Coddling of the American Mind

[Phil Deakins]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

Years ago, I listened to a talk by a medical researcher who said that "the first person to reach the age of 200 is alive today".

---

Then he was certifiably nuts. That would make the first person to reach the age of 200 thousands of years old now, and no such person exists in the world today.

---

No, he meant that someone alive today would benefit from medical advance and live to be 200 years old. That was probably much easier to figure out in the context of the entire talk.

---

I know that. I just threw in the actual meaning of the sentence, as it is written - not as it was meant.

f you did a direct quote, then he wrote it wrongly. He should have written, "the first person who will reach the age of 200 is alive today"

[Phil Deakins]

---

BilliJo Aldrin wrote:

ummm no he said the first person to reach the age of 200 is alive today. Right now they might only be 20, but his idea is that with medical advances, someone alive right now will be the first person to reach the age of 200.

---

Read my reply to Maddy's post

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

Years ago, I listened to a talk by a medical researcher who said that "the first person to reach the age of 200 is alive today".

---

Then he was certifiably nuts. That would make the first person to reach the age of 200 thousands of years old now, and no such person exists in the world today.

---

No, he meant that someone alive today would benefit from medical advance and live to be 200 years old. That was probably much easier to figure out in the context of the entire talk.

---

I know that. I just threw in the actual meaning of the sentence, as it is written - not as it was meant.

f you did a direct quote, then he wrote it wrongly. He should have written, "

the first person who will reach the age of 200 is alive today

"

---

Perhaps your Britness is showing. Where I live, if I say "The first of you kids to clean your dog's poop off my patio gets a popsicle" doesn't have anyone wondering who that was.

[Phil Deakins]

That would be understood here too, but it's not exactly correct. The first to cross the finish line will get a medal is also understood. It's universally understood but it's not correct. It should be, the first who crosses the finish line...

If your quotation was from something that was written, then it was written wrongly, and should have been edited. When it's spoken, it's understood if the context fits. I understood it in context in your post, but I noticed that the sentence actually said something different.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

BilliJo Aldrin wrote:

And for the record America was founded as a slave country, The stars and stripes was a flag of slavery for many years.

And, if we are talking about offensive symbols, lets ask the American Indians how they feel about the flag their genocide was conducted under.

My flag today, your flag tomorrow.

---

I don't fly the American flag at my RL home. I fly flags of lighthouses, Georgia O'Keefe flowers, bugs, microbes, and spooky things (bugs and microbes are not spooky). I've already been asked to take down my spider flag, by a six year old who hates them. ;-).

As something of an independent contrarian, I have a hard time imagining any national flag feeling right on my flagpoles. I was home-schooled and never said the pledge of allegiance. "My country, right or wrong" always felt wrong to me. The full quote (whether Decatur's or Schurz's) is more palatable. For the most part, I avoid symbols of membership. I won't wear anything with a Tory Burch logo on it until she starts wearing things with my... okay I don't have a logo, that would be weird.

And the wording of your American indian sentence is unclear to me. Did you mean to ask how they feel about the American flag given the genocide conducted by European settlers under it? They'd be rightfully peeved. And, if you dig into the statistics, I should probably make sure none of the microbes on my flags is smallpox, or be ready to explain myself.

 

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

That would be understood here too, but it's not exactly correct. The first to cross the finish line will get a medal is also understood. It's universally understood but it's not correct. It should be, the first who crosses the finish line...

If your quotation was from something that was written, then it was written wrongly, and should have been edited. When it's spoken, it's understood if the context fits. I understood it in context in your post, but I noticed that the sentence actually said something different.

---

I don't think anything in language is exactly correct. That belongs to mathematics.

ETA: Well, let me fix that. I think mathematics the only language in which things can be exactly correct. And it's not our language, we're just trying to learn it.

