posted by
cmn32480
on Tuesday November 24 2015, @09:04AM
from the those-who-do-not-learn-from-history-are-doomed-to-repeat-it dept.
from the those-who-do-not-learn-from-history-are-doomed-to-repeat-it dept.
Because Separate But Equal worked out so well last time it was tried, Princeton has given in to protesters and agreed to create "Affinity Housing" rooms. Read as "we don't want no crackers in our room".
On the second demand concerning the creation of Affinity Housing:
- Immediately designate four rooms in the Carl A. Fields Center that will be used by Cultural Affinity Groups. This promise was verbalized by VP Calhoun.
- BJL [Black Justice League] members will be involved in a working group with the staff of the Residential Colleges to begin discussions on the viability of the formation of Affinity Housing for those interested in black culture. This promise was verbalized by Dean Dolan.
Because nothing says diversity like excluding people based on race.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Princeton to Create Racially Segregated Areas
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 77 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 24 2015, @09:24AM
All Princeton agreed to do was talk about it. No promises to actually do it. Maybe in buzzworld that means something else, but in the real world that does not mean what you said it means.
But congrats on pushing your agenda with a bullshit story on to the front page yet again. Yay?
Editors, how about a little more scrutiny?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by n1 on Tuesday November 24 2015, @10:34AM
I did sign off on this story, against my better judgment, so I have to agree with your general point.
Stories like this are not helping the bar being raised when it comes to discussing social issues. It's the story version of writing a comment, preaching to the choir and waiting for the "high 5, right on bro!" at the end.
Now i could be wrong but... This summary isn't going to change someones viewpoint or look at it in a different light, it will only reaffirm existing positions on several social issues such as: 'liberal infiltration' of education, affirmative action and racism.
There is something to the story in the broadest context, but the way it has been presented makes that pretty hard to get to.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 24 2015, @10:38AM
And now you gonna get trolled, nigga! Next time, don't fucking sign off on a story. Not ever. Learn your lesson and just stop. Stop doing things, you stupid fucking git.
(Score: 3, Informative) by everdred on Tuesday November 24 2015, @04:24PM
Here's another suggestion that could have made the summary better: specify "Princeton University." I can't speak for anyone else, but until almost the end of the summary, I was reading it as if it were the city of Princeton doing this. (The words "segregated areas" in the title also probably helped prime my brain for understanding it that way.)
(Score: 4, Insightful) by BK on Tuesday November 24 2015, @09:54PM
We've had lots of discussion over the past year+ about what this site should be about and what topics we should cover. Should we cover politics? Social issues? Or just Technology and SystemD (Which I still mentally associate with CoDominium marines...) and maybe Linux. If Soylent News is People, and Social Issues are in, then why not discuss this?
Based on comment count, social issues get Soylentis typing.
We've had a lot of that lately-- ironic one-liners at the end of front page articles.
So fix it. The job of the authors is to give you a scoop -- a link to an article with worthwhile content -- and maybe a bit of starter analysis. The job of the editors is to bring out the bits worth getting to.
However you or I feel about it, this is an issue that is motivating thousands to "protest" and is motivating people in power to make decisions that are either wise or foolish -- but certainly worthy of discussion. Kudos to TMB as an author for for submitting something. Shame on you as an editor for not making it "good enough" so that it had to be advanced against your better judgement.
...but you HAVE heard of me.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Nerdfest on Tuesday November 24 2015, @11:02AM
Well, it's not like this is not happening in other places. Here in Canada (Toronto), we have blacks only schools.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Vanderhoth on Tuesday November 24 2015, @02:26PM
It's funny how segregation all the sudden seems like such a good thing.
Those silly people before and during the civil rights movement could have come out on the right side of history had they just framed it as,
It feels a lot like people are pretend to be progressive liberals so they can push the most regressive conservative ideas. I think the real racists have learned a few tricks to try and fit in better over the last few decades.
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Tuesday November 24 2015, @03:30PM
It feels a lot like people are pretend to be progressive liberals so they can push the most regressive conservative ideas.
Not exactly. Racism isn't exactly a conservative idea. At least not in American terms, here Conservative means supporting the ideas of the Founding Fathers and that is ideas like "All men are created equal, they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights...." The conflict between that and existing practice (slavery) was known and debated at the time they were written and deferred as unsolvable at the moment with only a few hooks put into the Constitution to make it an easier problem to deal with later. Easier turned out to be a massive clusterf*ck that wrecked the country..... nobody is perfect. But it does prove they probably had a point that trying to solve it while founding the country would have been a really bad idea.
Meanwhile the KKK was the semi-official terror wing of the Democratic Party, Wilson, FDR, all of the old Progressives were the most horrible racists you can imagine. Pushing Wilson's name into the memory hole is pretty much the only demand from Black Lives Matter I can support.
Progressives ARE racists. They were founded on it and believe it still. Of course as a multi-ethnic movement now it is a bunch of different racists coming together to hate everybody equally but whitey more equally. In the end they don't care as much WHO they hate just so that they keep hating somebody to give their movement direction, meaning and energy. They create division and feed on it, creating political power from hatred. Read Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, it explains everything you need to know about them. The new copies dropped the dedication to Lucifer because that just gave too much of the game away.... (my copy is old enough to still include it)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 24 2015, @03:45PM
You make funny jokes.
