Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

From the New York Post.

http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/885234158935968876/F5CB59F85FB1C445802CFC85204269D9C02FADB4/

These students are just pussies.

When I first heard of shit like safe spaces and trigger warnings on colleges in the United States I thought it was limited third-rate art schools and whatnot. Then I found out it affected your top universities like Yale, Princeton and University of Chicago.

The funny thing is that this epidemic seems to be limited to the United States. In Europe it's not even debated, it's universally considered to curtail free speech.

Yes, Brown University has safe spaces with play doh and bubbles and pictures of puppies.

I wonder if the public image of Americans as fat, loud and obnoxious is going to degrade into an image of coddled man-children.

Originally posted by Astner
I wonder if the public image of Americans as fat, loud and obnoxious is going to degrade into an image of coddled man-children.

Hilary will most likely be our president so our image as obnoxious sure as hell won't be going anywhere anytime soon.

Public perception of colleges has already shifted among the American people. No longer do we think these are places for intellectual discussion and to expand your mind. No longer do we think these are places meant to prepare adults for the real world. We feel they are coddlers who are concerned more with activism than academia.

We have activists that spread lies, we have stupid politicians that repeat these lies(even our president repeats the lies).

Originally posted by Surtur
These students are just pussies.

I disagree with almost everything you post, but I agree. A lot of thes students are going to have a tough time adjusting to the workforce.

Yes. Open Mindedness is something no longer taught to the Average U.S College Student. But to be honest it starts in the Kindergartnes nowadays.

Originally posted by meep-meep
I disagree with almost everything you post, but I agree. A lot of thes students are going to have a tough time adjusting to the workforce.

I feel like in a lot of ways students are failed to be given adequate preparation both in high school and college. In high school I think it's not exactly them failing to prepare people for the harsh reality of the real world, but rather failing to prepare them for college. Then when they get to college it shifts and now they are failing at preparing them to just be adults.

We feel our country is great, we we aren't #1 when it comes to education and stuff like that. Instead we worry more about this kind of crap as opposed to more pressing matters. Political correctness and feelings take center stage. Everything else is just scenery.

Originally posted by Astner
When I first heard of shit like safe spaces and trigger warnings on colleges in the United States I thought it was limited third-rate art schools and whatnot. Then I found out it affected your top universities like Yale, Princeton and University of Chicago.

The funny thing is that this epidemic seems to be limited to the United States. In Europe it's not even debated, it's universally considered to curtail free speech.

Trigger warnings started rearing their ugly head around campus here as well.

I graduated last year, but I remember reading about a panel debate regarding trigger warnings and safe space.

Some gender studies madwoman vehemently advocated them, and a professor in psychology argued against the need. Her stance was that trigger warnings were pointless because those who had suffered say sexual trauma were not necessarily triggered by the discussion surrounding rape, but rather specific details related to their experience. Things like a particular smell, sound or sight.

I think this reaffirms the assertion that these SJWs are not triggered by things related to trauma, but rather ideas that conflict with their worldview.

The purpose of PC is misguided. We should honestly morally not attack each other and not be dicks, offer constructive criticism instead of destructive criticism, act in each other's best interests instead of trying to put each other down, move beyond arrogance and act out of love etc.

This isn't something that can be forced however, and it's only something that can come from open communication. PC goes against this open communication through censorship, tries to completely shut out the sometimes painful experiences we need to grow, tries to exert an unfair power over the thoughts and actions of other people, and promoting emotional weakness that can only lead to self-loathing and therefore arrogance and therefore hurtful behavior towards others. When you victimize yourself, when you demonize the people who disagree with you, when you think you have the moral authority to apply censorship, when you close yourself off completely to ideas you disagree with, when you intentionally build walls like that between you and other people... that isn't acting out of love, that isn't acting with the best interests of everyone, of true progress, in mind, it's an exercise in arrogance.

u triggered me dmb

this is a safe space

Originally posted by krisblaze
I think this reaffirms the assertion that these SJWs are not triggered by things related to trauma, but rather ideas that conflict with their worldview.
Yeah, this is pretty much the gist of it.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
The purpose of PC is misguided. We should honestly morally not attack each other and not be dicks, offer constructive criticism instead of destructive criticism, act in each other's best interests instead of trying to put each other down, move beyond arrogance and act out of love etc.

This isn't something that can be forced however, and it's only something that can come from open communication. PC goes against this open communication through censorship, tries to completely shut out the sometimes painful experiences we need to grow, tries to exert an unfair power over the thoughts and actions of other people, and promoting emotional weakness that can only lead to self-loathing and therefore arrogance and therefore hurtful behavior towards others. When you victimize yourself, when you demonize the people who disagree with you, when you think you have the moral authority to apply censorship, when you close yourself off completely to ideas you disagree with, when you intentionally build walls like that between you and other people... that isn't acting out of love, that isn't acting with the best interests of everyone, of true progress, in mind, it's an exercise in arrogance.

