> The statement deemed the party an act of “cultural appropriation,” one that “creates an environment where students of color, particularly Latino, and especially Mexican, students feel unsafe.” The effort to purge the two representatives who attended the party, via impeachment, soon followed.
> The school’s reaction seems especially arbitrary when you learn that — on the very same night of the “tequila party,” just across campus — Bowdoin held its annual, administration-sanctioned “Cold War” party. Students arrived dressed in fur hats and coats to represent Soviet culture; one referred to herself as “Stalin,” making light of a particularly painful era in Slavic history.
Well, why don't you first try a party where everybody shows up like an inbred redneck with some missing teeth and no Tshirt? Or a bunch of Polo wearing blond guys walking like they have ants up their ass? Try that and then come back to report.
Actually, you are making an illogical argument with your hypothetical party. You have no idea what a redneck would feel at a party full of people dressed like rednecks. They might like it. They might not.
The point is, you are actually asking these leading questions in a way that can't be answered and are doing it for the intent of inflating the argument further. Worse, you are doing it in a way that discriminates against several other groups of humans in the process.
Now, as a Polo wearing redneck, I could get mad about it, or I could just say "dude that's silly". I chose the latter.
> Well, why don't you first try a party where everybody shows up like an inbred redneck with some missing teeth and no Tshirt? Or a bunch of Polo wearing blond guys walking like they have ants up their ass? Try that and then come back to report.
1) I've done the first one.
2) Ants up their ass sounds unpleasent, so no ty.
3) The administration sanctions Russian stereotypes by not Mexican ones. That is the hypocrisy I'm pointing out. You can't just say "It is okay to do this about racial group X yet not okay for Y".
Those who would argue with you would simply describe racial group X as privileged and racial group Y as oppressed and in need of protection, thereby "justifying" the hypocrisy.
I'm not sure how you got that from my post. I'm saying people who pick and choose which stereotypes feel okay do so by justifying their actions with 'privilege' versus 'protected'. In this context, the Russian group would be considered 'privileged' and the Mexican group 'protected'.
That party is down the road a piece in Brunswick, where the locals are hanging out in a gravel pit, unironically drinking PBR, lighting shit on fire, and shooting at beer bottles, in the time-honored Mainer tradition.
>creates an environment where students of color, particularly Latino, and especially Mexican, students feel unsafe
There's a part of this that I really don't understand. What's with all the misleading word-usage? Did people of Mexican origin feel unsafe? Their safety was compromised? I don't think so. This is 1984 level of double-speak where words have been redefined to fit the narrative. Feeling unsafe means there is a credible threat of violence. Not feeling offended by people dressing up in your ethnic dress.
The worst part is these tolerance policies are written in such a way that it does not actually require anyone to complain, only that there exists a situation in which a hypothetical minority might complain.
Which is to say, the purpose of the rules is not to protect the people who represent minority cultures, it is to protect the university (or employer, or government) from a lawsuit.
Earlier today HN had an article accusing the Chinese government of enacting "precrime" in the form of a terror threat analysis system. But all around me in the United States I see forms of before-the-fact suspicion being used to punish people. This is one of them: no one of Latino heritage felt harmed by the party, but someone might have and thus the students are being punished. A man with a felony conviction on his record didn't do anything threatening, but he was told he couldn't attend a parent-child activity at school. You can buy alcohol if you're over 21-years old and show valid ID... unless a 19-year old friend is with you in the checkout line because you might give the beer to an underage person.
All situations where people are being accused of committing a crime before it happens. The government may not be literally throwing you in prison without a trial, but they passively-aggressively encourage it by passing laws that mandate zero-tolerance policies. And appointing judges who authorize civil suits that punish people who don't perform this kind of criminal profiling, such as a supermarket being liable for selling beer that is later served to a teenager.
> There's a part of this that I really don't understand. What's with all the misleading word-usage? Did people of Mexican origin feel unsafe? Their safety was compromised? I don't think so. This is 1984 level of double-speak where words have been redefined to fit the narrative. Feeling unsafe means there is a credible threat of violence. Not feeling offended by people dressing up in your ethnic dress.
Well, I'm not sure a credible threat of violence is really the requirement. Actively stalking someone to take pictures, for instance, doesn't necessarily equal violence but its still a form of applied force in many respects.
However, I think the Russian party is equal and equivalent given there is a Communist party in the US + Russians + the animosity towards Russians (despite the fact they are white) in general in the US. Yet, who the fuck says that is okay yet goes after some kids with a sombrero theme?
Why is it assumed all people from Mexico are "people of color"?
Mexico has amazing diversity much like the USA.
