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: 5, Insightful) by Hyperturtle on Tuesday December 20 2016, @02:59PM
Why do liberal democracies not create overt watch lists of conservative educators?
It's always the far right that makes lists, it seems, or perhaps its the liberal news media that only promotes the far right's new lists.
Back in college, it was also what the professors told us students happened in the McCarthy era, where people were labeled as communist sympathizers if they didn't donate to a particular campaign, or wore the wrong clothes, and had little to do with communism other than it being an easy label to apply when seeking witches to remove.
Being the nerdy type, I checked out the story and it checks out... unless history was rewritten by the liberals.
Why do people keep using the term SJW? Labeling things like that just invites scorn. It's like an arms race. Certainly the creation of lists of progressive academics to target in order to clean up whatever problem is spouting-- is that not the result of warrior seeking to enforce social justice from his own perspective, or is there better term for the same thing? Does SJW only get applied to ideas one doesn't like?
Maybe a better solution is to stop targeting people that are not being overly harmful in their actions just because its different, and stop making up terms to label them as the enemy, and instead start working to resolve differences or establish a common ground or framework? That is harder, though, and I am no good at it. Compromise is hard, because it means you lose when the other person wins. Fortunately, they often feel the same way, so no one really comes out on top if you have a poor perspective on the process.
It's the true statesman that can make each group feel like winner despite giving something up, but polarization and name calling does not really help achieve that. I haven't seen many win/wins in politics lately.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 20 2016, @03:40PM
I just put Charlie Kirk on my Whippersnapper Watch List.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 20 2016, @03:49PM
Why do people keep using the term SJW?
Because some astroturfing company hired by the Koch brothers or similar cooked it up and introduced the idea onto the alt-right "grass roots" websites. The idea spreads from there because it is designed to appeal to that demographic.
They invent this phantom bogeyman of a world-controlling conspiracy of "SJWs" and pin all the world's racism and bigotry and injustice on them. Then the people they want to influence can simply label their enemies with that term and no longer need to think of any reasons for their choices or consider any other points of view. For ultimate irony, they then accuse the other side of using derogatory labels to silence their opponents. It also gives all the racists and bigots and promoters of injustice a nice warm glowy feeling because they can now convince themselves that they are no longer the bad guys, and they can say and do and vote racist and bigoted things and not feel guilty about it, in fact, to feel proud for it. They also get to play at being the poor oppressed minority standing up bravely to the Evil Empire.
These terms are ephemeral, they come and go. SJW is about dead now. "Identity politics" is the new one, and now "Safe Spaces". If you watch you can see them come and go in waves - all of a sudden, a term that was used in every other post by every other poster disappears, and in its place a new one appears. It's like watching ideas flow through the Borg mind, except in this case the Borg mind is controlled by a few rich guys and their spin doctors. But whatever the term, it is always an attempt to externalize the self-loathing of the right and pin it on the left like a target, kind of like how repressed gays in denial are drawn to gay-hate organisations.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday December 21 2016, @02:36PM
Yeah I'd say that's not far from actual practice, having spent spans of time on Madison Avenue, and also in the presence of the power elites. The power elites are really bad at crafting those, by the way. They're quite tone deaf. They rely on the Madison Avenue guys to compose their messages for them.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 20 2016, @03:58PM
> stop making up terms to label them as the enemy,
The term SJW isn't about labeling an enemy, its about being able to dismiss ideas without critically evaluating them.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Tuesday December 20 2016, @06:51PM
Do we really need to evaluate ideas that are so far out of line with reality? At some point it becomes a complete waste of time to evaluate things that are so ridiculous.
If the SJWs want to be taken seriously, it would help immensely if they'd actually know what the fuck they're talking about. You can't negotiate with them, nor is there any basis in reality for their positions. These are not people that simply are advocating for an unpopular position, these are bullies that try to cut off other people's free speech so that they don't have to have their world view challenged.
That's not something that deserves the attention necessary to dispute it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 20 2016, @09:32PM
If the SJWs want to be taken seriously, it would help immensely if they'd actually know what the fuck they're talking about.
Et tu, Francii!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 21 2016, @02:02AM
You don't seem to be self-ware enough to realize this, but you just demonstrated the GP's point through your use of circular reasoning about "SJWs." Your declaration that they don't "know what the fuck they are talking about" is literally a dismissal of ideas without analysis or critical argument.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Wednesday December 21 2016, @07:02PM
Spoken like somebody who doesn't actually know what an SJW is.