I can agree with someone saying people should not be dicks, but I think what people don't realize is that what is PC has changed. Here is an example of the normal non-shitty political correctness. Illegal immigrants. Some want you to call them undocumented workers. Which okay, whatever, that is fine.

It becomes something else though when people use it to flee from ideas. That is what an alarming number of students do. At Brown University they were triggered into hate speech not by foul language or anything like that, but by ideas lol. Specifically the ideas of a feminist who doesn't subscribe to silly fairytales like rape culture, wage gaps, a war on women in America, etc.

I guarantee you if someone like Lena Dunham was showing up they wouldn't need safe spaces.

Here is where stuff gets even weirder: there is some sort of paradox going on. People want triggers and safe spaces because, in their views, they don't want to be victims of something. Yet at the same time victimhood status is something coveted by these people. It's why we've had black students lying about white people attacking them(when in reality they did the attacking) it's why we have Jewish girls drawing swastika's outside their dorms and then saying other people are doing it.

Originally posted by Surtur
I can agree with someone saying people should not be dicks, but I think what people don't realize is that what is PC has changed. Here is an example of the normal non-shitty political correctness. Illegal immigrants. Some want you to call them undocumented workers. Which okay, whatever, that is fine.

It becomes something else though when people use it to flee from ideas. That is what an alarming number of students do. At Brown University they were triggered into hate speech not by foul language or anything like that, but by ideas lol. Specifically the ideas of a feminist who doesn't subscribe to silly fairytales like rape culture, wage gaps, a war on women in America, etc.

I guarantee you if someone like Lena Dunham was showing up they wouldn't need safe spaces.

Here is where stuff gets even weirder: there is some sort of paradox going on. People want triggers and safe spaces because, in their views, they don't want to be victims of something. Yet at the same time victimhood status is something coveted by these people. It's why we've had black students lying about white people attacking them(when in reality they did the attacking) it's why we have Jewish girls drawing swastika's outside their dorms and then saying other people are doing it.
Oh yeah that's what I'm saying. That idea point of love and not being a dick only comes through empathy, openness, understanding, etc. fighting against free speech is really counterproductive to that goal, and ultimately motivated by the two sided coin that is arrogance and self-loathing rather than love.

That being said, I don't think attacking and mocking PC people for their ideology is right either. I definitely believe they should be criticized, but it should be constructive rather than destructive criticism.

I believe that attacking people for differences in ideology only drives them to become more set in their ways, more defensive, and more hostile, and this hostility gets bounced back and forth, which leads people to build barriers between each other and become disconnected. I think if we expressed empathy, expressed a legitimate desire to help each other rather than attacking each other, people would be more open to what each other have to say, and thus more open to change and the truth.

I think that making ideological discussions such a hostile environment creates a pretty unhealthy attitude towards ideology in our society.

I don't want to endorse being dicks to these people either, but on the other hand a majority of them seem to consistently show they don't respond well to someone calmly giving them facts. It tends to get ignored or they try to make excuses for it in some way. Look at a person like Milo Younnoupolous who comes not only with facts, but with a dickish attitude.

The problem is there are certain aspects of the PC culture that have the potential to do harm, like when people say we live in a rape culture and they tell young girls that 1 in 5 women are sexually assaulted, and they make college campuses seem like rape central.

In general I want people to stop trying to control language though. As you said, the fact someone shouldn't do something doesn't always mean they can't do it. I'd rather react to someone's words as opposed to telling them not to say anything at all.

Originally posted by Surtur
I don't want to endorse being dicks to these people either, but on the other hand a majority of them seem to consistently show they don't respond well to someone calmly giving them facts. It tends to get ignored or they try to make excuses for it in some way. Look at a person like Milo Younnoupolous who comes not only with facts, but with a dickish attitude.

The problem is there are certain aspects of the PC culture that have the potential to do harm, like when people say we live in a rape culture and they tell young girls that 1 in 5 women are sexually assaulted, and they make college campuses seem like rape central.

In general I want people to stop trying to control language though. As you said, the fact someone shouldn't do something doesn't always mean they can't do it. I'd rather react to someone's words as opposed to telling them not to say anything at all.
Yeah, I definitely admire your attitude towards free speech.

After realizing that human evil stems from self-loathing however, I pity people for their flaws instead of hating them for them.

But now in Canada they want to try to make it so you absolutely have to call someone by their preferred pronoun.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOR38552MJA

Originally posted by Surtur
But now in Canada they want to try to make it so you absolutely have to call someone by their preferred pronoun.

Lol, Canada.

Also this:

qJc_D7ufoTg

This is what I mean when I say they want to be victims.

Who do i speak with and where do i go when i'm offended and have concerns about safe spaces?

I guess Surtur, if I could explain in a different way, from my observation of the universe, everything is built upon connection, including scientific/mathematical laws, choice, purpose, understanding, power, and love. That's where my faith in God comes from as I identify him with that connection (and understand his attributes and perfect nature through the aspects connection ubiquitously seems to connect to) I view as being central to everything.