Seriously, your grasp of politics in America is off by quite a bit. But keep believing what you wrote. It's good entertainment, like Trump.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 24 2015, @03:48PM
I think he posts stuff like that to make himself feel better. Its like if he writes it out that makes it feel more true to him. It his way of trying to fight off cognitive dissonance.
(Score: 2) by Vanderhoth on Tuesday November 24 2015, @04:04PM
I'm sorry my comment came out as painting "conservative" as a bad term. My intention was to point out to fellow liberals that there's a substantial fringe group of "progressives" using the fact that "conservative" has been painted as a bad term so it can be used as a smoke screen to hide in the ranks on the left. Anyone on the left that disagrees with the fringe group is automatically a conservative trans-misogyny-race-pedo-sex-aphobe.
Liberals frequently accuse conservatives of all kinds of bigotry, and that's unfair, but now what we're seeing is liberals using the same bigotry they accuse others of, just spinning it in a different way so it sounds like a positive thing.
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Tuesday November 24 2015, @04:27PM
And I'm pointing out that it isn't a fringe or anything of the sort. The Progressive movement is, was and shall ever be racist. It is a core foundational belief. Imagining a non-racist Progressive is as impossible as a Jew loving Nazi.
Consider Vox Day's Three Laws of SJW:
1. SJWs always lie.
2. SJWs always double down.
3. SJWs always project.
They are always complaining that all of their opponents are racist. Apply the laws and what do you get? They are projecting their own racism and lying about it. Push em on it and watch em obey law #2.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 24 2015, @04:36PM
> Consider Vox Day's Three Laws of SJW:
LOL. Sometimes you are funnier than Trump.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday November 24 2015, @08:34PM
Unfortunately the term "conservative" has been largely co-opted by the Republican Party, which is anything but. It does lead to a great deal of confusion. Especially since the Party has only the thinnest of ideological connections with the Republican electorate.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Tuesday November 24 2015, @10:30PM
The problem with it is that it's selective. They're conservative about certain things like religion and same-sex rights, but rather radical about other things like gun rights and the economy. The left is actually progressive more often, but even there you have them sticking to more conservative rules like the 2nd amendment and everybody having a more or less equal right to vote.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Thexalon on Tuesday November 24 2015, @04:29PM
Like the idea that black people counted as 3/5 of a person and had no legal rights whatsoever? That's right there in the Constitution, written by those very same Founding Fathers.
You carefully leave out everything that happened between roughly 1946 and 1972. And throwing that down the memory hole is a really really bad idea, because that period was really important when it comes to the history of racism in America.
FDR's Democratic successor Harry Truman was very explicitly anti-racist, and pushed policies like desegregating the US federal government. JFK (and Bobby Kennedy in particular) explicitly linked his administration with the Civil Rights Movement, and Lyndon Johnson pushed through the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act. All this left old-school racist Democrats like Strohm Thurmond fuming, and that's a big part of why Thurmond ran against Truman in 1948 as a "Dixiecrat" and switched his party affiliation to Republican in 1964. He took most of the racist Democrats with him (Robert Byrd being a notable exception). Richard Nixon's "Southern Strategy" capitalized on this split to win the presidency in 1968.
Oh, and if you have any doubts about how racist Nixon was, know that he's on his own White House tapes calling people "niggers" and "jigaboos" and declaring that the reason Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" was a waste of money was because "blacks were genetically inferior to whites."
So in essence, between FDR and Richard Nixon, the racists mostly left the Democrats for the Republicans. And Republicans are still quite racist today: Donald Trump, for example, is saying very explicitly bigoted things about both Hispanic people and Muslims, and recently voiced approval for the fact (it's on video) that his supporters beat up a black man who showed up at a Trump rally and chant "Black lives matter". Or in 2006, in my home state of Ohio, when the Republican Party nominated a black candidate for governor, the Republican candidate got approximately 1/3 fewer votes than any other statewide Republican candidate in the last couple of decades while the white Democratic candidate got a boost of about the same number of votes. I'm not saying there aren't racist Democrats, or non-racist Republicans (the proof being the support that Herman Cain and Ben Carson were able to pull in), but the Democratic Party by and large does not embrace racism, while the Republican Party does.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by Vanderhoth on Tuesday November 24 2015, @05:02PM
I think we should all just accept that every group is, or was, racists at some point, but just because we agree with some points doesn't represent us as individuals.
I'm not excusing any misinformation you were addressing, just trying to lead into this great musical [youtube.com] to lighten the mood since we seem to have at least one AC troll trying to bait and anger people.
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 24 2015, @05:15PM
> since we seem to have at least one AC troll trying to bait and anger people.
As opposed to all the people with accounts trying to bait and anger people?
Just because you don't like being called on your BS doesn't mean you are being trolled.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jmorris on Tuesday November 24 2015, @05:27PM
Like the idea that black people counted as 3/5 of a person and had no legal rights whatsoever?
