @Bald1

Just so you guys know, I figured it'd be better if we moved this to the Evergreen thread. No sense filling up an awards thread with an OT debate.

http://forums.sherdog.com/threads/e...gher-education.3539347/page-14#post-137193127

This is what our social threads are made for - they always end up as a kind of free for all, and evolve into god knows what.

 

[Liquid Smoke]

So who are the biggest losers in this circle jerk?

 

[Jack V Savage]

Care to let me know which facts I'm misunderstanding?

Did you read the piece I linked or the piece by the three Evergreen professors explaining what happened?

Note that Cubo's view is that whites were harassed into not coming to school, and even pointing out that he might have gotten the facts wrong there is out of bounds and makes him so angry that he can't continue (not simply that he finds the right-wing media's claims about what happened to be more credible than those of students and professors at the school).

 

[Bald1]

Did you read the piece I linked or the piece by the three Evergreen professors explaining what happened?

Note that Cubo's view is that whites were harassed into not coming to school, and even pointing out that he might have gotten the facts wrong there is out of bounds and makes him so angry that he can't continue (not simply that he finds the right-wing media's claims about what happened to be more credible than those of students and professors at the school).

I've read your contributions along with just about everyhing available on this story.

In a nutshell - people were asked to absent themselves from attendance on the sole basis of skin color. Someone objected, and the situation devolved into a witchunt.

Those are the indisputable facts. The three evergreen professors are irrelevant. As is the opinion of the rest of the faculty including those of that racist Lowe.

The rubbish you linked about the media bringing the alt right to campus is just that. Complete rubbish.

"Woe is me. Our inexcusable behavior garnered national attention, but it's not our fault our ideological counterparts on the coin showed up. It's the medias!"

 

[Jack V Savage]

I've read your contributions along with just about everyhing available on this story.

In a nutshell - people were asked to absent themselves from attendance on the sole basis of skin color. Someone objected, and the situation devolved into a witchunt.

Those are the indisputable facts. The three evergreen professors are irrelevant. As is the opinion of the rest of the faculty including those of that racist Lowe.

They're relevant because they do, in fact, dispute your version of the facts, and they were actually there (I'm assuming that you were not). Weinstein was there, but they said that other faculty tried to correct his understanding at the time.

The rubbish you linked about the media bringing the alt right to campus is just that. Complete rubbish.

"Woe is me. Our inexcusable behavior garnered national attention, but it's not our fault our ideological counterparts on the coin showed up. It's the medias!"

That was an account from a student who was there, that you either didn't read or didn't understand. It also contradicts what you assert are indisputable facts. Given the disputes here, I really have to wonder how it is you and Cubo are so certain that your view (which sounds cartoonish to me) is the correct one. From where I'm sitting, it looks like you guys really *want* for the Breitbart version to be true because it fits better with your feelings (you feel oppressed as white people and prefer to think that that's a reasonable understanding of actual events than a manipulated reaction driven by political propaganda).

To compare with Charlottesville, I've read enough to know the actual ideology of the protesters (they believe that the racial makeup of a nation determines its success more than Providence, resources, chance, or, as liberals believe, institutions) and are, as a result, concerned or enraged about the changing racial makeup of the U.S. They chanted "Jews will not replace us" and "you will not replace us," reflecting that. But you guys refuse to do the same work to understand people who are not on your side.

 

[Bald1]

They're relevant because they do, in fact, dispute your version of the facts, and they were actually there (I'm assuming that you were not). Weinstein was there, but they said that other faculty tried to correct his understanding at the time.



That was an account from a student who was there, that you either didn't read or didn't understand. It also contradicts what you assert are indisputable facts. Given the disputes here, I really have to wonder how it is you and Cubo are so certain that your view (which sounds cartoonish to me) is the correct one. From where I'm sitting, it looks like you guys really *want* for the Breitbart version to be true because it fits better with your feelings (you feel oppressed as white people and prefer to think that that's a reasonable understanding of actual events than a manipulated reaction driven by political propaganda).

Is this accurate or not?

"In a nutshell - people were asked to absent themselves from attendance on the sole basis of skin color. Someone objected, and the situation devolved into a witchunt."

Yes or no.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Is this accurate or not?

"In a nutshell - people were asked to absent themselves from attendance on the sole basis of skin color. Someone objected, and the situation devolved into a witchunt."

Yes or no.

The first part is oversimplified to the point of inaccuracy.

There's a longstanding tradition that white and non-white students separately voluntarily participate in various educational events focused on racism for a day. The events for non-whites had traditionally been off campus, while the events for whites had been on campus. Last year, they switched the locations. There was never an understanding that all whites or all non-whites would attend the events and thus that, for example, non-whites were not welcome on campus in past years or that whites were not welcome on campus this year. In fact, it was pointed out that the event locations would not even be able to accommodate that. Some level of participation was strongly encouraged, but the extent was not dictated (so, for example, last year, a white student might attend one of the off-campus events in the morning and then go to class in the afternoon).

And you'll have to clarify what you mean by "witch hunt" before anyone can tell if that's true or false. It appears that Weinstein objected to the location switch of the events (his colleagues say he misunderstood the nature of what was scheduled) and became the target of broader protests, and I think students clearly acted inappropriately at the protests and that Weinstein was unfairly targeted.

 

[Limbo Pete]

Aight
High time this got unstickied
Solid award season imo

 

[Bald1]

The first part is oversimplified to the point of inaccuracy.