One could not call "USA a people of color" without downplaying all those who are not.
Additionally, there is no "hispanic race" which everyone wants to use. It is very difficult being latino and having fair skin. Spanish is a European Language. Let's not forget that.
I'm curious to know what other HN readers think about this topic. I was born and raised on the left side of the spectrum, and continue to be so. I can empathize with my fellow millenial's struggle to push for a true egalitarian and respectful culture in the name of liberalism. I'm torn though. I see some of these actions moving the left to eventually begin embracing seemingly-fascist policies and aesthetics. What could be more equal than having everyone dress and act in a way prescribed by the same philosophical system?
There seems to be a crack in this generation's perception of what the West promises. We, the left, strive for social liberalism, civil equality, freedom of speech, protection of the individual by institutions, etc. but as many of us see in the news every week, the reality is that our system continues failing on all these fronts. This is basically a symptom of the historical tug-o-war between the left and right, entrenched biases, and the unexpected results of a complex civilization.
I was influenced greatly by anarchist philosophers, but managed to tear away from their commitment to dissolving the state. I see the role of government as necessary, especially in a free market system. I don't know what role social norms should play in this. Should we try to live inoffensively? Should we speak and move lightly, lest we offend some minority group? My line is the blatant racism of people like Donald Trump, no need to mention his support from the KKK. This article seems like we're wasting energy focusing on perceived microaggressions, when there are truly violent people around the corner targeting the same minority groups with truly malevolent intentions.
More like extremes ends of the political spectrum always tend to adopt authoritarianism because their demands on humans are too extreme to be enforced any other way.
You put a bunch of people, be they left-wing, right-wing, religious or secular in the same spot, and their talk will be influenced and perhaps dominated by group politics. A significant minority with an internalised sense of lack will compete for status and power in a self-righteous manner.
i.e. by striving to promulgate the most virtuous opinions, and, as a corollary, ostracising and denouncing those who voice wrong or unfashionable opinions.
The rest of the group will go along with it because they don't want to be individually targeted. Even though they may privately suspect that what's going on is bad and that true virtue does not depend on one's opinions.
I watched some of Milo Yiannoupoulos's recent lectures in his tour of American universities. He claims that the purpose of attending university is to be exposed to difficult and disturbing ideas. I'm not sure if this is true.
Perhaps it ought to be true. Yet I suspect that no one knows what the real purposes of universities are because they are an evolved tradition. What we do know is that most of the early European universities and their colleges were founded with the intention of preserving and promoting orthodoxy: combatting heresies, training priests, etc. What we're seeing at present in the anglospherical universities is simply the emergence of a different sort of orthodoxy.
I'm loosely Buddhist. I subscribe to the concept of the Buddha Nature. I suspect this trend of viral angry arguments about both important and stupid things is a side effect of our innate ability to practice individual discrimination apart from the whole Buddha. This natural type of discrimination is healthy in one sense, as it gives rise to all of us believing we're separate entities. On the other hand, it's possible that trait has been exploited by some self-propegating meme mechanism (accelerated by the Internet) which causes us to discriminate against each other, even to the point of pretending to discriminate against the discriminators.
I think when we start chewing up clock cycles simulating whether another group might be offended by the action of another group, we've gone a step too far in governing ourselves. I'm also a bit troubled this agenda is being pushed by our country's educational system.
And, FWIW, I do think that if a given group of people are offended by the blaming actions of another group of people, they have the right to stand up and say how they feel about it and be heard. Real discrimination of humans by humans is not cool, and should be avoided where possible.
The political correctness movement isn't the first to embrace totalitarian methods, and it won't be the last. When you manage to convince yourself of the rightness of your beliefs, there's very little you can't find a way to justify to yourself and other like-minded folk.
When you live in a world where Donald Trump is "blatant" racism we've gone a little too far.
edit: To expand, there is nothing "blatant" about his racism and from what he says you can't even infer if he is racist or not. What he is clearly doing though is using dog whistle politics to bring in the racist vote and that in itself is a good reason not to vote for him.
As an outsider, It doeesn't look to me like a left vs right issue.
>We, the left, strive for social liberalism, civil equality, freedom of speech,
This seems to hint at the problem. You (the left) conflate freedom and equality, as though they are similar goals that can be achieved through similar means. But often these goals conflict with each other; Trying to achieve one often works against the other. Since we need decent amount of both in a society, maybe we should strive for a balance between the two using a common-sense approach?
"Intended as an internal document. Good reading to understand the nature of rich democracies and the fact that the common people are not allowed to play a role."