You're neglecting the middle here. I've seen the arguments before over and over and over again, precisely how many times do you think I should debunk the same arguments? Precisely how much of my time should I waste on people that are gish galloping? Perhaps I'm that much smarter than you, but it doesn't really take much thought to see the fallacies in these posts. Most of which are effectively copy pasta of other people's poorly thought out and deluded world view.
We don't live in a rape culture, women do not make less than men for the same work, disagreeing with people is not wrong and I have absolutely no responsibility for other people's feelings. Those are just a few of the things that routinely come up from those sorts of posters. Oh, and cultural appropriation. Somehow that's wrong if white people do it, but when other groups do it they're being forced to do it. Never mind that the dominant culture isn't found anywhere else in the world and everybody else had to learn how it works.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 21 2016, @11:05PM
Shut up, Francis!!
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 20 2016, @03:58PM
It's always the far right that makes lists
Eeeh, about that [github.com]...
Why do people keep using the term SJW?
Because regardless of the word used, describing authoritarian cultural marxists will always acquire that connotation since the concept itself describes deplorable behavior. The only way not to have a negative word for SJWs is not to have a word for SJWs.
On the flipside, as a strongly liberal person myself, I've never been called an SJW by American conservatives. Have you ever considered that maybe the smoke is there for a reason?
Certainly the creation of lists of progressive academics to target in order to clean up whatever problem is spouting-- is that not the result of warrior seeking to enforce social justice from his own perspective, or is there better term for the same thing?
No, it's the result of trying to live in a society which condones biggotry against you.
Does SJW only get applied to ideas one doesn't like?
It applies to cultural marxist ideas. I don't like Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, but I certainly wouldn't call either of them an SJW.
Maybe a better solution is to stop targeting people that are not being overly harmful in their actions just because its different, and stop making up terms to label them as the enemy, and instead start working to resolve differences or establish a common ground or framework?
They [professorwatchlist.org] are [professorwatchlist.org] being [professorwatchlist.org] overly [professorwatchlist.org] harmful [professorwatchlist.org]
These are just a few names I found by randomly clicking around the list, I'm sure there will be far more egregious examples if one was to look.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 20 2016, @05:00PM
> Eeeh, about that...
Wow, a twitter filtering tool to protect individuals from organized harassment. Totally the same thing.
> cultural marxist
Lol. Are we resurrecting that one now? Be sure to abbreviate it to make it faster to type over and over and over.
(Score: 4, Informative) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday December 20 2016, @05:16PM
OK, let's look at your examples shall we?
Dr. Charles Strozier : Oh noez! He believes that climate change is a factor in middle-eastern poverty, which in turn is a factor in jihadi recruitment! Quick, call the national guard! Save us from this terrible threat!
Darry Sragow : He's SUPPOSED to be partisan, [insidehighered.com] and for balance the university gives equal time to a Republican partisan. However your watchlist site somehow omits that detail. I'm sure that was just an oversight, and not glaringly dishonest.
Latham Hunter : Feminist who wrote an article about how Christmas is wrapped up a bunch of centuries-old patriarchal tropes. Well duh. But you believe that someone expressing an opinion about Christmas is "overly harmful", and worthy of being put on a watchlist? Did I get that right?
Peter Singer : OK, this one is a bit of a wonk. However I wouldn't be too worried about him brainwashing young adults - his views are so unpalatable that very few people would take them on board without opposition. He's a philosopher, so his job is to logically analyse the ethics and morals we take for granted, and it appears that has led him to some uncomfortable conclusions. The question is, does he bully and brainwash his students into following his own beliefs, or does he encourage them to argue, examine and criticise them? I don't know. Do you? The "watchlist" website certainly makes no effort to find out.
Selena Lester Breikss : Looks like someone who allowed her own gender issues to seep into her work. Oh dear. Note that the University told her she couldn't [nationalreview.com] classify words like "male" and "female" as hate speech.
So what do we have? A feminist and a history professor who hold some opinions on climate change and gender issues that those on the right might disagree with. A part-time non-lecturer whose job is to represent the Democratic side of a balanced lesson in political partisanship. A lecturer who made a professional slip up and got slapped back down by her employers, and one guy who holds some radical and somewhat disturbing opinions, but who may or may not try to impose them on his students. Is this really the best you can do? Remind me, just which side is it made up of crybaby pussies begging for a "safe space" devoid of opposing views?