Ah, the sorry state of American civics education on display. Allow me to fill in the gaps. First off there is zero about 'black people' counting as 3/5. Black != slave, especially at the time those words were written. White people could and were unfree in both the indentured and slave sense and free blacks served with distinction in the Revolutionary War. Second I mentioned measures inserted into the Constitution to easy a future ending of slavery; the 3/5 clause is actually one of them, hard fought for by the anti-slavery forces. You dishonor their memory with your reflexive parroting of vile Anti-American propaganda. I leave the details to Google but I will be expecting an apology to all who read your hateful ignorance once you finish studying the matter.
You carefully leave out everything that happened between roughly 1946 and 1972.
You really want to do there? Really? EVERY one of those guys in the old newsreels unleashing the firehoses and dogs against the civil rights movement were lifelong members of the Democratic Party. Every single one. MLK? Republican of course, like any sensible black he was proud member of the Party of Lincoln.
pushed policies like desegregating the US federal government
No. They re-desegregated it. The civil service had already been desegregated was desegregated before Wilson segregated it. Modern histories always neglect that part. Eisenhower gets the credit for desegregating the armed forces.... but again it was more a matter of reversing Wilson. And throughout the period Democrats were playing both sides for maximum political advantage, harvesting hate from both sides.
Lyndon Johnson pushed through the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act.
The same guy who only a few years earlier had fillibustered almost the same legislation. Couldn't have it pass with a Republican POTUS, no advantage there. Same guy who is also reputably recorded as saying of the legislation "I'll have those niggers voting Democrat for two hundred years." Not yet but certainly on track to be an accurate prediction.
Robert Byrd being a notable exception
Yea, he is the turd in the punchbowl ain't he? Never publicly renounced his KKk Exalted Cyclops days but was an honored and revered Dem until he died.
Richard Nixon's "Southern Strategy" capitalized on this split to win the presidency in 1968.
And the final stupid. Always see this one from Progs and it is insane. We are suppose to believe Nixon was stupid enough to believe Southern "Yellow Dog" Democrats could be convinced to vote for a Republican from CA over the Dem stalking horse George Wallace.
Donald Trump, for example, is saying very explicitly bigoted things about both Hispanic people and Muslims
Interesting fact, equating illegal immigrants with Hispanic is far more racist than anything you imagine Trump to have said. Please provide an instance of Trump actually saying something racist.
or non-racist Republicans
Well isn't that so nice of you. I'd point to the actual officeholders with an R after their name who happen to be from differing backgrounds. We won't vote for somebody just because of race like Ds do but we are more than happy to elect good candidates, regardless of color or gender. I live in LA and was saddened that Jindal got zero traction on the Presidential trail because he has been raising Hell and pissing off all of the right people here for two terms, perhaps a bit too much in fact since it might have cost us the seat. Hard to say though since Vitter seemed to fail more from his own flaws since Republicans did good elsewhere on the ticket. But a lot of other good candidates are going nowhere in this crowded field so there is that.
but the Democratic Party by and large does not embrace racism
Wrong. The Democratic Party is, was and probably always will be based on racism and the division they can harvest into political power by exploiting it. Once you understand that our political situation suddenly makes a lot more sense.
(Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday November 25 2015, @12:04AM
MLK? Republican of course, like any sensible black he was proud member of the Party of Lincoln.
Sure is an odd quote, then, for such a "Proud Republican:"
"I feel someone must remain in the position of non-alignment, so that he can look objectively at both parties and be the conscience of both—not the servant or master of either."
And this one:
"I don't think the Republican party is a party full of the almighty God nor is the Democratic party. They both have weaknesses ... And I'm not inextricably bound to either party."
Also, some rather odd voting habits:
"In the past I always voted the Democratic ticket."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 24 2015, @05:39PM
https://www.nber.org/papers/w21703 [nber.org]
After generations of loyalty, Southern whites left the Democratic party en masse in the second half of the twentieth century. To what extent did Democrats' 1960s Civil Rights initiatives trigger this exodus, versus Southern economic development, rising political polarization or other trends that made the party unattractive to Southern whites? The lack of data on racial attitudes and political preferences spanning the 1960s Civil Rights era has hampered research on this central question of American political economy. We uncover and employ such data, drawn from Gallup surveys dating back to 1958. From 1958 to 1961, conservative racial views strongly predict Democratic identification among Southern whites, a correlation that disappears after President Kennedy introduces sweeping Civil Rights legislation in 1963. We find that defection among racially conservative whites explains all (three-fourths) of the decline in relative white Southern Democratic identification between 1958 and 1980 (2000). We offer corroborating quantitative analysis—drawn from sources such as Gallup questions on presidential approval and hypothetical presidential match-ups as well as textual analysis of newspapers—for the central role of racial views in explaining white Southern dealignment from the Democrats as far back as the 1940s.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 24 2015, @03:19PM
> Well, it's not like this is not happening in other places. Here in Canada (Toronto), we have blacks only schools.
No you don't. Well not unless you are referring to schools that are in ghettos without any white kids living there.
Chances are you are actually mis-representing africentric schools which have curriculum deliberately focused on africentic historical figures. Those schools do not forbid non-blacks from attending.