[wherorangi]

---

BilliJo Aldrin wrote:

and who might that be? I'm pretty sure it wasn't Robert E Lee, who said that if had known what the north had planned for the south, he'd have never surrendered and would instead have fought to the last man

---

wow !  you have no idea at all about your own people and your own history

you dont have any idea at all about Robert E. Lee

Mr Lee actually supported and advocated consistently and constantly for the Reconciliation

he can tell you himself in his own words

please go here:

https://archive.org/stream/personalreminis00jonegoog#page/n252/mode/2up

+

am going to copy one of his letters here:

"Near Cartersville, Va., August 28, 1865.

Hon. John Letcher, Lexington, Va.

My Dear Sir: I was much pleased to hear of your return to your home, and to learn by your letter of the 2d of the kindness and consideration with which you were treated during your arrest, and of the sympathy extended to you by your congressional associates and friends in Washington. The conciliatory manner in which President Johnson spoke of the South must have been particularly agreeable to one who has the interests if its people so much at heart as yourself. I wish that spirit could become more general. It would go far to promote confidence, and to calm feelings which have to long existed. The questions which for years were in dispute between the State and General Government, and which unhappily were not decided by the dictates of reason, but referred to the decision of war, having been decided against us, it is the part of wisdom to acquiesce in the result, and of candor to recognize the fact.

The interests of the State are therefore the same as those of the United States. Its prosperity will rise or fall with the welfare of the country. The duty of its citizens, then, appears to me too plain to admit of doubt. All should unite in honest efforts to obliterate the effects of war, and to restore the blessings of peace. They should remain, if possible, in the country; promote harmony and good feeling; qualify themselves to vote; and elect to the State and general Legislatures wise and patriotic men, who will devote their abilities to the interests of the country, and the healing of all dissensions. I have invariably recommended this course since the cessation of hostilities, and have endeavored to practise it myself. I am much obliged to you for the interest you have expressed in my acceptance of the presidency of Washington College. If I believed I could be of advantage to the youth of the country, I should not hesitate. I have stated to the committee of trustees the objections which exist in my opinion to my filling the position, and will yield to their judgement. Please present me to Mrs. Letcher and your children, and believe me most truly yours,

R. E. Lee"

 

 

[Bree Giffen]

These hypersensitive students have already started entering the workforce. They say dumb stuff and do dumb things but working in a job tends to grind them down. 4 years of coddling in college quickly gets removed by just a year of people who have no sympathy for such things.

[Sahra Beresford]

In reply to wherorangi

                                           The fact still remains this bill made no difference to the shamefull abuse and murder of defenceless childen which still continues to this day. The law still seems toothless to defend these children in the face of family members choosing to remain silent. In the latest disgraceful case the guilty plea was changed from murder to manslaughter something that most of us still cannot comprehend. As for the legal consequences in our country the sentance for murder is 10yrs which can be considerably shortened for good behaviour in prison. For manslaughter less than half of 10yrs.

                                              This is the end of this conversation from my point of view. We are both totally off topic and I have said all I want to say on the subject.

                                            

[wherorangi]

---

Sahra Beresford wrote:

In reply to wherorangi

                                           The fact still remains this bill made no difference to the shamefull abuse and murder of defenceless childen which still continues to this day. The law still seems toothless to defend these children in the face of family members choosing to remain silent. In the latest disgraceful case the guilty plea was changed from murder to manslaughter something that most of us still cannot comprehend. As for the legal consequences in our country the sentance for murder is 10yrs which can be considerably shortened for good behaviour in prison. For manslaughter less than half of 10yrs.

                                              This is the end of this conversation from my point of view. We are both totally off topic and I have said all I want to say on the subject.

                                            

---

is not about what it seems. Is about what it is

suggest that you look stuff up and read it

try: http://www.cyf.govt.nz/about-us/key-statistics/

for an independent take on the numbers. CPAG

http://www.cpag.org.nz/assets/Publications/130729%20CPAG%20Child%20Abuse%20Report%202%20July%202013.pdf

the Child Poverty Action Group found that when compiling their report the decrease in violence perpetrated on chidren amongst those who identify to CYPS as ethnic european has now fallen to the point where any statistical analysis relating to this group is statistically meaningless

the question CPAG asks is: Why has it not fallen similarly for those who identify to CYPS as maori and pasifika ?