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday December 20 2016, @05:32PM
There's two problems with the people listed
1) Their opinions are kooky and not worth $30K/yr tuition in an era of internet and usenet where insane ramblings disconnected from all reality but amusing to think about are free and easy to find. Or more like, hard to avoid.
2) They got on the list for punishing critical thinking and dissent from their own views specifically committed against students to the right of Marx.
Maybe I'll try an analogy that should make sense to more left wing thinking people using their terms. They love talking about nazis, so I will too. Some nazis had really weird beliefs about the hollow earth under Antarctica and so forth. But lefties would see the problems with hollow earth theory are that it distracts from more significant areas of anti-nazi criticism such as ovening the Jews, the hollow earth is not important and more or less off topic and is useless in the sense of angels dancing on the head of a pin anyway. The hollow earth is not why nazis are declared problematic. The other problem with hollow earth theory is most lefties want to punish nazis for something other than very weird geological theories, like, say, ovening Jews, or killing all the commies they could find, things like that. They don't want to kill them right back for supporting hollow earth theory, they want to kill them for killing Jews, an eye for an eye until we're all blind etc.
I think I made a pretty fair analogy above. Or at least it would be hard to improve without changing all out of recognition.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 20 2016, @06:59PM
1) Their opinions are kooky and not worth $30K/yr tuition in an era of internet and usenet where insane ramblings disconnected from all reality but amusing to think about are free and easy to find. Or more like, hard to avoid.
VLM, I gots a final solution for you! Just do not attend University! Worked for the Buzz! And what do you need that bit of sheepskin for anyway? Obviously college is not for you, if you think that you are paying for the "opinions" of the professors. I am sure you have your own opinions already, and that they are just as much opinions as any other opinions, so why pay money to change them for some other opinions you also do not understand? Cite: see above about the abyss.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday December 20 2016, @09:05PM
> 1) Their opinions are kooky and not worth $30K/yr tuition
whoa whoa whoa, what happened to all the free market stuff we all love to hear so much about? Surely if some people are prepared to pay 30k/yr, then those people are atomatically worth 30k/yr, right? Something something invisible hand something something market forces.
> 2) They got on the list for punishing critical thinking and dissent from their own views specifically committed against students to the right of Marx.
Citation needed. Only one of the ones listed threatened to punish students, as far as the watchlist website or a google search can tell me, and that was not for "holding opinions to the right of Marx" but for using words that she herself found objectionable.
I'm not sure I follow your analogy - you're saying that "lefties" are idiots for thinking that the hollow earth stuff was worse than the holocaust stuff?
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 20 2016, @06:51PM
On the flipside, as a strongly liberal person myself, I've never been called an SJW by American conservatives. Have you ever considered that maybe the smoke is there for a reason?
You know, that is just what a flaming SJW would say! Your failure to insult gives you away, you SJW!!! Pretending to be a critic of Authoritarian Cultural Marxism (ACM) is the oldest trick in the book or ACMs who are also SJWs!! Your not foaling anyone, you SJW! (There, now you have been called a SJW, you SJW!)
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 20 2016, @04:32PM
Thats the whole point. Its the propaganda techniques of labelling and demonizing the enemy (plus a lot more). It helps promote tribalism and non-thinking, which are the virtues of modern day fascists.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Wednesday December 21 2016, @07:19PM
The whole point of the SJW label is that there's nothing of value in the post. It doesn't take much time to figure out when you're dealing with an SJW after you see a few posts. There's a lot of people who conflate the term SJW with social justice advocate and the two are not even remotely the same thing.
If you're dealing with an advocate, they might be uninformed about something, but they'll generally be operating in good faith. SJWs are essentially trolls that lack the awareness of what's going on to even do that right. If you change your mind on the issue, they'll just come back with something else that's completely insane in the name of equality.
The good thing though, is that it's usually fairly clear cut what you've got and if it's not clear, then just don't bother to respond, it's not like opinions and posts are rare.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 21 2016, @09:04PM
The whole point of the SJW label is that there's nothing of value in the post. It doesn't take much time to figure out when you're dealing with an SJW after you see a few posts.
. . .
The good thing though, is that it's usually fairly clear cut what you've got and if it's not clear, then just don't bother to respond, it's not like opinions and posts are rare
Let me get this straight, Francis is accusing Francis of being a SJW? This does not help, it is not fairly clear, and quite possibly insane. I guess I just will not bother to respond with the obvious rebuttal.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 22 2016, @10:25AM
I see Aristarchus thinks he's outwitted me again.
Pro-tip, paint chips are not potato chips.