In an impassioned bid to separate rumours from the real proposal, Donna Harrow reminded trustees that this proposed school would be open to all students.
https://www.thestar.com/life/parent/2008/01/30/board_okays_blackfocused_school.html [thestar.com]
(Score: 4, Touché) by jmorris on Tuesday November 24 2015, @04:04PM
Chances are you are actually mis-representing africentric schools which have curriculum deliberately focused on africentic historical figures. Those schools do not forbid non-blacks from attending.
Lets explore this idea..... Allow me to rewrite it:
Chances are you are actually mis-representing European Centric schools which have curriculum deliberately focused on Western Civ / European (wink wink nudge nudge, know what I mean) historical figures. Those schools do not forbid non-whites from attending. They just don't have any non-white students for unknown reasons.
So either that would fly too or you are just another racist supporting racism. You either believe in a colorblind society or you don't. Pick. To Hell with your doublespeak.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 24 2015, @04:20PM
Of course your "rewrite" doesn't address Nerdfest's fundamentally false claim that the schools are "black-only." So it seems like you've tacitly acknowledged he was wrong.
But I'll humor your red herring anyway because it says everything about you and nothing about the situation:
> They just don't have any non-white students for unknown reasons.
That's not a rewrite, that's a made up claim. For one thing you'd have to define what "white" is - are you a one-dropper?
> You either believe in a colorblind society or you don't.
I don't. Culture is complicated and to pretend that it doesn't exist is to deny the obvious. It sure is funny to see how conservatives like you have picked up the ideas that liberals were just working out back in the 60s. Another 50 years and you'll figure out a way to use today's best sociological understanding to rationalize inequality.
(Score: 2) by Vanderhoth on Tuesday November 24 2015, @04:47PM
You really should be less smug, because you don't sound nearly as intelligent as you seem to think you are.
It says everything about the situation when the civil rights movement worked so hard to abolish segregation and now here you are making excuses for and applauding it.
You can project all you like, but I think we all know who's racists around here.
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 24 2015, @04:50PM
> It says everything about the situation when the civil rights movement worked so hard to abolish segregation and now here you are making excuses for and applauding it.
Except I'm not making excuses and applauding segregation because this is not segregation. That's the mighty butthurt's outright lie that you and your cohorts have uncritically swallowed.
(Score: 2) by Vanderhoth on Tuesday November 24 2015, @05:15PM
Says the AC who's incredibly butthurt people aren't uncritically accepting "afrocentric" as something other than segregation said in a nicer more socially acceptable way.
You seem mad someone's held up a mirror so you can see yourself in a different light.
I still have the The Mighty Buzzard on my foe list BTW. He is an ass, but that doesn't mean he's always wrong. And I'm absolutely disgusted trolls like you make me take the side of him, harryfeet and ethanol-fueled because you're so far off on the opposite side I end up the middle to clearing up all the misinformation trying to figure out what's true and what's spin.
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 24 2015, @05:42PM
> Says the AC who's incredibly butthurt people aren't uncritically accepting "afrocentric" as something other than segregation
It is africentric curriculum. How can you possibly confuse a focus on studies with a policy of admitting students?
I provided a citation and a link to an article that contains many more similar statements that the one school is explicitly open to all children.
Where you getting this BS from?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 24 2015, @06:14PM
And this is why no one takes SJWs seriously. You're all just a giant cluster fuck of "You're more -ists than I am. I can't be -ists one."
From someone not involved on either side, you failed to prove your point, made yourself out to be a giant raging bigot and a smug ass hole. Ditto to the other guy.
Congratulations, you've both wasted my time trying to figure out which one of you is the bigger moron. Turns out it's a tie.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 24 2015, @06:28PM
Cool story bro!
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday November 25 2015, @12:10AM
Congratulations, you've both wasted my time trying to figure out which one of you is the bigger moron. Turns out it's a tie.
Have you tried evaluating the evidence both sides provided and coming to a conclusion based on it's preponderance? That's what I normally do...
And this is why no one takes SJWs seriously.
Oh.....nevermind.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday November 24 2015, @07:56PM
Well, it's not like this is not happening in other places. Here in Canada (Toronto), we have blacks only schools.
Well, since you didn't cite a reference let me do some of your research for you.
Google "Canada Black School."
Oh look, there actually is one:
Canada's first black school. [afrik-news.com]
The accusation has been strongly rejected by the school’s management. They have argued that the school remains open to all and sundry....
Guess not...
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Tuesday November 24 2015, @08:24PM
"although all those enrolled in the school are either black or mixed race"
They can argue all they like. It was originally proposed as "blacks only", and it effectively remains that way.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by BK on Tuesday November 24 2015, @12:30PM
I actually read TFA. The article is on the official Princeton website. It says nothing about agreeing to talk about something. It talks about an agreement signed between students and University admin. Maybe Princeton is misquoting itself?
So -- citation needed -- where did you see that Princeton administration was only going to talk about bringing back segregation?
...but you HAVE heard of me.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 24 2015, @03:09PM
I actually read TFA. It says nothing about agreeing to talk about something.
Come on, man... Here it is literally from TFA:
BJL members will be involved in a working group with the staff of the Residential Colleges to begin discussions on the viability of the formation of Affinity Housing for those interested in black culture. This promise was verbalized by Dean Dolan.
Given your posting history I have to assume your blindness was ideologically induced.