 

+

eta. I just want to add something here

i would recommend to anyone interested to have quick look at page 7. of the CPAG report. The graph: Figure 1

is pretty interesting and is on topic. The graph shows the volumes of complaints by broad catergory

CYPS now get more complaints about Emotional, than they do Sexual, Physical and Neglect combined

one day hopefully Sexual, Physical and Neglect will be zero. and CYPS just end up spending all their time dealing with emotionals

for sure some verbals in families can get pretty rough sometimes, but as a person who sits at the kitchen table with these families in my day job, I rather be talking to people about how they feel, than having to help the families deal with the wreckage caused by the other 3

 

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

That would be understood here too, but it's not exactly correct. The first to cross the finish line will get a medal is also understood. It's universally understood but it's not correct. It should be, the first who crosses the finish line...

If your quotation was from something that was written, then it was written wrongly, and should have been edited. When it's spoken, it's understood if the context fits. I understood it in context in your post, but I noticed that the sentence actually said something different.

---

I don't think anything in language is exactly correct. That belongs to mathematics.

ETA: Well, let me fix that. I think mathematics the only language in which things can be exactly correct. And it's not our language, we're just trying to learn it.

---

And speaking of mathematics, Par just caught me starting on my 144 years of insufferable stupidity 10 years early (late?)...

https://community.secondlife.com/t5/General-Discussion-Forum/Coddling-of-the-American-Mind/m-p/3060959#M230478

So much for my trying to learn a second language.

[Freya Mokusei]

I've just now had the capacity to catch up with this thread. I know the fun's probably over, but I've done... okay at articulating my perspectives lately. So maybe one more?

This is a fairly close topic to me, for a number of reasons:-

• I'm a Millenial.
• I'm progressive (but a skeptic!).
• I'm (within the last 10 years) university educated.
• I'm an Individualist. (a word older than 'microaggressions' and 'identity politics' )
• I'm also British (home of George Orwell and the blueprint/instruction manual named Nineteen Eighty-Four, which I've read half a dozen times)

So in short, I've seen this phenomenon a lot. I've been exposed to it a lot. And (most reservedly) I see the value in it, a lot.

Political Correctness is certainly something that exists with measured success. I'll address this one first, because it's the easiest.

Human learning used to be easy - it took place in formal schooling systems, and was career focused. Since (primarily) the advent of the Internet, research (esp. social research) has been moving more quickly than ever - many facts once taught in school are now factually or semantically incorrect. Education has seen a massive shift from rote-learning to goal-based learning - it's now accepted that a teacher probably can't accurately dictate facts, but instead their role is to prepare their charges to think critically about information that they receive throughout their lifetimes (naturally, there is some reluctance to teaching in this way, I can only speak for the environments I've experienced). Add to this the global economic instability, forcing retraining and disrupting historically stable markets (e.g. pub closures in the UK, car production in the US). In short, education is now a whole-life activity - for those that want (or need) to keep up.

There are other social issues in addition to education: politics of division are now intrinsic to nearly every issue, the growth of the 24-hour newscycle (mostly based on regurgitation and editorialising, rather than adding to the quantity of facts). Everything feels like Marmite - there are no innocent bystanders left, everyone has a for camp, and an against camp, and never shall the two compromise or mix. For me, as a British person, this was typified in the recent Brexit campaign (which I'll skillfully dodge talking about), but for American types it might be more relatable to talk about Hillary vs. Trump. There are third-parties of course, but for each of the two personalities, there's no-one who is ambivilent to either, it's all either unreserved praise or unreserved hatred. There is no middle ground.