I'm not surprised at all. In my book, the leftists and the nazis are basically the same considering what they actually stand for, their historical record and differ only by their stance on nationalism. I also have the "privilege" of being born when my country was ruled by a communist dictatorship, growing up experiencing the results of leftist policies, listening to countless accounts from my family members of the days when the left came to power post WWII. For me all this is deja vu: a new form of wooden language [1] rising up (microaggresions, triggers, intersectionality etc), discrimination based on circumstances of birth, policing of the language, behavior and beliefs of people, including trying to police how people behave and speak in private - any former communist secret police would be proud, people's tribunals like witch hunts etc. You hear about history repeating itself, but to actually experience it is kind of sad. But what do I know, I'm a brainless pessimistic libertarian kook...
An interesting difference between these is that last year's school administration sponsored sombrero event was organized by american faculty members and was considered fine by the same faculty; whereas the "offensive" sombrero event was organized by an actual latin american student and was considered by faculty members to be an offensive stereotyping event worthy of sanctions.
I usually like to give political correctness the benefit of the doubt in these situations, because sometimes its hard to fully understand how or why something might be offenseive.
But COME ON. The severity of reprisals and administrations actions on this one is completely out of proportion. I'm not faulting anyone getting offended. But I am questioning the administration's response to all of this. Especially given:
"The school’s reaction seems especially arbitrary when you learn that — on the very same night of the “tequila party,” just across campus — Bowdoin held its annual, administration-sanctioned “Cold War” party. Students arrived dressed in fur hats and coats to represent Soviet culture; one referred to herself as “Stalin,” making light of a particularly painful era in Slavic history."
I dunno. I found the Stalin angle to be far more offensive than anything else. Imagine if they did a similar thing where people dressed up like SS officers and one was designated Hitler?
We've gotten to the point where your history and the oppression your people faced isn't important anymore. What matters is the color of your skin, if your skin tone is darker you receive more institutional oppression. Look at how the black community has turned on Zoe Saldana, who put on makeup and prosthetics to more accurately represent a black historical figure and was torn to shreds because she has internalized racism or some shit.
I read the article and I don't think I got anything wrong, also I think you meant to say "Why is it worse for a white man to play a black man for a light skinned woman to play a darker-skinned woman than?"
And it's worse because of the history of black face and why it was used
No, I really meant what I said. I know why it's worse for a white man to play a black man, but the internet apparently does not. Tropic of Thunder came out in 2008. 9130 hits? That's nothing. Why are there 2+ million pages about the Nina Simone movie? Have I inadvertently stacked the deck with my search terms?
RDJ wasn't playing a black man. He was playing a white character who was wearing blackface, and Tropic Thunder was actually agreeing that that's wrong.
Tropic Thunder got away with blackface for the same reason Saturday Night Live gets away with offensive jokes. It's satire, and they're mocking the offensive acts.
If you do not act swiftly, you run the risk ending up in the sights of some hashtag campaign. Administrations around the country increasingly operate in a culture of fear.
My question is: what the fuck is "social probation"? And how in the world does throwing a party with silly hats get people kicked out of their dorms? This would never have happened when I was in school[1].
[1] The people getting kicked out of dorms business, not the party (unless it was really rowdy and there were injuries or property destruction or something).
The difference is that historically students opposed their totalitarianism. Now they're egging administrators on, even protesting when they don't adopt authoritarian enough positions.
I am sorry, perhaps I am being obtuse. Why do you need to party with sombreros? When you wear a sombrero, what is that supposed to mean? why is it funny or amusing?
Why does anyone need to do anything? The point is that actions are generally permitted, and there had better be a damn good reason before anyone tells me "you're not allowed to do that."
well, in this case, the reason would be that I imagine Mexicans are not too thrilled when other people dress up as Mexicans because they think its somehow amusing to look like a Mexican. I am not for banning this, but it does seem to me in poor taste
It means nothing. Hell, I am Mexican and if I wear a sombrero (which, literally just means hat, any hat), it just means either its really sunny outside and I don't have a cap for some reason, its an old-fashioned town party or I just felt like wearing a hat. A sombrero is not a yamaka, it has no religious or deeply symbolic meaning beyond that of a baseball cap or a pair of overalls.
Nobody needs to have a party with sombreros, but at the same time, there is no reason to ban a party with sombreros, just because it is a party with sombreros. Thing is, we don't ban everything that is not strictly necessary for survival, we ban things only when there is a damn good reason to ban them.
I'll give this whole thing the benefit of the doubt, either way, because I really don't know if the point of the party was just to wear sombreros or if there truly was some sort of weird racist overtones to it. Like, if I throw a party back in Mexico where we all dress in baseball caps and overalls, that's probably fine. If I do the same, but additionally make it known to the guests that part of the party theme is to act like stereotypical rural Americans from the southern states (e.g. I go and call it a "hillbilly party"), then I am not so sure I shouldn't be called out on that... (where "called out" is different from "evicted").