(Score: 2) by Vanderhoth on Tuesday November 24 2015, @03:23PM
Immediately preceding that:
Seems this is already happened, the second point you raised seems to be because they couldn't come to an agreement on the spot of how segregated they wanted the safe space to be. Likely the protesters were asking for something that couldn't be guaranteed at that specific moment, but they did end up with the safe space and a guarantee on discussions for on expanding it.
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 24 2015, @03:34PM
> Immediately designate four rooms in the Carl A. Fields Center
The Fields center is not a dorm.
Would it kill you to do a iota of research before going full racist? The name itself, "center" should have tipped you off that it wasn't a dorm, a simple google would have confirmed it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 24 2015, @04:15PM
He didn't say anything about a dorm, just that the "safe spaces" are already being provided with a guarantee of future discussions for a dorm, which they can't commit to at this time.
Do you bother reading anything or just run around screaming racists at people hoping others won't read it either?
Cuz honestly when I read someone screaming racists, it just says to me the person they're arguing with is making a point that can't be intelligently disputed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 24 2015, @04:27PM
> He didn't say anything about a dorm, just that the "safe spaces"
So in a discussion about "Affinity Housing" he used weasel words that don't exist anywhere in TFA to pretend we weren't talking about housing. And that's an meaningful rebuttal?
The groups got some meeting rooms in a building specifically designated for social and cultural studies. The fact that he's making a mountain out of that molehill says everything about him and nothing about the allocation of those rooms. Quacks like a duck man.
(Score: 2) by http on Tuesday November 24 2015, @06:02PM
You can recognize racism with approximately zero education, but disputing particular issues articulately and intelligently generally takes months to years of specialized training and practice. It's a side effect of racism being (i) complex, and (ii) built into pretty much every aspect of society as an assumed truth, the mere questioning of which usually earns you a beatdown or an unfavourable performance review next year. You will be punished.
It's only been in the past decade that there's been anything resembling a didactic framework where you can reliably educate people to the point where they can discuss racism accurately and rationally, and then only if they're motivated students, and it comes down to a one or two sentence soundbite pretty much never. It's not at all like conservation of energy/mass in physics/chemistry. Plus, at the end of it, they're usually speaking a specialized jargon inpenetrable to the uninitiated, especially if the uninitiated are actively trying to remain uninformed and uncritical. After all, they've seen the beatdowns and unfavourable performance reviews.
If someone's screaming "racist" you can bet money there's racism and it's in their face. If you can't see that, it's because you're part of the problem, which is why it's not in your face.
I browse at -1 when I have mod points. It's unsettling.
(Score: 2) by Vanderhoth on Tuesday November 24 2015, @08:15PM
I really don't think racism is a complex issue.
If you hate or discriminate against someone because of their skin colour, you're racists. That also goes for people who think they can't be racist against white people because of some "privilege + power" nonsense. Saying racism is complex is leading into setting a double standard where only certain people can be racists under certain circumstances, which are often defined by some of the most racist people (who obviously twerk the rules so as to not put themselves in the category of being racist).
It also doesn't take a high degree of education to discuss it. That really just feels like people trying to justify spending a fortune on racial/gender studies, which on it's own likely doesn't amount to a job, but some how qualifies you to go around calling people you disagree with racists.
Sorry, I've become cynical of the whole situation. I didn't care much about it a couple years ago, but recently I've seen way too many people justifying things that would have been absolutely ludicrous 10-15 years ago, force their personal views on others and shut up any kind of civil discussion by calling others racists, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, misogynistic, etc.
Although I am, and have always been, a liberal that attitude really puts me off of more progressive ideals, which seem to be more of an excuse to censor than to be inclusive. The idea of excluding people in order to be inclusive is right out of 1984.
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 28 2015, @01:22PM
> I really don't think racism is a complex issue.
Obviously. But all that really means is that you haven't really looked in to it.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by BK on Tuesday November 24 2015, @10:03PM
Given yours, AC, I assume you are an obscene, racist, nearly inhuman, insensetive spammer.
As has been pointed out elsewhere, Princeton agreed to some immediate segregation and agreed to talk about even more. I'm just trying to keep things focused...
...but you HAVE heard of me.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 24 2015, @01:08PM
The best part of this story is The Black Justice League!
Stan Lee ought to pick up on this, but he might get some push back from DC. I wonder if they have their own Hall of Justice somewhere, or perhaps this is to establish the Hall of Justice.
Hopefully there's no black version of Wendy, Marvin, and Wonder Dog this time around.
Is there going to be a Legion of Doom?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 24 2015, @10:33AM
Every time students attend classes or conferences, they automatically and voluntarily segregate themselves into the Asian group, and the Indian group, and the Black group, and the Hispanic group, and the White-people-who-are-still-foolish-enough-to-go-to-college-even-though-there-are-no-jobs-anywhere-for-White-people group. It's how people choose to live, because really deep down, people are racist scum.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by kurenai.tsubasa on Tuesday November 24 2015, @01:52PM
Reminds me of an anecdote from a making-of piece I saw about The Planet of the Apes or one of its sequels (original series).
The costumes took so long to put on and take off that they'd eat lunch while still in costume. So what happened was the orangutans would all eat at one table, the gorillas at another, the chimpanzees at another, and the humans at another. Even actors who knew each other but were playing different species would prefer to eat with others who were playing their species over acquaintances.