Division makes compromise hard, turns empathetic situations into zero-sum games where only one party can win. In general, in my opinion, when someone tells me that I'm doing someone a disservice, making assumptions or otherwise unknowningly speaking for someone else - I try to listen and see what I can do differently. If someone tells me that I'm using the wrong word, I'll research and review my choice next time (my goal is to be clear and understood). If someone tells me that my assumptions are perpetuating stereotypes, I'll look into what else I can do to reduce the odds of doing so  again (my goal is to promote individual choice, and reduce systemic barriers). If someone tells me that I caused hurt feelings or caused offence with my words without meaning to, I'll review my posts and try again. In this sense, Political Correctness is a red-herring, it's just Correctness. Listening sympathetically, adjusting the way we speak (in order to be clear and also reduce inflammatory/hurtful statements) and critically-analysing the assuptions we make is the rational, level-headed approach to a world that is increasingly in a state of flux, and increasingly without long-held, tried-and-tested authority telling us what's real and what's not.

Obviously there are issues of conflation, obviously some newspapers and media sources (Daily Mail! Front and center!) deliberately stoke the fires of division, obviously some people get their approaches wrong, or tackle issues in the wrong order, or everything else that humans have gotten wrong in attempting to create a more cohesive, less monocultured community since language was first developed.

I don't know if this is reaching the thread too late, or if it's entirely bone-headed. I hadn't seen more than a couple of voices in this thread who are willing to say "This is my thing", but I appreciate those that see this as a nuanced issue rather than a headline to stand for or against. Maybe my perspective is useful - if so, I'll add more on the more general sensitivity that people think we're seeing.

Fun fact though: those that pushback against PC-culture, against whatever name this umbrella cause takes, always do it by using exactly the same pleas to emotion as the "special snowflakes" that they pretend to hate. It is absolutely two sides of the same coin.

[Madelaine McMasters]

I'm in agreement with you, Freya, and I'm going to skillfully draw you out of skillfully dodging the Brexit discussion. I found the demographics of the vote to be interesting...

http://www.politico.eu/article/graphics-how-the-uk-voted-eu-referendum-brexit-demographics-age-education-party-london-final-results/

In particular, I'm struck by the age demographic and the inversion of that in the education demographic (the young are better educated than their parents). If I'm correct in understanding that membership in the EU feels like change to Brits, then maybe the age and education demographics are to be expected. The more tradition (habit) you acquire, the less willing you are to suffer change. The more you are exposed to alternative ideas, the more likely you are to alter your own.

If Trump is the change agent in American politics, the US presidential election seems to swing the demographics in reverse. Millennials prefer Clinton, who "represents the status quo".

Either way, the disparity in view between young and old is nothing new, but it's the young who have to live with the results of votes the longest.

You touch on some other ideas I've mentioned elsewhere. The effect of the 24/7 news cycle parallels that of the "democratization" of the Internet. We're only able to process a certain amount of information in a day, and all those information sources compete for our attention. The most effective way to do that is to target the amygdala, not the prefrontal cortex. We see that in journalism, we see it here in the forum. But, along with the relentless flow of the news cycle, social media and endless new voices, we've got balkanization. There's a welcome harbor for every idea that sets sail on the internet. I wonder how that destabilizing effect compares to income inequality.

And I agree, it's just correctness. My consideration for others (if I have it) doesn't feel like a constraint on my ability to make my points. As one of the most dogged individualists here in the forums, the effort you put into holding your ground while being civil is both obvious to me and appreciated.

But, while I like your prefrontal cortex, your amygdala can be a hoot.

;-).

[Pamela Galli]

As I have said, if you want to generate a minefield of micro aggressions, knock yourself out, everyone needs a hobby.  The problem is when you insist on punishing those who microagress against you. When a professor says the word indigenous should not be capitalized, should people howl for his head on a stake? 

Has anyone actually read Orwell? or Solzhenitzen? Because the latter provides an abundance of documentation of what a culture based on the punishment of microagressions is like: tell a joke about Stalin, go to the Gulag, like S. did. 

Thank God the U of C has announced they are not going to put up with this kind of totalitarian suppression of speech.