If the party was being used as a platform for racism, then yeah, cancel the whole thing, talk to students involved. If it wasn't, if it was just about having fun and wearing a "funny" hat... well, I fail to see the issue, even if it's my country's funny hat.
Really, yours is the only comment that should be made on the article (and most of the article itself shouldn't have been written either, since the author didn't seem to care to find a Mexican to interview). The only thing relevant in any PC incident is what actual people from the possibly-offended group actually think and feel. It behooves the rest of us to just shut the hell up.
I didn't say we are expected to, I said it behooves us to.
Anyone who argues about the PC-ness of some action related to group X without actually asking anyone from group X about it is doing nothing but talking out of their ass. (How could they do otherwise, without the cultural knowledge that comes only from being part of group X?) If they wish not to look like an uninformed idiot, it behooves them to shut up until they know what an actual person from group X thinks. Anything else is pretentious.
Well, I don't claim to speak for all Mexicans, though. Much less for Mexican-Americans, who might have a stronger reaction to this sort of thing after decades of considering themselves American but having Anglo-Americans be "oh, so, aren't you one of those foreign peoples with the funny hats?". So just interviewing me and having me be "oh, if it's just wearing sombreros it might be fine" is hardly comprehensive.
But I think what matters, in addition to (and co-varying with) how the affected minority feels, is the attitude of the people doing this. There is a fine but still relatively objective line between a party that celebrates Mexican culture, one that mocks it, and one that does neither. Also, even if you think you are in the third or first case, if someone comes to you and tells you that they feel you have done the second, how you react to that is important.
Right. But even talking to one Mexican is better than saying "well, I talked to a Dominican, a Costa Rican, and a Guatemalan, because they speak the same language as people who wear sombreros". That's ridiculous.
Did I say anything about banning anything? I am not advocating banning or not banning anything. I just don't get why wearing sombreros is in any way amusing or interesting or funny. It does seem somewhat unnecessary. The context of why people typically used to wear sombreros is because they used to think looking like a Mexican ( or a crude caricature of a Mexican ) was funny.
Sorry, didn't meant you were trying to get it banned, just that unless there is something to the story that I am missing (and there might be, the party might well have been much more racist than just wearing sombreros) the university reaction seems heavy-handed.
I guess your point depends on what sort of caricature and whether Mexicans at the party are more likely to feel insulted or amused... also whether people think the caricature reflects the truth or not. And whether Mexicans and Mexican-Americans feel they are in on the joke or that the joke is done at their expense. But the mere fact that it involves sombreros, or even that sombreros are considered exaggerated and funny, doesn't necessarily make the party a categorical mockery.
For example, if we (in Mexico) dress like this for a football match: http://bit.ly/1X1qkWc
I am not going to say a sombrero party cannot be a mockery, but I wonder if it often is. Am I stereotyping myself every time I ask people over for a tequila party?
The whole PC/"hurt feelings" trend is downright dangerous. It goes as much against plain common sense as it does against pluralism and free speech. And the fact that millennials seem to uphold it is particularly troubling.
The deep and abiding irony of "cultural appropriation" is that nothing will reinforce Anglo-American culture more than people being scared of borrowing elements of other cultures. If you're worried that Anglo-American culture is being diluted by outside influences, well these Bowdoin students are coming to your rescue.
The thing that really drives me nuts about the PC movement is that it infantilizes and stereotypes the very groups and cultures it purports to protect, robbing them of their own voices and self-agency. It latches onto a cardboard cutout of a stereotype for a culture and uses it to browbeat others into acceptance of the activist's interpretation of that culture and what may or may not be offensive to it.
Empathy is a good trait, and one that societies should encourage. But there's a significant difference between having empathy for others and using it to justify forcing your own interpretation of that empathy on others. In so many ways, the movement is just another manifestation the so-called "white man's burden." The sheer gall and hypocrisy is overwhelming.
> The thing that really drives me nuts about the PC movement is that it infantilizes and stereotypes the very groups and cultures it purports to protect, robbing them of their own voices and self-agency.
Thank you so much. The problem with SJWs is: when you point this out to them, they'll usually shitstorm you beyond belief.
Warriors look for a fight. Without a fight they can't be warriors. I wish they'd change from warriors to workers. Most workers aren't vocal and looking to offend others. They go about getting things done (changing the status quo) through collaboration and progressivism, not by shouting and bullying others. There's a reason SJWs see and feel that their causes aren't progressing. It's because their means are abrasive and offending, causing those they wish to influence to put up their defenses.