Just skimmed TFA. Ugh. Sorry, Dr. King, the dream is dead. WTF is “cultural competency training?” Personally, I'd like to know more about African cultures. I admit my knowledge is limited to what little I've read in National Geographic and what little I could glean from Roots…. I have a feeling that “cultural competency training” will do little to help me out. The cynic in me says it'll just be more of this FEEL GUILTY because your ancestors succeeded in creating two of the most highly successful countries today crap!
This depresses me greatly. Smoke break.
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday November 24 2015, @04:17PM
Strange. I remember hearing that exact same anecdote only it was about Orcs and Elves in Peter Jackson's LotR films. Quick Snopes search brings nothing up but it smacks of urban legend to me.
(Score: 2) by kurenai.tsubasa on Friday November 27 2015, @11:42PM
I did some Googling and found a reference. This article [neatorama.com] leads here [futilitycloset.com]. I'm not sure those sites are credible enough to take this out of the realm of urban legend, but I'm certain I heard it from a credible source. I'll keep looking and also try to find a making-of for LotR.
It looks like Charlton Heston is the source of the Planet of the Apes anecdote.
(Score: 2) by The Archon V2.0 on Tuesday November 24 2015, @08:48PM
> WTF is “cultural competency training?”
It's one door down from the classroom where they teach men not to rape.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by snick on Tuesday November 24 2015, @02:06PM
Dude. Get to an ER and have your stomach pumped immediately. You have obviously ingested large amounts of some hallucinogen.
(Score: 2) by SanityCheck on Tuesday November 24 2015, @02:56PM
Yes he is using pandemic comments. I can attest that I am of the very fair skin persuasion, I have recently graduated from an accredited 4 year institution, and I have found employment quite easily, being in the top 10% of my class. Most of the smarter people I graduated with are working as well.
Now of course this is not true for all people, and that is definitely a problem. But at least half people will find work. That number may reduce as time goes on. In fact in the long run it will probably so happen that 10% of people will work, making lots of money (in millions), and then giving most of it to unemployed relatives because they can't find work. At least that's how I envision this thing heading to its limit, because we will be opposed to giving money away for free, since that would turn off the 10% of population we still need to keep the whole thing going.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 24 2015, @05:31PM
You can also find jobs even without a degree. As a software developer for a major company, in my own case. Just don't be a loser and have something to show.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 24 2015, @11:14PM
I often see the white male and asian female group inter-mingling.
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Wednesday November 25 2015, @01:43AM
I don't think it's because people are racist per se, but people like being in their comfort zone and feeling safe and secure, and in practice that usually means being around people who look like you and share similar cultural experiences as you.
See http://ncase.me/polygons/ [ncase.me] for some more insight.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday November 24 2015, @10:51AM
Our society is sick, and it displays a lot of symptoms. No one knows how to treat the symptoms, let alone the disease. The left is clueless, the right is clueless, the middle is clueless. No one seems to have any intelligent prognosis or treatment to offer.
Maybe the extremist Muslims have the answer after all. If you worship their god in the approved manner, you're good as gold, no matter your skin color. If you don't worship, you go to Chop-chop Square, and then you're good. Every body is good in the religion of peace.
I have pretty much no respect for anyone's "safe space" unless it is in the privacy of their own homes, or in their own churches. Demanding "safe spaces" only makes me more contemptuous of the people demanding it. And, I'll have plenty of contempt left over for those who give away those "safe spaces".
In related news -
Arrests and activism mark 1-year anniversary of Tamir Rice police shooting death
https://www.rt.com/usa/323208-arrests-protest-tamir-rice-anniversary/ [rt.com]
(Score: 5, Interesting) by dyingtolive on Tuesday November 24 2015, @11:17AM
A had a philosophy professor in a previous life who spent some time talking about advancements in technology and how, though people were communicating more, they were also isolating themselves within subcultures. His argument was that, rather than societies being grouped geographically, they were instead all over the world, by interests. He had a concern back then of people existing in self-created positive feedback loops and becoming more extreme and segregated by those interests, suggesting that there would eventually be a case where people could not relate to each other or even hold a lengthy conversation with a stranger, because their interests and knowledge were so specialized. This was about 13 years ago. At the time, the argument seemed to me to be very "get off my lawn". Nowadays I'm not so sure he wasn't a lot more prescient than I gave him credit for. Wish I could recall his name.
The hugbox phenomenon kind of seems like a means to put up walls in physical space to limit the cognitive dissonance that people experience when dealing with people that challenge their world views, even passively by existing. And I'm NOT just talking about race here.
There are times (particularly when I'm reading tumblr to see where the new low is) that I wonder if giving just anyone access to the internet was kind of a bad idea.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday November 24 2015, @11:29AM
I heard that, somewhere, as well. Can't remember if I read in a book, or maybe it was a discussion with other students. The concept is back there among the cobwebs in my mind. But, we see it to some extent today. There are all sorts of groups that I simply cannot relate to. Those groups that I can relate to are often spread across the globe.
Right here at SN, I hardly know where some of the posters are. Sometimes I suspect that they aren't native English speakers, but still have little idea where they are. Of course, AC is EVERYWHERE!