[Madelaine McMasters]

I'm entirely in favor of universities refusing trigger words and safe spaces. They (as we) should embrace thoughtful tension.

I've been out of college for 25 years and I'm sure times have changed. Yet amongst the college kids I know, I've heard nothing like the stories you've linked. Of course that's anecdotal evidence, but I'm not yet on the PC as totalitarian suppression bandwagon. Nor am I going to thank God for the U of C being thoughtful. I'd thank the U fo C.

;-).

[BilliJo Aldrin]

She was a commercial raider, outfitted to attack and destroy merchant vessels flying the American flag. I doubt there were many of them in southern ports. The Shenendoah basically destroyed the American whaling fleet in the Bering sea.

The point is The Southern States had the right to seceed. The Shenandoah operated legally and corrctly during its entire cruise and was vindicated in all its actions by the British Admiralty.

I am amused at your continual harping about "which" flag is the correct one to honor the confederacy with, because aren't they all evil as far as u are concerned.

[BilliJo Aldrin]

I'm talking specifically about the genocide conducted by America, as national policy AFTER America became an independant nation.

 

[Pamela Galli]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

I'm entirely in favor of universities refusing trigger words and safe spaces. They (as we) should embrace thoughtful tension.

I've been out of college for 25 years and I'm sure times have changed. Yet amongst the college kids I know, I've heard nothing like the stories you've linked. Of course that's anecdotal evidence, but I'm not yet on the PC as totalitarian suppression bandwagon. Nor am I going to thank God for the U of C being thoughtful. I'd thank the U fo C.

;-).

---

Maddie, in this thread I have said 1) none of the millenials I personally know want to punish "microagressors", and 2) I have quoted where the article makes the distinction between political correctness and whatever you want to call this demand to be coddled. So these are red herrings. From what the article and a plethora of others claim, there is a problem on college campuses with hypersensitivity and the desire to punish, that I see some evidence of in this very forum -- people who just go berserk because someone in SL failed to treat them like royalty. 

[Theresa Tennyson]

---

BilliJo Aldrin wrote:

She was a commercial raider, outfitted to attack and destroy merchant vessels flying the American flag. I doubt there were many of them in southern ports. The Shenendoah basically destroyed the American whaling fleet in the Bering sea.

The point is The Southern States had the right to seceed. The Shenandoah operated legally and corrctly during its entire cruise and was vindicated in all its actions by the British Admiralty.

I am amused at your continual harping about "which" flag is the correct one to honor the confederacy with, because aren't they all evil as far as u are concerned.

---

You tried to "prove" the Southern States had a right to seceed earlier and failed because you tripped up on the Articles of Confederation, which state that the Union is perpetual and can't be dissolved except by a unanimous decision.

I have no idea what the British Admiralty's opinion of the Shenandoah's actions has to do with United States law - if a Muslim in the United States kills someone in an "honor killing" that's against United States law, would a Sharia court's decision in an Islamic country that it was legal make it so in the United States?

I have never said that any Confederate flags are evil or that they should be banned. A flag is a flag; it's a piece of cloth. Fly it if you want to. Personally, I believe that people should be judged by what they do themselves, rather than what people who lived in the same area or who were related to them did. That means people get neither credit nor guilt from those who came before. They might or might not have learned lessons and gained knowledge from and about them, but that's another story.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Pamela Galli wrote:

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

I'm entirely in favor of universities refusing trigger words and safe spaces. They (as we) should embrace thoughtful tension.

I've been out of college for 25 years and I'm sure times have changed. Yet amongst the college kids I know, I've heard nothing like the stories you've linked. Of course that's anecdotal evidence, but I'm not yet on the PC as totalitarian suppression bandwagon. Nor am I going to thank God for the U of C being thoughtful. I'd thank the U fo C.

;-).