There's a longstanding tradition that white and non-white students separately voluntarily participate in various educational events focused on racism for a day. The events for non-whites had traditionally been off campus, while the events for whites had been on campus. Last year, they switched the locations. There was never an understanding that all whites or all non-whites would attend the events and thus that, for example, non-whites were not welcome on campus in past years or that whites were not welcome on campus this year. In fact, it was pointed out that the event locations would not even be able to accommodate that. Some level of participation was strongly encouraged, but the extent was not dictated (so, for example, last year, a white student might attend one of the off-campus events in the morning and then go to class in the afternoon).

And you'll have to clarify what you mean by "witch hunt" before anyone can tell if that's true or false. It appears that Weinstein objected to the location switch of the events (his colleagues say he misunderstood the nature of what was scheduled) and became the target of broader protests, and I think students clearly acted inappropriately at the protests and that Weinstein was unfairly targeted.

Lol. It's soooo complex.

No Jack. People were asked to stay at home due to the color of their skin. That's behavior we, as a society decided not to participate in any more. You're flat out wrong in your excuse making here, and yes, I'm aware of the historical context of the day of absence tradition. Note that it was voluntarily participated in. But you might say so was this day of absence. If so, why the reaction to one professors reluctance to stay home?

We don't make decisions based on skin colour anymore. If anyone wants to play that game then they don't belong in my society.

Witch hunt usually means an attempt to find an imagined perpetrator of wrongdoing. In this case the kids went searching for a racist, sometimes with weapons in hand. It ended up with the campus cop telling Weinstein that he better not come to work due to safety concerns.

At least we agree Weinstein was unfairly targeted. There is that.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Lol. It's soooo complex.

Just FYI, this kind of opening, particularly in response to finding out that you had some facts wrong, makes you sound like a troll and unworthy of a serious response.

No Jack. People were asked to stay at home due to the color of their skin. That's behavior we, as a society decided not to participate in any more. You're flat out wrong in your excuse making here, and yes, I'm aware of the historical context of the day of absence tradition. Note that it was voluntarily participated in. But you might say so was this day of absence. If so, why the reaction to one professors reluctance to stay home?

So see above. I think you're simply signaling that you're not interested in the actual facts and you simply want a boogeyman so you can justify your generalized resentment. We haven't actually decided as a society that voluntary events involving people with common experiences are inappropriate. If you think that the students should all attend the same events, that's fine (don't know what works best there--I'm not as knowledgeable about pedagogic best practices as you think you are), but clearly it is dishonest (assuming you're aware of the facts) to say that people were asked to stay at home due to the color of their skin (I noted that non-whites are not prohibited or discouraged from coming to class in most years and whites were not prohibited or discouraged this year).

Witch hunt usually means an attempt to find an imagined perpetrator of wrongdoing. In this case the kids went searching for a racist, sometimes with weapons in hand. It ended up with the campus cop telling Weinstein that he better not come to work due to safety concerns.

At least we agree Weinstein was unfairly targeted. There is that.

An imaginary wrongdoing, actually. In this case, he was confronted about something he actually did, and the discussion (as discussions with mobs tend to) turned ugly.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Note that Cubo's view is that whites were harassed into not coming to school, and even pointing out that he might have gotten the facts wrong there is out of bounds and makes him so angry that he can't continue (not simply that he finds the right-wing media's claims about what happened to be more credible than those of students and professors at the school).

You are wrong. Plain and simple. Disinterest in engaging with you stems from your propensity to argue every little thing and avoid whatever might resemble common ground. That's why reading some of your posts is entertaining but trying to have a discussion with you is pointless. In this particular instance you decided to split hairs by saying "racism" isn't a civil rights issue. We all know we're talking about racial discrimination, not simply some person harboring dislike in silence. You're just tedious. So if you want to call me emotional here you'll have to pick something more along those lines than anger. Maybe a mixture of disappointment and eye-rolling. You stand corrected. Happy New Year.

 

[Jack V Savage]

You are wrong. Plain and simple. Disinterest in engaging with you stems from your propensity to argue every little thing and avoid whatever might resemble common ground.

No, I think it's that you're extremely emotional about this topic, and finding out that your outrage is misplaced just makes you madder (and makes you turn to personal attacks, which I really don't care about).

 

[Bald1]

Just FYI, this kind of opening, particularly in response to finding out that you had some facts wrong, makes you sound like a troll and unworthy of a serious response.



So see above. I think you're simply signaling that you're not interested in the actual facts and you simply want a boogeyman so you can justify your generalized resentment. We haven't actually decided as a society that voluntary events involving people with common experiences are inappropriate. If you think that the students should all attend the same events, that's fine (don't know what works best there--I'm not as knowledgeable about pedagogic best practices as you think you are), but clearly it is dishonest (assuming you're aware of the facts) to say that people were asked to stay at home due to the color of their skin (I noted that non-whites are not prohibited or discouraged from coming to class in most years and whites were not prohibited or discouraged this year).



An imaginary wrongdoing, actually. In this case, he was confronted about something he actually did, and the discussion (as discussions with mobs tend to) turned ugly.

All those words accusing me of being wrong, yet never once pointing out where I erred.

Were white people asked to "excuse" themselves on the basis of skin colour? Yes or no?

And yes, we have as a society decided that dictating to people what they can or can not to, based solely on melanin content is the wrong thing to do.