Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

University of SHUT UP!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • University of SHUT UP!

    AllLivesMatter.png


    Forget #BlackLivesMatter, more like #AllLivesMatter
    The vice president of the University of Houston Student Government Association (SGA) wrote the above Facebook post in response to five Dallas police officers being murdered by a sniper. Apparently such thoughts are unacceptable – as she has since been punished severely for expressing her thoughts.

    Sethi’s punishment includes suspension from the SGA, mandatory attendance of diversity training and cultural events, and the requirement to write a reflection letter and present it publicly to the SGA. In other words – the university is going to get her mind right.

    Over 70 universities across this nation enforce “free speech zone” policies, which restrict ‘expressive activities’ to small isolated parts of campus. Many other colleges also require groups to register up to 30 days ahead of time to schedule a demonstration. Several universities even charge student groups a fee to protest – justified as the added costs of security. Most universities have policies that limit any speech that is considered ‘harassment’ or ‘hate speech’. The definition reads “any conduct consisting of words or actions that are unwelcome or offensive to a person in relation to race, color, national origin, age, marital status, sex, sexual orientation, disability, religion, genetic deformation, or veteran status.”

    I would hope all of you reading find this as disturbing as I do. Universities openly admitting that the only speech allowed is polite speech. The First Amendment was not written to protect polite speech – as polite speech does not require protection. The offensive, and uncomfortable, and unwelcome words are exactly what the constitutional framers knew would require protection.

    Liberalism – once represented by brave citizens standing on the front lines forcing institutions to ensure constitutional liberties apply to all Americans – has now become the greatest threat to free speech since King George III. College campuses represent our future. This is a frightening trend.
    Last edited by SupPackFan; 08-03-2016, 01:28 PM.

  • #2
    The phrase "all lives matter" has bee co-oted (annd i truth orignially used) by racists wishing to "counter" BLM and is used by people that think the phrase "black lives matter" is somehow exclusive,whe it isn't. People using it unaware of these issues are ideed "tone deaf" to the issues and struggles behind BLM. You can't go about praisig people or a cause by sayin "sieg heil" no matter how repectful you mean it to be without geeratig negative attention.​​​
    Stalff at a university agree to abide by codes of coduct, don't want to be at the mercy of these codes, do not work there. That aside I do feel the weak stomach and mmby-pamby attitudes at uiversities in this country have become pathetic centers for the thought police.

    מה מכילות החדשות?


    • #3
      Originally posted by JDJarvis View Post
      The phrase "all lives matter" has bee co-oted (annd i truth orignially used) by racists wishing to "counter" BLM and is used by people that think the phrase "black lives matter" is somehow exclusive,whe it isn't. People using it unaware of these issues are ideed "tone deaf" to the issues and struggles behind BLM. You can't go about praisig people or a cause by sayin "sieg heil" no matter how repectful you mean it to be without geeratig negative attention.​​​
      Stalff at a university agree to abide by codes of coduct, don't want to be at the mercy of these codes, do not work there. That aside I do feel the weak stomach and mmby-pamby attitudes at uiversities in this country have become pathetic centers for the thought police.
      I agree they are tone deaf, instead of being racist. When a lot of people hear, black lives matter, they are also hearing, that this means other lives do not matter as much as black lives. But the tendency is then to explain this perception as somehow being racist when it is nothing of the sort. It can be a perception driven by racism, no doubt, but racism among the general public today is just not as prolific as many on the left assume it to be. It is a low hanging fruit, and a knee jerk reaction, that is not at all factual.

      So when the people then say, that all lives matter, it is not driven by racism. Rather it is inclusive of all people. Therefore it rejects the division created by exclaiming black lives matter. And yet, you cannot draw attention to the number of blacks killed by police by saying all lives matter, and this is what must be understood.

      But a question needs to be answered, by objective scientific study. And that question is, are American blacks, or, is black culture more violent than other racial groups in America? And if it turns out this is the case, then there is a reason, among other reasons, why more blacks are killed than whites as a percentage of each population. Living where my local town here is around 70 percent black and watching the local news and reading the local fish wrapper, there is little doubt that here in my area, blacks are more violent, especially towards one another. Most of the gun violence and killing here happens within the black community when compared to the white community. And I would imagine honest stats will reflect this in most parts of the US. And so, if they are more violent, the chances of them getting killed by cops of course would go up. And this needs to be sorted out. For when BLM considers he percentage of blacks killed by cops, it is doubtful that they are even considering the violence of black people, and that if perpetrated against cops, with our low bar for using lethal force, of course more as a percentage will be killed.

      With that said, I have said before, that the bar for using lethal force has been dropped in my lifetime. It is far too low and there was a time here where I live where fleeing from a cop for a non violent crime would not get you shot. In order to get shot, you would have to be literally attacking the cop, and not just trying to get away.

      מה מכילות החדשות?


      • #4
        As I have said for quite some time, Universities in this country are much more into Indoctrination than they are into Education

        מה מכילות החדשות?


        • #5
          Originally posted by JDJarvis View Post
          The phrase "all lives matter" has bee co-oted (annd i truth orignially used) by racists wishing to "counter" BLM and is used by people that think the phrase "black lives matter" is somehow exclusive,whe it isn't. People using it unaware of these issues are ideed "tone deaf" to the issues and struggles behind BLM. You can't go about praisig people or a cause by sayin "sieg heil" no matter how repectful you mean it to be without geeratig negative attention.​​​
          I have seen no indication that All Lives Matter is in any way a racist based movement. The desire to 'counter' BLM I believe is based in diversity - and supported by people who wish to stop separating people by skin color. However, I can imagine a desire for racists to co-opt the ALM tag - if any are really organized enough to do so. BLM, contained right in the name, wreaks of separatism and racial divide. After all, we are talking about a movement inspired by the monumental 'Hands up, don't shoot' lie told in Ferguson Missouri. But I am willing to consider that BLM is truly only about raising awareness to American injustice. I believe all of this is worth discussion.