---

Maddie, in this thread I have said 1) none of the millenials I personally know want to punish "microagressors", and 2) I have quoted where the article makes the distinction between political correctness and whatever you want to call this demand to be coddled. So these are red herrings. From what the article and a plethora of others claim, there is a problem on college campuses with hypersensitivity and the desire to punish, that I see some evidence of in this very forum -- people who just go berserk because someone in SL failed to treat them like royalty. 

---

I don't think this forum is representative of the world (or US) in general, and I'm still not convinced that all the complaining about suppression of thought via political correctness isn't actually whining by thin skinned people, or people who're misunderstanding the source of their peril.

Here's the article you linked...

http://www.vox.com/2015/6/3/8706323/college-professor-afraid

...which is at odds with what I hear from the college kids and professors I know. Most of them are in STEM or music, where there may be less opportunity for outrage. I don't know.

And here are two articles that mention the one you linked, which both sound more like what I see in my corner of the world, where eroding faculty power is a large and growing concern...

• https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/06/04/meet-the-least-powerful-people-in-the-academy/?utm_term=.62c5438e977e
• https://chroniclevitae.com/news/1030-dear-liberal-professor-students-aren-t-the-problem

One of my engineering professors just retired. Over the 25 years since I sat in his class, I've listened to him chronicle the decline of both faculty power and pay, while the university spends fortunes on fancy buildings named after wealthy donors. He's never mentioned sensitive students, but engineering is a fairly emotion free field.

I've a neighbor who's a semi-retired professor of psychology. I like him because he drops the f-bomb at neighborhood get-togethers, making it easier for me to pull from the shelf of swear words right under it. His primary gripe is with the administrations of the two schools where he teaches, which are more interested in placating alumni groups and donors in their relentless quest to grow their endowment funds and sports facilities than in the academic integrity of their programs. There are a few sour grapes in his juice, but not all. Again, he's got no complaints about his students, but plenty about his bosses.

Faculty punishment via students may be a hot issue somewhere, but not amongst those around me. They're more concerned about faculty punishment via cost cutting and a shift away from education and into fund raising. I do think there's potential for "I paid for a 4.0, so give me a 4.0", but that seems to be coming from alumni more than students. A nearby university more or less admitted in a recent interview that they're spending a fortune on facility upgrades, not because they're needed to teach, but because parents who visit the campus want to see pretty buildings.

I am interested in this, so I'll be asking more about it when I meet my academic friends again.

[wherorangi]

---

BilliJo Aldrin wrote:

The point is The Southern States had the right to seceed

 

---

some more of your own history for you

Texas v. White 74 U.S.700 (1868)

the text is here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/74/700

the US Supreme Court (the guardian of the US Constitution) ruled that unilateral secession by a State is unconstitutional. They further ruled that seccession by a State from the United States can only be achieved either by revolution, or by the agreement of the other States

your belief that you somehow have a 'right to secede' is constitutionally unfounded

to secede then either get the consent of the other States. Or rip up the US Constitution and decide the matter by war, again

these are the only realworld choices you do have. Anything else is magical thinking

+

people who dont know their history, often misunderstand about the southern States of the USA

when the old Southron States left the Union as they did by revolution, then they disenfranchised their whole State insofar as any US constitutional rights applied to them as States, and the people who joined themselves to the CSA, gave up their US citizenship thru this also

when they lost the war, then the Southron States no longer existed constitutionally. The south States that are here today were re-constituted under the US Constitution. As they had to be. And re-admitted into the Union as new States

the constitutional Reconstruction of the United States of America

and everyone who had bore arms against the United States, and/or had declared for the CSA, were refused admittance to citizenship of the newly-constituted States

it took the work of people like President Johnson and Robert E. Lee to allow the declared and proven enemies (by act of war) of the United States to be granted State citizenship of the newly-constituted states, and subsequent citizenship of the USA

+

is what I meant by naming Robert Lee, as the last of the Southron gentlemen. He was. There are no Southrons left. They all died with him