There are plenty of actual fights remaining to be won, those aren't what SJW's look for as they quite fine with simply tilting at windmills as it doesn't requires much (or well any) effort, doesn't involve putting their own skin into the game and still allows them to boast and leave with a feeling of accomplishment.
I've been saying this for years now. The modern PC movement has moved beyond building empathy and respect, to preserving and strengthening stereotypes. Reminds me of the Two Minutes Hate from 1984. Extremism is bad whether it's too left or too right.
In European colleges, it's common for students to have "USA" themed parties.
Coca-cola is served, hot dogs are made, basketball jersey are worn, red solo cups are used, and fat costumes (an XXXXL tee shirt with a few pillows stuffed underneath) are plenty. Oh yeah people bring fake guns too.
Meanwhile, no punishment for the Black student who tweets "7000 retweets and I'll smash this b*'s computer", with a photo of a woman with a laptop with a Trump sticker in a computer lab.
If there's an issue, it's that university administrations are fundamentally authoritarian bureaucratic institutions.
But being outraged about political correctness is more emotionally satisfying than wondering whether university power structures could be rethought in order to be more democratic, i guess. free speech is not threatened by people with opinions you disagree with; free speech is threatened by power. people buy into authoritarianism so much that it's almost invisible. when a university administration crushes somebody, why is it the fault of political correctness and not the fault of the power structure? perhaps the students overreact, but overreacting people are harmless unless they are attached to power.
considering students authoritarian is either absurd or irrelevant. students aren't the ones abusing power.
> satisfying than wondering whether university power structures could be rethought in order to be more democratic
University power structures shouldn't be entirely democratic. The students need to be clearly subordinate to their teachers.
I think what's happening here is that, through fear of student power or laziness, the administration is using its power to appease the overreacting students rather than control and moderate their overreaction.
I don't think the ideal relationship between students and teachers is at all subordination. In any case, the real subordination relationship is "Investors/Trustees/Donors > Administrators > Teachers/Students".
Imagine there's a vending machine, and a group of young people learn that if you it hit in a certain way, a soda pops out... so they stand around hitting that vending machine...popping out sodas...
'Offendedness' is that way you punch that machine.
Someone needs to put some mature, level-headed adults in charge of these schools. There needs to be someone to remind students when they're being unreasonable and foolish, and then put a stop to it if needed.
This reminds me of an incident where a fraternity and a sorority at my alma mater were crucified for holding a Cinco de Mayo party, named Phiesta, when the organizations had the letter phi in their names.
Without passing judgment on whether both are right or wrong, how is this any different from a "Chinese people"-themed party featuring slanty eye costumes? I have a feeling HN commenters (and most Americans) would view that much less charitably. I'm genuinely curious: why?
For one thing it wasn't a Mexican people party, it was a equals party. Sombrero are very much identified with tequila. shoot half the tequila bottles have somber orbs on them.
So does it mean that people from a Chinese background celebrating St Patrick and dressing in green would be culturally insensitive because that's not their culture ? Or are white people practicing judo and wearing a kimono racist toward Japanese people ? Or that a latino female cannot teach yoga because it's cultural appropriation and disrespectful toward Indians ? So did that college ban all these stuff already because PC ? where does it stop ? everybody sticks to their culture and we enable global separation by race, sex, gender, country of origin in College so nobody get outraged at something somebody different than him might do ?
IMHO, the rise of SJWs of all kinds is caused by rising gender equality in the US and Europe. Now that women and men are quite equal in our societies (though e.g. the pay gap and a gap in leadership positions remains, although the latter is most likely caused by the fact that there are not many people who want 80+h work weeks to begin with), all those who dedicated their entire personal life and their careers to advancing feminism need something to continue to work in their area.
And if you can't find a real job, just look for another "minority" to "support" at all costs.
Edit: or well, find a real minority with real problems - like PoC who are being shot by police apparently for sports or Latinos who are in the line of fire of Trump and friends. "But... wait... there's powerful opposition there (cops, Trump fans), too dangerous, let's mob against people who party in sombreros" I hear the SJWs scream...
> And if you can't find a real job, just look for another "minority" to "support" at all costs.
You're being downvoted but that's exactly why "modern" feminists call themselves "intersectional". They need to spread the "patriarchy" narrative in all social spheres. By "patriarchy" they off course means "white straight men" exclusively. Like being white straight and male makes you automatically rich, powerful, racist and a misogynist ...