I suspect it has something to do with the monkey theory. People can only keep so many relationships in order - likewise, they can only keep so many interests in order. Limited people, trying to get by in a world with fewer natural limits than they can deal with.
The real killer is, all those people whose interests revolve around meaningless drivel, like "How big IS Kim Kardashian's ass?" Hell, I resent that whole culture for impinging on my own world, and polluting it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 24 2015, @12:04PM
Of course, AC is EVERYWHERE!
We are Anonymous (Cowards)
We are Legion.
We do not have mod points.
We do not read the article.
Expect us (to troll in the comment section)
(Score: 4, Funny) by LoRdTAW on Tuesday November 24 2015, @03:25PM
Burma shave.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 24 2015, @05:44PM
I would give this mod points except that I always post as AC. ;-)
(Score: 4, Informative) by VLM on Tuesday November 24 2015, @01:25PM
The google term you gents don't have is "narrowcasting" which is obviously compared conceptually to broadcasting and has been a discussion topic in the media since the 40s although it really took off when cable rolled out. Back when people though the sci fi channel was actually going to broadcast sci fi and history was actually going to broadcast history before it all smeared into only like five companies owning all of media and all the channels are 24x7 endless pawnbroking alaskan railroad engineer ice trucker bail bondsmen reality shows. Which is a whole nother pathology.
Anyway the TLDR of my ramble is you're both talking about what media people called narrowcasting and google will hook you up with more than you'd like to read on the topic. Its one of those topics everyone finds kinda interesting, I've read a bit on it too.
I can provide some more examples. If you're not already a sports nerd, trying to watch sports nerd stuff will totally WTF you, they are not the most welcoming community despite mostly being a screen saver for people to get drunk to. Another group is the political pop culture nerds, most people don't watch the nightly propaganda outlets so try it once, the juxtaposition of the 24 hour news cycle vs short term narratives vs hard core propaganda means it'll sound like word salad nonsense until you watch for a week or two. Prime time cop dramas have diverged basically completely from reality centering on a mythological view of what cop drama nerd viewers think police work is like... I find it interesting that all the cops, teachers, doctors, lawyers, and IT professionals I know can't tolerate watching how their group is portrayed on TV even when they foolishly think all the OTHER groups are accurately portrayed, LOL as if...
A final example of narrowcasting is music, narrowcasted by age, mostly, although also race to some extent. An example I can provide is from that 80s classic shitcom "married with children" where to everyone older than a certain age the son's musical taste is hopelessly spaghetti falling out of pockets cringeworthy dorky yet to everyone younger than a certain age he has excellent taste and is pretty cool. I myself am perhaps only one to three years too old to appreciate the kid's "vanillia ice" musical tastes as anything other than cringeworthy modern blackface. Its like there's a conservation of racism and once blackface was pushed out of theater and movies it settled a generation later in music, very weird. If the cultural embarrassment of blackface is ever pushed out of music it'll probably settle on twitter or social media in general, or youtube, or who knows.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 24 2015, @03:30PM
A had a philosophy professor in a previous life who spent some time talking about advancements in technology and how, though people were communicating more, they were also isolating themselves within subcultures.
Its not a particularly new concept. Colleges have had the same phenomenon in a microcosm - the larger the college the easier it is for people to find birds-of-a-feather and form social groups. Consequently it is smaller colleges that actually have more interaction between people of different cultures because there simply isn't enough of any group (other than whites) to self-segregate.
Its also the main problem with after-effects of red-lining - neighborhood segregation [coopercenter.org] means 75% of white people don't even have a single non-white friend. [washingtonpost.com] No wonder so many white people have no idea what it is like to be black in america.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday November 24 2015, @01:11PM
Like (UK) Cinemas refuse to show Church of England advert featuring Lord's Prayer [theguardian.com] - on the ground of maybe offending people of other religion?
Or more like radio networks refuse ads on Volkswagen class suit [abc.net.au] - because they are afraid of losing future revenue from VW'es ads?
Yes, I know, the yesterday Buzz'es post [soylentnews.org] might have been more appropriate for the two symptoms above. So, what's my point you ask?
Well, two of them actually:
preliminary: a mention of the golden rule - yeah, that one... the he who has the gold makes the rule one - have enough gold and you'll be able to congregate with or segregate from whoever you like (no matter how you hare looks like or how deep the shit your brain can fart [soylentnews.org]).
So, ... maybe is that the middle class shrank enough (slowly reduced ourselves to the "consumer class"?) so that our voices suddenly don't matter anymore, like our parents make their voice matter during '60-'70-ies? (I wish a would have lived those years as an adult)
And, as such, these youngsters bear less responsibility and us more of it in how sick this world is, it is actually what we passed onto them?
I just don't know anymore
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday November 24 2015, @01:37PM
You could have a third option which is a distraction.
Its worth considering that when you combine an extremely small oligopoly of political leaders with an extremely small oligopoly of media owners that at least occasionally they'll cooperate. Not all the time, I'm sure, but at least sometimes. Often enough, both being rich, they'll naturally agree.