He was also a massive racist, but at least he understood the peril facing his own people had he done something really stupid and fought to the last man

he was a soldier and a good one. When your enemy has you surrounded, commands the high ground, and their cannon are massed, and your enemy opponent puts the question: What is your wish sir ?

and knowing full well that your opponent is also a soldier and will oblige you either way. This is not going to be a fight to the last man. Is going to be a slaughter. All of my soldiers are going to die today, if that is what I wish

Lieutenant-Colonel Robert E. Lee, Commander of the Army of Virginia, weighed all this up. Also understanding full well that after his army had been slaughtered to the last man, the enemy army would have marched thru Virginia and also slaughtered anyone else who resisted, and then proceeded to march south to link up with the army marching north, and slaughtering anyone else who resisted

is what soldiers do. Slaughter their enemies until there are no enemies. Or until the enemy gives it up

so Robert E. Lee wished for his soldiers to live. And for the US armies to not march, so that his people might live. Defeated, but alive. And his enemy respected his wish. And the descendants of the once Southron people, are alive today bc of him, R. E. Lee

and their descendants are alive and US citizens today, bc their ancestors, the Southrons, accepted US citizenship when it was offered to them as a act of reconciliation

+

i just say that is heaps of people in the US South who know all this stuff. They are gracious, cordial, well-educated, knowlegeable and really good people

is only a few who arent really. And as each generation passes there is less and less of these few. And getting fewer as time passes

 

[wherorangi]

what you have written Freya makes a lot a sense to me. Helps to explain what is happening and why that is. You are certaintly not alone in your peer group in any country today that is premised on democracy, in a world where we are now swamped with information

and swamped with a multitude of opinion and argument on what that information might mean, and how we might use that in practicals ways. Both the information, and the opinions and arguments 

thanks Freya (:

[wherorangi]

---

Pamela Galli wrote:

When a professor says the word indigenous should not be capitalized, should people howl for his head on a stake? 

 

---

ever since you linked to this, I been wanting to address it. But I end up get outrage, so I have to stop typing (:

i will have a go now, bc I think is important

+

i am a indigenous person. Is a category. There is no type of "I"ndigenous

people who do this are often well-meaning, but even more often they have no idea how insulting this actually is

they are all wrapped in a desire to somehow help these unfortunate Indigenous peoples, by changing the way they are labelled, to raise "A"wareness, so these "U"fortunates can be "S"een to be "S"pecial, so "S"omething can be "D"one

what this kinda labelling does, is to practically create even more division than there already is. There is zero benefit in this for anyone other than making the person(s) doing it get the fuzzies

thats a real big help. Woohoo! we been leveled up from being called Indians to Indigenouses

i am not Indigenous. I am Ngapuhi

and then as Ngapuhi (or as Apache or Cherokee or Sioux or whichever) I would like to discuss with you the issues regarding some breaches of the agreement/treaty/contract that we entered into in good faith with you guys, as you did with us. With the view we can reach a resolution, and move on together

there is nothing special about either of us actually doing this

and I and lots of others like me would much rather we did this, than be levelled up to be the "P"oster "C"hild of the "U"fortunate

 

[Phil Deakins]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

I'm in agreement with you, Freya, and I'm going to skillfully draw you out of skillfully dodging the Brexit discussion. I found the demographics of the vote to be interesting...

http://www.politico.eu/article/graphics-how-the-uk-voted-eu-referendum-brexit-demographics-age-education-party-london-final-results/

In particular, I'm struck by the age demographic and the inversion of that in the education demographic (the young are better educated than their parents).

---

I know that this is off-topic but the current "southern states" discussion is also off-topic.

I too found the age demographic interesting, with older people voting to leave the EU. But, imo, your suggested reason for it (education) is wide of the mark, and probably completely wrong. I am one of the older people and I voted to leave, but it had nothing to do with education (I don't see how education has anything to do with it). I voted because nobody asked us if we wanted to be in the EU in the first place. Nobody asked us if we wanted our self-governing powers to be continually eroded. We were asked if we wanted to be in the trading block (the Common Market). That was merely/only a trading agreement, but that's all we were ever asked. It was governments that signed away some of our rights to run our own country, without ever asking the people about it. At elections, we didn't get a choice either, because both major parties were in favour of being in the EU.