Like being white straight and male makes you automatically rich, powerful, racist and a misogynist
No, but being white, straight, and male means you don't have to navigate barriers formed by even slightly racist, homophobic, or sexist people. And there are lots of slightly racist, homophobic, or sexist people to navigate[1].
In motor racing, even a tiny advantage lets you win disproportionately more races than your competition. If someone is going to get rich and powerful, it's going to be the person with the most advantages and least disadvantages. Not having to deal with discrimination is such an advantage, particularly when you accept that racism, homophobia, and sexism are things that affect real people.
There are lots of people (of any color/gender) who won't hire me or give me a promotion because they they find my face smug (for example). Just like skin color, I cannot change my face.
You can be discriminated against on any physical or behavioral attribute.
And, btw, being white, straight and male is not exactly a bed of roses...[1].
93 comments
[ 5.0 ms ] story [ 107 ms ] thread> The school’s reaction seems especially arbitrary when you learn that — on the very same night of the “tequila party,” just across campus — Bowdoin held its annual, administration-sanctioned “Cold War” party. Students arrived dressed in fur hats and coats to represent Soviet culture; one referred to herself as “Stalin,” making light of a particularly painful era in Slavic history.
The fuck kind of hypocritical bullshit is this?
The point is, you are actually asking these leading questions in a way that can't be answered and are doing it for the intent of inflating the argument further. Worse, you are doing it in a way that discriminates against several other groups of humans in the process.
Now, as a Polo wearing redneck, I could get mad about it, or I could just say "dude that's silly". I chose the latter.
There's even a website devoted to "redneck" themed party attire: http://www.billybobproducts.com/
1) I've done the first one.
2) Ants up their ass sounds unpleasent, so no ty.
3) The administration sanctions Russian stereotypes by not Mexican ones. That is the hypocrisy I'm pointing out. You can't just say "It is okay to do this about racial group X yet not okay for Y".
There's a part of this that I really don't understand. What's with all the misleading word-usage? Did people of Mexican origin feel unsafe? Their safety was compromised? I don't think so. This is 1984 level of double-speak where words have been redefined to fit the narrative. Feeling unsafe means there is a credible threat of violence. Not feeling offended by people dressing up in your ethnic dress.
Which is to say, the purpose of the rules is not to protect the people who represent minority cultures, it is to protect the university (or employer, or government) from a lawsuit.
Earlier today HN had an article accusing the Chinese government of enacting "precrime" in the form of a terror threat analysis system. But all around me in the United States I see forms of before-the-fact suspicion being used to punish people. This is one of them: no one of Latino heritage felt harmed by the party, but someone might have and thus the students are being punished. A man with a felony conviction on his record didn't do anything threatening, but he was told he couldn't attend a parent-child activity at school. You can buy alcohol if you're over 21-years old and show valid ID... unless a 19-year old friend is with you in the checkout line because you might give the beer to an underage person.
All situations where people are being accused of committing a crime before it happens. The government may not be literally throwing you in prison without a trial, but they passively-aggressively encourage it by passing laws that mandate zero-tolerance policies. And appointing judges who authorize civil suits that punish people who don't perform this kind of criminal profiling, such as a supermarket being liable for selling beer that is later served to a teenager.
Well, I'm not sure a credible threat of violence is really the requirement. Actively stalking someone to take pictures, for instance, doesn't necessarily equal violence but its still a form of applied force in many respects.
However, I think the Russian party is equal and equivalent given there is a Communist party in the US + Russians + the animosity towards Russians (despite the fact they are white) in general in the US. Yet, who the fuck says that is okay yet goes after some kids with a sombrero theme?
There seems to be a crack in this generation's perception of what the West promises. We, the left, strive for social liberalism, civil equality, freedom of speech, protection of the individual by institutions, etc. but as many of us see in the news every week, the reality is that our system continues failing on all these fronts. This is basically a symptom of the historical tug-o-war between the left and right, entrenched biases, and the unexpected results of a complex civilization.
I was influenced greatly by anarchist philosophers, but managed to tear away from their commitment to dissolving the state. I see the role of government as necessary, especially in a free market system. I don't know what role social norms should play in this. Should we try to live inoffensively? Should we speak and move lightly, lest we offend some minority group? My line is the blatant racism of people like Donald Trump, no need to mention his support from the KKK. This article seems like we're wasting energy focusing on perceived microaggressions, when there are truly violent people around the corner targeting the same minority groups with truly malevolent intentions.
i.e. by striving to promulgate the most virtuous opinions, and, as a corollary, ostracising and denouncing those who voice wrong or unfashionable opinions.
The rest of the group will go along with it because they don't want to be individually targeted. Even though they may privately suspect that what's going on is bad and that true virtue does not depend on one's opinions.