So you'll see the TV news equivalent of shitposting when its time to push the TPP thru in the background. Or its time for a change in candidate polling results. Or a corporate scandal has been in the news too much. Or an unpleasant economic statistic was reported. Or we're not supposed to be paying attention to failure of imperialist policy number one bazillion (seriously, we are so incompetent at imperialism, that aside from moral and ethical arguments we shouldn't be doing stuff we so often epic fail at). Or civilian one bazillion (for the year) executed by our above the law police.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday November 24 2015, @02:03PM
So how come those oligopolies were allowed to grow up? What were we doing (or not doing) to put a stop to it?
(perhaps busy getting mortgages, cars, cable TV to watch MTV and holidays abroad, then accepting any shit that pays enough to allow us paying that mortgage back 2-3 times over?)
Maybe our parents had a more meaningful youth in the '60-ies, risked more, stopped a war, some even have had enough guts to act as terrorists [wikipedia.org]. We didn't do it, our kids aren't doing it, no wonder the civic sense atrophies by the lack of use.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 24 2015, @07:31PM
Well, I wasn't old enough to be in a place to do anything about it, but I'd imagine what people were doing was either:
A: Voting for Reagan.
B: Getting too high to vote for soemone else.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Gravis on Tuesday November 24 2015, @01:09PM
how do you mod an article "Troll (-1)"?
(Score: 4, Informative) by AndyTheAbsurd on Tuesday November 24 2015, @01:26PM
The quote - which YOU PUT IN THE GODDAMN SUMMARY - reads "for those interested in black culture". It says NOTHING about those involved having to BE black. Neither does the source article.
It is my opinion that having TheMightyBuzzard around projecting his issues onto those who don't agree with him is not going to do this site any favors.
I happen to agree with TMB that this is a bad idea, but TMB's hateful tone in discussing it does no one any favors.
Please note my username before responding. You may have been trolled.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 24 2015, @03:28PM
TheMightyButthole. Internet tough guy extraordinaire.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 24 2015, @08:29PM
Are you white? Have you ever been to a black culture center while white? If you want to feel the worst racism and discrimination still legal under law, go check one out. Same goes for predominantly Asian shopping centers in a non-touristy area. I'd like to say I'm wrong. I'd like to say its only white people that are racist, but experience has taught me otherwise.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Tuesday November 24 2015, @09:58PM
Oh come on. Really? You'd like to think only white people can be racist? And you needed experience to teach you that? What reality distortion field were you raised in?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 25 2015, @12:52AM
You missed the point entirely. Schools and governments are paying for places that whites are not welcome and this is called equality. Men and women faced beatings, jail sentences, and death less than half a century ago to put and end to this behavior and their grandchildren are reinstating it to applause claiming equal rights and #blacklivesmatter is a justification for the same racism that made victims of their forebearers.
Don't be a bigot. Don't drag red herrings across the intellectual path. Don't support bigotry.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 25 2015, @01:51AM
Yes, I am.
I have gone to "black cultural events" and had a great time; got some really great food too. I think you need to get out more. In fact, I strongly suspect that you have never been to any so-called black cultural events of any sort. This is not to say that I support the notion of creating racially segregated safe areas. I don't.
There was only one time that I went to a Thai restaurant for carry-out and felt like my presence was "uncomfortable" for the staff. I never went back; they went out of business several months later. To this day, I have no idea what I could have done to offend them. Luckily, there are so many terrific ethnic restaurants to choose from, so it was no big loss for me. Maybe you just need to let go of some of that butthurt?
(Score: 4, Interesting) by PinkyGigglebrain on Tuesday November 24 2015, @08:00PM
Every time I hear about stuff like this I'm reminded of an article I read long ago. Fortunately I keep the link where I can find it easily.
http://www.frostywooldridge.com/articles/art_how_to_destroy_america_2003.html [frostywooldridge.com]
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 24 2015, @09:28PM
The Council of Europe defines "segregation" this way:
—https://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/ecri/activities/GPR/EN/Recommendation_N7/Recommendation_7_en.asp [coe.int]
At Princeton, the students apparently have voluntarily separated themselves, and the university is contemplating providing resources, such as meeting rooms or housing, to those groups of students for the groups to use in furtherance of their own aims.
The situation is different from that in the America of 61 years ago, where the government kept people separated whether they liked it or not, with the goal of denying people opportunities to advance themselves in society.
The original poster seems to have thought: separating people according to race has proved harmful in various contexts; now racially separated groups have formed and are making demands; this cannot end well. I think it's a false analogy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 25 2015, @12:55AM
This isn't in Europe now is it? People aren't allowed to voluntarily separate themselves in the US. Ever heard about that little problem we had recently with people not wanting to associate with homosexual people and denying them service? That is illegal here.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 25 2015, @03:20AM
It should be obvious I'm not suggesting that Princeton University is, or ought to be, in Europe. I merely think that the distinction the Council of Europe makes, in its definition, is an important one.
In the U.S. the First Amendment has been interpreted as protecting freedom of association. In some instances, organizations have been allowed to exclude people from membership, for example when the Boy Scouts expelled a member for being gay ( Boy Scouts of America v. Dale [casebriefs.com]) contrary to New Jersey's anti-discrimination law. That the student clubs are discriminating in this way is an assumption I made, that other posters have contradicted.