SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The latest manifestation of the conservative targetting of academia is the Professor Watchlist, created by the "activist organization" Turning Point USA, founded by rising star Charlie Kirk. It's stated purpose is to "watch" professors "who discriminate against conservative students and advance leftist propaganda in the classroom"
Of course, this is not new. David Horowitz has written a book called The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America . HeterodoxAcademy.org has rational articles discussing the liberal slant to modern college campuses. Nicholas Kristoff writes an interesting piece on the same topic. However, with the election of President Trump, the stakes may have been raised. A professor in California has gone incognitio after criticizing Trump in the classroom and receiving death threats.
But more important is how the attempt to blacklist liberal academics has actually backfired. George Yancy [not the George Yancey from the Kristoff piece above] published a response, "I Am a Dangerous Professor" in the New York Times, and since then it seems to have become de rigueur for all academics to get their name on the Professor Watchlist in order to cement their tenure. An entire hashtag on Twitter has taken form: #trollprofwatchlist! People have taken to mocking the list by suggesting candidates such as Thomas Jefferson, Gandhi, and Jesus, not to mention Socrates, who obviously belongs.
Charlie Kirk may not be dangerous, but he did start this list. I am watching him now.
[Editor note - This story was substantially rewritten for balance. As always, the original submission is available at the link below.]
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday December 20 2016, @02:22PM
Would you prefer folks like me get their ranty goodness up on the front page as well? That's your only alternative.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 20 2016, @02:25PM
Actually, you sometimes do get your "ranty goodness" up on the front page. And it doesn't get edited much, if at all. Imagine that!
(Score: 3, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday December 20 2016, @02:34PM
I dunno what site you've been reading but I almost never get more than one or two sentences dedicated to my own views. If the story gets accepted at all.
Fact check that if you like, I'll wait...
Now apologize to the community for lying to them.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 20 2016, @04:49PM
A sentence or two. I bet I can find some TMB articles that are paragraphs of rantiness. We could even compare the original submissions to the posted one and count the differences. Smart money says there aren't many.
I am at work, if you want me to and if you promise to apologize yourself if I can prove that your articles fairly sail through approval compared to this one then I will look when I get home. I of course will post the results either way, and apologize if I am wrong.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday December 20 2016, @06:13PM
I of course will post the results either way, and apologize if I am wrong.
The obvious rebuttal is that this isn't much of a wager for an anonymous coward. You're attempting to stake your reputation on your claim. But being an AC (or at least the usual kind without any sort of identifying characteristic), you don't have a reputation to win or lose.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday December 20 2016, @07:04PM
The obvious rebuttal is that this isn't much of a wager for an anonymous coward.
Khallow!!! Do you expect us to start drinking this early in the morning?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 20 2016, @07:25PM
The obvious rebuttal is "YES... YES!" Drink up like everyone else.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday December 20 2016, @07:41PM
Do you expect us to start drinking this early in the morning?
If you're going to ride the khallow booze train, you'll need to get your alcoholism on. I would have thought that was obvious by now.
(Score: 3, Funny) by aristarchus on Tuesday December 20 2016, @08:37PM
Do you expect us to start drinking this early in the morning?
If you're going to ride the khallow booze train, you'll need to get your alcoholism on. I would have thought that was an obvious rebuttal by now.
FTFY
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 20 2016, @10:55PM
Ahh yes, attack me because I am at work and don't log into social media at work. You stay classy khallow.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday December 21 2016, @09:07AM
Ahh yes, attack me because I am at work and don't log into social media at work.
Then just tell us that you'll give a name when you're not at work. Assuming generously, that you planned anything of the sort.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday December 20 2016, @08:32PM
I don't gamble but that's not a gamble. I know for certain that you'll find no such thing.
As for minor to no differences, that's precisely what you'll find on my accepted stories. I don't like my posts being heavily edited, so I stick to a formula that the eds mostly just pass through. It goes like this:
Someone from somewhere brings us this adjective noun:
Some paragraphs of quoted article.
One (almost always) to three (rarely if ever) sentences of my personal views and/or snark.
The only exceptions are the site update posts and those have nothing argumentative in them.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 20 2016, @10:57PM
The problem though is your articles tend to be nothing but rantiness. I don't care if someone else said it first, if you submit BS you own it, even if its in quote brackets.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday December 21 2016, @02:38AM
Does that apply to ignorant responses as well?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by charon on Tuesday December 20 2016, @11:09PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 20 2016, @05:51PM
GP here. I'm not sure how serious I was about liking the original submission more, and I'm too tired to think about it too hard.
But... I did want to point out (and someone who replied to me said it explicitly) that there are sensitive snowflakes among the people who say there's no need for safe spaces and other nonsense.
the point of keeping conversations polite is so that the conversations do take place.
otherwise we'll just gather in small groups to badmouth the others, and prepare for battle the following day.
when you laugh at the lgbt for requiring certain language and behavior, you're cutting off the conversation.
if you do it, you should know and be sure that you want to do that.
for instance, I won't make any concessions on language/behavior to religious fundamentalists, and I am fully aware that means that I have to be prepared to defend myself against physical asault, and I am fully aware that I cannot visit a whole bunch of the world because I would be in serious trouble.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday December 20 2016, @08:19PM
That is the absolute opposite of the truth. The entire reason for requiring certain language and behavior, and changing it every so often, is to be able to stop a rational conversation that you're going to lose. No other reason.
It needs to be mocked so that others will be ashamed to buy into it.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.