I watched some of Milo Yiannoupoulos's recent lectures in his tour of American universities. He claims that the purpose of attending university is to be exposed to difficult and disturbing ideas. I'm not sure if this is true.
Perhaps it ought to be true. Yet I suspect that no one knows what the real purposes of universities are because they are an evolved tradition. What we do know is that most of the early European universities and their colleges were founded with the intention of preserving and promoting orthodoxy: combatting heresies, training priests, etc. What we're seeing at present in the anglospherical universities is simply the emergence of a different sort of orthodoxy.
I think when we start chewing up clock cycles simulating whether another group might be offended by the action of another group, we've gone a step too far in governing ourselves. I'm also a bit troubled this agenda is being pushed by our country's educational system.
And, FWIW, I do think that if a given group of people are offended by the blaming actions of another group of people, they have the right to stand up and say how they feel about it and be heard. Real discrimination of humans by humans is not cool, and should be avoided where possible.
edit: To expand, there is nothing "blatant" about his racism and from what he says you can't even infer if he is racist or not. What he is clearly doing though is using dog whistle politics to bring in the racist vote and that in itself is a good reason not to vote for him.
>We, the left, strive for social liberalism, civil equality, freedom of speech,
This seems to hint at the problem. You (the left) conflate freedom and equality, as though they are similar goals that can be achieved through similar means. But often these goals conflict with each other; Trying to achieve one often works against the other. Since we need decent amount of both in a society, maybe we should strive for a balance between the two using a common-sense approach?
Actually it's because most people are ignorant. AKA we can be manipulated to believe things against our interest. Science on reasoning:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYmi0DLzBdQ
"Intended as an internal document. Good reading to understand the nature of rich democracies and the fact that the common people are not allowed to play a role."
Crisis of democracy
http://trilateral.org/download/doc/crisis_of_democracy.pdf
http://www.amazon.com/Crisis-Democracy-Governability-Democra...
Democracy Inc.
http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Incorporated-Managed-Inverte...
Testing theories of representative government
https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/fi...
Overthrowing other peoples governments
http://williamblum.org/essays/read/overthrowing-other-people...
Protectionism for the rich and big business by state intervention, radical market interference.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHj2GaPuEhY#t=349
Energy subsidies
https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2015/NEW07021...
Intereference in other states when the rich/corporations dont get their way
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mxp_wgFWQo&feature=youtu.be...
Manufacturing consent (book)
http://www.amazon.com/Manufacturing-Consent-Political-Econom...
Manufacturing consent(vids):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwU56Rv0OXM
https://vimeo.com/39566117
So it's not especially necessary in a command economy?
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wooden_language
Bowdoin update: On Facebook, school flaunted photos of alumni, students in school-provided sombreros
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/rampage/wp/2016/03/04/bo...
But COME ON. The severity of reprisals and administrations actions on this one is completely out of proportion. I'm not faulting anyone getting offended. But I am questioning the administration's response to all of this. Especially given:
"The school’s reaction seems especially arbitrary when you learn that — on the very same night of the “tequila party,” just across campus — Bowdoin held its annual, administration-sanctioned “Cold War” party. Students arrived dressed in fur hats and coats to represent Soviet culture; one referred to herself as “Stalin,” making light of a particularly painful era in Slavic history."
This seems like it was written to shoehorn it into a racist thing instead of just a run-of-the-mill dismissive insult towards a group of people.
(If you don't believe this, pay attention to pro-Palestine protests on college campuses.)
Why is it worse for a light skinned woman to play a darker-skinned woman than for a white man to play a black man?
And it's worse because of the history of black face and why it was used
Tropic Thunder got away with blackface for the same reason Saturday Night Live gets away with offensive jokes. It's satire, and they're mocking the offensive acts.
[1] The people getting kicked out of dorms business, not the party (unless it was really rowdy and there were injuries or property destruction or something).
Nobody needs to have a party with sombreros, but at the same time, there is no reason to ban a party with sombreros, just because it is a party with sombreros. Thing is, we don't ban everything that is not strictly necessary for survival, we ban things only when there is a damn good reason to ban them.
I'll give this whole thing the benefit of the doubt, either way, because I really don't know if the point of the party was just to wear sombreros or if there truly was some sort of weird racist overtones to it. Like, if I throw a party back in Mexico where we all dress in baseball caps and overalls, that's probably fine. If I do the same, but additionally make it known to the guests that part of the party theme is to act like stereotypical rural Americans from the southern states (e.g. I go and call it a "hillbilly party"), then I am not so sure I shouldn't be called out on that... (where "called out" is different from "evicted").