Everyone I talked with before the vote said that they were going to vote to leave. I admit to not talking about it with young people.

Imo, education is not the difference between younger and older people. Memory/experience is. Younger people have only ever known being part of the EU, and can easily be persuaded to be very concerned about being cut loose from it. Older people have known it both ways, and know very well that not being in the EU is perfectly fine.

There is some truth in what you wrote about willingness to "suffer change", but only some truth. We do tend to feel comfortable in ways, and prefer not to make big changes to them. But we also like and desire change. That's why the different major political parties alternate in government. In such ways, we are not usually directly affected, so we'll have a change, just for the sake of change.

 

ETA:

The U.S. probably has trading agreements with Mexico and Canada, but imagine if all three countries were part of a trading agreement 'block' so that trading rules affect all three exactly the same. That would be the equivalent of the Common Market that the British people specifically voted to join. Then suppose that the governments got together and made some small political integrations. Some of your people wouldn't like it (when they found out) but successive governments say that it's good for the country. Imagine too that, as the years roll be, more and more political powers are signed away to the block. Soon enough, your government won't even have the power to remove individuals from your country without the permission of 'the block'. And remember that you don't get to vote in those who make the decisions. They are not elected and they are not answerable to the people.

Then move forward a few decades, and you'll find that your younger population have known it no other way and, since there are some benefits in being part of the block, along with the loss of polical self-determination, they are loathe to change it. But your older people remember differently. They remember that things worked fine before being part of the block, and they'll know that things can still be fine if the country leaves the block, because they remember.

Better education won't help because everything that's affected by being part of the block is so much that nobody, except perhaps a tiny few, understand all the ins and outs of it, and what differences may come along if you leave. And remember that education only comes about when teachers teach, and those teachers are just part of the population that don't understand it all either, and/or probably teach in accordance with their own biased views.

[Freya Mokusei]

---

Pamela Galli wrote:

As I have said, if you want to generate a minefield of micro aggressions, knock yourself out, everyone needs a hobby.  The problem is when you insist on punishing those who microagress against you. When a professor says the word indigenous should not be capitalized, should people howl for his head on a stake?

---

Even the authors of the paper that originally identified Microaggressions disagrees with instances of them being used to police speech. Microaggressions are a tool used to identify potentially negative connotations within the language we use - a way of labelling something most of us never have to think about. It's a marker, an identifier, a pattern of speech.

My opinion is that the uprisings, conflicts and calls to sack staff are occuring as a reflex, and these words are being twisted to suit popular anger, because they're effective (in the same way that calling someone a racist in public is effective). Toward the end of my education, studying Sociology, my class and I were led in a Buddhist prayer by a well-meaning, well-travelled and highly motivated teacher. Although only one pupil complained, the management had to agree that it was against the general principles of secularism within UK schools and that teacher was disciplined. The complaining pupil wasn't religious, or particularly areligious, they just didn't like sociology.

(A similar thing happened during Brexit too, British pupils said they needed more time in exams, because of the stress.)

When authorities divide people, and when those divisions are most clearly felt, folks will use anything that could give them an advantage to win the war. Even the war of ideas.

---

Pamela Galli wrote:

 

Thank God the U of C has announced they are not going to put up with this kind of totalitarian suppression of speech.

---

I agree universities shouldn't be participating in reducing thoughtful discussion, but disagree that this is what U of C are doing. Drawing a line in the sand and writing an angry headline is on the useless side of possibole actions. I'd be interested to see if U of C are doing anything else to attempt to defuse the very real levels of anger and division felt across their student body.

It doesn't have to be as bad as life under Stalin, if it feels bad (or seems comparably bad when put against other options), if it doesn't seem like there's people on your side, then humans under stress will fight back with one tool or another.