Shit like understanding, love, and freedom IMO are very in keeping with that connection and in fact are forms of connection, whereas shit like censorship and self-victimization are forms of disconnection, and as such, regardless of whether or not my belief in God is correct, that shit seems immoral because regardless of God's existence, that disconnection is going against the very essence of the universe. And also, even if I'm wrong about God's existence, one thing that I'm certain of is that my faith in love isn't misplaced, since that's the one thing that's given me meaning and happiness in an otherwise meaningless ****ed up world.

I just laugh at stuff like this:

RnE1YULrqxY&t=6s

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
Who do i speak with and where do i go when i'm offended and have concerns about safe spaces?

This reminds me of when someone from Rebel Media in Canada called their university hotline that was a trigger hotline. Think of it I guess like a suicide hotline, but 1,000 times more pathetic. Well someone called saying that they had been triggered by the trigger hotline, lol.

It's like everyone took some tainted LSD:

JjBkEH4iJKM

Originally posted by Surtur
I just laugh at stuff like this:

RnE1YULrqxY&t=6s

In this video.

The woman is not racist.

Ths Storekeepers signage indicates support for Israel.

The sign un-conditionally endorses Israel.

The customer objects to the endorsement of Israeli millitary manoevres which have led to the deaths of non combatants.

It is the sign which triggers the customer.

The Grocery Store Owner says he is Jewish.

The Customer is not offended by The Grocery Store and Owner being Jewish.

The customer's concerns over the sign and its political reference are clearly defined:

Caualties to Non Combatants.

They disagree.

The Storekeeper states. We also sustain casualties to non combatants.

In response. The Customer expresses a belief its not professional to mix politics with business.

The Grocery Store Owner replies. It is Professional (YMMV) and makes reference to his democratic right to freedom of expression.

The Customer speaks about withdrawing support for the grocery store The Storekeeper makes it clear he will #Survive

.............

Customer filed a complaint with the business owner.
Business owner dismissed the complaint.
Customer withdrew support for the business.

.............

W.r.to the general themes in this discussion:

avoidance of confrontation/challenging ideas, trigger warnings, mollycoddling and safe spaces

I think it's fair to say, this is an example of two people who don't respect safe spaces and are able to communicate, disagree and emerge from a challenging situation without hysterics, crying, profanity, violence etc.

Originally posted by shiv


It is the sign which triggers the customer.






Actually I would say it was the Customer that TRIGGERED the CUSTOMER.

The professor has hope now.

These so-called liberals are not actually liberals. They are the real fascists.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
That being said, I don't think attacking and mocking PC people for their ideology is right either. I definitely believe they should be criticized, but it should be constructive rather than destructive criticism.

I believe that attacking people for differences in ideology only drives them to become more set in their ways, more defensive, and more hostile, and this hostility gets bounced back and forth, which leads people to build barriers between each other and become disconnected. I think if we expressed empathy, expressed a legitimate desire to help each other rather than attacking each other, people would be more open to what each other have to say, and thus more open to change and the truth.

I think that making ideological discussions such a hostile environment creates a pretty unhealthy attitude towards ideology in our society.

Well said. This is my attitude as well.

LOL so get this, a history teacher has been put on leave for comparing Trump to Hitler.

I just find that amusing. I find it wrong for the teacher to be put on leave for that, and apparently some parent wrote an email whining about him. Though I guess some SJW's will get to experience what it's like to see people flee from ideas.

Keep in mind a bunch of parents have signed a petition in favor of the teacher. A lot of them talking about free speech, which is good. I especially know in my heart of hearts that they'd also speak out against any transgender person trying to make it so people HAVE to use the pronoun they choose, like we are seeing in Canada. I do know they are consistent in their views, so it's good to know how much they value free speech.

Does the history teacher have a time machine

Originally posted by Surtur
so people HAVE to use the pronoun they choose, like we are seeing in Canada. The bill itself doesn't force people to adopt pronouns. It adds gender identity to the list of things that people can't discriminate against. Like how you can't refuse someone service based on their skin colour or sexuality--now also gender identity. The contention is when it starts being considered discrimination, like say when a university prof. doesn't want to use it. It's no more illegal for everyday people to refuse to use "proper" pronouns for one another than it is for someone who says 'n*gger' or 'c*nt'.


Don't let the use of the word 'riot' in that article fool you. There wasn't one. Buzzwords for a headline.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
The bill itself doesn't force people to adopt pronouns. It adds gender identity to the list of things that people can't discriminate against. Like how you can't refuse someone service based on their skin colour or sexuality--now also gender identity. The contention is when it starts being considered discrimination, like say when a university prof. doesn't want to use it. It's no more illegal for everyday people to refuse to use "proper" pronouns for one another than it is for someone who says 'n*gger' or 'c*nt'.


Don't let the use of the word 'riot' in that article fool you. There wasn't one. Buzzwords for a headline.

Yes but as the one guy who is an opponent of it says..technically it could be used to fine someone for not using the right pronoun.

Even that shit is ridiculous and too much. It could potentially lead us into some dark territory and nobody seems to care they just want to say anyone against it is a transphobe.