Trigger warnings, safe spaces, and fascism on college campuses

[Jeff Lebowski]

I guess Newman has received death threats from idiots upset by her shameless bias. Which is a shame, because it makes her sympathetic when she deserves little sympathy. What a clown.

Oh boy. Now it appears that there weren't any death threats. Just a bunch of clowns calling her a bitch in YouTube comments.

[Flystripper]

Oh boy. Now it appears that there weren't any death threats. Just a bunch of clowns calling her a bitch in YouTube comments.

not shocking that she would hear "you bitch" and rephrase as "they are threatening to kill me"

its exactly how the whole interview went.

[Moliere]

not shocking that she would hear "you bitch" and rephrase as "they are they are threatening to kill me"

its exactly how the whole interview went.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BlueK]

Kudos to the U. of Chicago for setting up this debate involving Steve Bannon and an economics expert so Bannon's stupid ideas can be debunked in public and made to appear as stupid as they are, which are essentially nothing more than cover for xenophobia and racism, IMO. Suppressing speech you don't agree with actually helps morons like Bannon.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/o...125-story.html

[falafel]

Kudos to the U. of Chicago for setting up this debate involving Steve Bannon and an economics expert so Bannon's stupid ideas can be debunked in public and made to appear as stupid as they are, which are essentially nothing more than cover for xenophobia and racism, IMO. Suppressing speech you don't agree with actually helps morons like Bannon.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/o...125-story.html

Wait until the students protest and demand that Bannon be cancelled.

Edit: Oh, hey, they already are!

[BlueK]

Wait until the students protest and demand that Bannon be cancelled.

Edit: Oh, hey, they already are!

Yeah, but the university seems to be holding the line, as they should. This kind of debate is what universities are supposed to be about.

[falafel]

Yeah, but the university seems to be holding the line, as they should. This kind of debate is what universities are supposed to be about.

I just finished the article. Good for U. of C. They produce terrible lawyers, but they have good principles.

[BlueK]

I just finished the article. Good for U. of C. They produce terrible lawyers, they have good principles.

Bannon's arguments are intellectually and morally bankrupt, and he has always been very careful to protect himself by always stating them in a forum where he won't be challenged by anyone (like his own radio show, podcasts, political rallies, or other friendly audiences). I guess his recent fall from favor in the Trump/Breitbart crowd has made him desperate to stay relevant so he takes this risk. Granted, not sure how much impact this ends up having though. The students who go to the U. of Chicago are probably not very likely to be attracted to the white nationalist movement.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Kudos to the U. of Chicago for setting up this debate involving Steve Bannon and an economics expert so Bannon's stupid ideas can be debunked in public and made to appear as stupid as they are, which are essentially nothing more than cover for xenophobia and racism, IMO. Suppressing speech you don't agree with actually helps morons like Bannon.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/o...125-story.html

God bless the University of Chicago.

Thankfully, the U. of C. thinks differently. The school has a long tradition of valuing free speech and thought, recognizing that a university is — wait for it — a place of ideas and learning. How do you learn to analyze the world, and decide what to believe, unless you’re exposed to a diversity of opinion and thought? Even more important, what lesson do students absorb if a college bans disagreeable ideas? To always carry earmuffs? In the real world, nasty thoughts and words abound. Civilized adults cope … and respond.

[Katy Lied]

They produce terrible lawyers, but

[falafel]

I finally watched the Jordan Peterson interview with Catherine Newman. Man, she really embarrassed herself. It was like she was responding to a dare to conduct the most ridiculous "serious" interview ever.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I finally watched the Jordan Peterson interview with Catherine Newman. Man, she really embarrassed herself. It was like she was responding to a dare to conduct the most ridiculous "serious" interview ever.

It is an incredible video. She just kept going on and on and on with the same stupid responses/questions. I really admire how he kept his cool.

So much positive press for him and his book after the interview. Kathy Newman gave him a gift.

WSJ: https://www.wsj.com/articles/whos-af...son-1516925574

NYT: https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/01/2...www.google.ca/

[swampfrog]

It is an incredible video. She just kept going on and on and on with the same stupid responses/questions. I really admire how he kept his cool.

So much positive press for him and his book after the interview. Kathy Newman gave him a gift.

WSJ: https://www.wsj.com/articles/whos-af...son-1516925574

NYT: https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/01/2...www.google.ca/

I've been watching quite a bit of his material lately. Very affable and approachable orator and his thoughts are obviously well thought out from years (if not decades) of introspection. It's not easy to simply dismiss what he has to say.

His lecture series on the bible are fascinating to me, though those more educated in bible history might already be familiar with much of it. The bible's mythology is way more interesting than tired debates about its literalness. Have listened to the first 2. Going to try to get through all of them in the next month or so.

From the second lecture:

"It's an open question, the degree to which the cosmos would order itself around you properly if you got yourself together as much as you could get yourself together. We know that things can go very badly wrong if you do things very badly wrong. There's no doubt about that, but the converse is also true. If you start to sort yourself out properly, and if you have beneficial effect on your family. First of all that's going to echo down the generations, but it also spreads out into the community. And we are networked together. We're not associated linearly. We all effect each other. So it's an open question, the degree to which acting out the notion that being is good, and the notion that you can accept its limitations and that you should still strive for virtue. It's an open question as to how profound an effect that would have on the structure of reality if we really chose to act it out. I don't think we know the limits of virtue. I don't think we know what true virtue could bring about if we aimed at it carefully and practically. So the notion that there is something divine about the individual who accepts the conditions of existence and still strives for the good. I think that's an idea that's very much worth paying attention to. And I think the fact that people considered that idea seriously for at least 2000 years indicates that there's at least something to be thought about there."

[swampfrog]

God bless the University of Chicago.

https://heterodoxacademy.org/resourc...e-to-colleges/

https://provost.uchicago.edu/sites/d...tteeReport.pdf

[swampfrog]

I finally watched the Jordan Peterson interview with Catherine Newman. Man, she really embarrassed herself. It was like she was responding to a dare to conduct the most ridiculous "serious" interview ever.

If you have the time, see Jordan Peterson analyze the interview as prodded by a more capable interviewer.