If the party was being used as a platform for racism, then yeah, cancel the whole thing, talk to students involved. If it wasn't, if it was just about having fun and wearing a "funny" hat... well, I fail to see the issue, even if it's my country's funny hat.
Anyone who argues about the PC-ness of some action related to group X without actually asking anyone from group X about it is doing nothing but talking out of their ass. (How could they do otherwise, without the cultural knowledge that comes only from being part of group X?) If they wish not to look like an uninformed idiot, it behooves them to shut up until they know what an actual person from group X thinks. Anything else is pretentious.
But I think what matters, in addition to (and co-varying with) how the affected minority feels, is the attitude of the people doing this. There is a fine but still relatively objective line between a party that celebrates Mexican culture, one that mocks it, and one that does neither. Also, even if you think you are in the third or first case, if someone comes to you and tells you that they feel you have done the second, how you react to that is important.
I guess your point depends on what sort of caricature and whether Mexicans at the party are more likely to feel insulted or amused... also whether people think the caricature reflects the truth or not. And whether Mexicans and Mexican-Americans feel they are in on the joke or that the joke is done at their expense. But the mere fact that it involves sombreros, or even that sombreros are considered exaggerated and funny, doesn't necessarily make the party a categorical mockery.
For example, if we (in Mexico) dress like this for a football match: http://bit.ly/1X1qkWc
Are we making fun of this: http://bit.ly/1TgiqtO ?
I am not going to say a sombrero party cannot be a mockery, but I wonder if it often is. Am I stereotyping myself every time I ask people over for a tequila party?
If that's the case then just close everything down.
Empathy is a good trait, and one that societies should encourage. But there's a significant difference between having empathy for others and using it to justify forcing your own interpretation of that empathy on others. In so many ways, the movement is just another manifestation the so-called "white man's burden." The sheer gall and hypocrisy is overwhelming.
Thank you so much. The problem with SJWs is: when you point this out to them, they'll usually shitstorm you beyond belief.
Telling a Latino that mini-sombreros are offensive - the gall is extraordinary.
Coca-cola is served, hot dogs are made, basketball jersey are worn, red solo cups are used, and fat costumes (an XXXXL tee shirt with a few pillows stuffed underneath) are plenty. Oh yeah people bring fake guns too.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/this-is-what-american-parties...
I wonder if "PC student newspaper editor" and "overzealous administrator" will become popular costumes soon.
Consider instead: perhaps the overwrought response is an exercise of power for its own sake.
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/queens/student-threatens...
But being outraged about political correctness is more emotionally satisfying than wondering whether university power structures could be rethought in order to be more democratic, i guess. free speech is not threatened by people with opinions you disagree with; free speech is threatened by power. people buy into authoritarianism so much that it's almost invisible. when a university administration crushes somebody, why is it the fault of political correctness and not the fault of the power structure? perhaps the students overreact, but overreacting people are harmless unless they are attached to power.
considering students authoritarian is either absurd or irrelevant. students aren't the ones abusing power.
University power structures shouldn't be entirely democratic. The students need to be clearly subordinate to their teachers.
I think what's happening here is that, through fear of student power or laziness, the administration is using its power to appease the overreacting students rather than control and moderate their overreaction.
About two minutes would you say?
'Offendedness' is that way you punch that machine.
Idiocy.
And if you can't find a real job, just look for another "minority" to "support" at all costs.
Edit: or well, find a real minority with real problems - like PoC who are being shot by police apparently for sports or Latinos who are in the line of fire of Trump and friends. "But... wait... there's powerful opposition there (cops, Trump fans), too dangerous, let's mob against people who party in sombreros" I hear the SJWs scream...
You're being downvoted but that's exactly why "modern" feminists call themselves "intersectional". They need to spread the "patriarchy" narrative in all social spheres. By "patriarchy" they off course means "white straight men" exclusively. Like being white straight and male makes you automatically rich, powerful, racist and a misogynist ...
No, but being white, straight, and male means you don't have to navigate barriers formed by even slightly racist, homophobic, or sexist people. And there are lots of slightly racist, homophobic, or sexist people to navigate[1].
In motor racing, even a tiny advantage lets you win disproportionately more races than your competition. If someone is going to get rich and powerful, it's going to be the person with the most advantages and least disadvantages. Not having to deal with discrimination is such an advantage, particularly when you accept that racism, homophobia, and sexism are things that affect real people.
[1] https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/takeatest.html
You can be discriminated against on any physical or behavioral attribute.
And, btw, being white, straight and male is not exactly a bed of roses...[1].
[1] https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/reading-between-the-hea...