          However, when universities across our nation embrace BLM while punishing even the mention of ALM - I know that serious violations of the First Amendment are taking place. This is much worse then an annoyance. In fact, the limitations on free thought now decades in practice are the exact reason the Ferguson myth was so easily spread empowering the BLM movement to begin with. .

          Originally posted by JDJarvis View Post
          Stalff at a university agree to abide by codes of coduct, don't want to be at the mercy of these codes, do not work there. That aside I do feel the weak stomach and mmby-pamby attitudes at uiversities in this country have become pathetic centers for the thought police.
          She is actually a student, the VP of the Student Government Association. Even if she were an employee, when you suggest that one should abide by the code or go elsewhere I hear contradiction to every civil rights movement this past 60 years. I find it very dangerous to allow any code of conduct which can dictate ideology. Watch your mouth because the S.S. could be right around the corner.

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • #6
            Originally posted by SupPackFan View Post

            I have seen no indication that All Lives Matter is in any way a racist based movement. The desire to 'counter' BLM I believe is based in diversity - and supported by people who wish to stop separating people by skin color. However, I can imagine a desire for racists to co-opt the ALM tag - if any are really organized enough to do so. BLM, contained right in the name, wreaks of separatism and racial divide. After all, we are talking about a movement inspired by the monumental 'Hands up, don't shoot' lie told in Ferguson Missouri. But I am willing to consider that BLM is truly only about raising awareness to American injustice. I believe all of this is worth discussion.

            However, when universities across our nation embrace BLM while punishing even the mention of ALM - I know that serious violations of the First Amendment are taking place. This is much worse then an annoyance. In fact, the limitations on free thought now decades in practice are the exact reason the Ferguson myth was so easily spread empowering the BLM movement to begin with. .


            She is actually a student, the VP of the Student Government Association. Even if she were an employee, when you suggest that one should abide by the code or go elsewhere I hear contradiction to every civil rights movement this past 60 years. I find it very dangerous to allow any code of conduct which can dictate ideology. Watch your mouth because the S.S. could be right around the corner.
            If you sign a cotract with a code of conduct (which many studets do) you can indeed find yourself bound by the terms of that cotract.
            Are you suggesting contracts should not be enforcable?

            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • #7
              Originally posted by JDJarvis View Post

              If you sign a cotract with a code of conduct (which many studets do) you can indeed find yourself bound by the terms of that cotract.
              Are you suggesting contracts should not be enforcable?
              I would say that any contract that violated the Constitution would be ruled unenforceable.

              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • #8
                Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post

                I would say that any contract that violated the Constitution would be ruled unenforceable.
                What makes you think they would make someone sign a contract they likely know is unconstitutional?
                Universities would likely have these things drawn up with the help of the legal and constitutional Professors they have on campus or at least I would if I was them.

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • #9
                  Originally posted by JDJarvis View Post
                  The phrase "all lives matter" has bee co-oted (annd i truth orignially used) by racists wishing to "counter" BLM and is used by people that think the phrase "black lives matter" is somehow exclusive,whe it isn't. People using it unaware of these issues are ideed "tone deaf" to the issues and struggles behind BLM. You can't go about praisig people or a cause by sayin "sieg heil" no matter how repectful you mean it to be without geeratig negative attention.​​​
                  Stalff at a university agree to abide by codes of coduct, don't want to be at the mercy of these codes, do not work there. That aside I do feel the weak stomach and mmby-pamby attitudes at uiversities in this country have become pathetic centers for the thought police.
                  Yes, thought police. A university should be the last place where thought police should be allowed. It reminds me too much of the old days when Christianity ruled, and conditioned a society, and questioning that religion was off limits. You could not question it, and if you were looking at reality in a scientific manner, this would get you in trouble. How is what is taking place with the thought police that much different, at least in principle, than earlier times?

                  When I think of a university, being educated in a state university in the early 70s, I think of an environment which encouraged open debate on all ideas, in regards to all speech. I can think of nothing that was off limits, and even bad ideas were subjected to thoughtful critique, for this is how you marginalize harmful ideologies and ideas. They have to be exposed and talked about.

                  From what I can tell about many of today's universities is the total lack of tolerance for those ideas, and speech that a new generation of people find intolerable. It has always been such hypocrisy to me that the modern left, which gives lip service to tolerance, are the most intolerant people to walk about. I always, in the past, equated intolerance to right wingism. And yet the modern left seem to be even worse than right wingism. But then, both modern conservatism, and modern liberalism, seem to be aberrations, corruptions, of what used to be liberalism and conservatism.

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post

                    Yes, thought police. A university should be the last place where thought police should be allowed. It reminds me too much of the old days when Christianity ruled, and conditioned a society, and questioning that religion was off limits. You could not question it, and if you were looking at reality in a scientific manner, this would get you in trouble. How is what is taking place with the thought police that much different, at least in principle, than earlier times?

                    When I think of a university, being educated in a state university in the early 70s, I think of an environment which encouraged open debate on all ideas, in regards to all speech. I can think of nothing that was off limits, and even bad ideas were subjected to thoughtful critique, for this is how you marginalize harmful ideologies and ideas. They have to be exposed and talked about.

                    From what I can tell about many of today's universities is the total lack of tolerance for those ideas, and speech that a new generation of people find intolerable. It has always been such hypocrisy to me that the modern left, which gives lip service to tolerance, are the most intolerant people to walk about. I always, in the past, equated intolerance to right wingism. And yet the modern left seem to be even worse than right wingism. But then, both modern conservatism, and modern liberalism, seem to be aberrations, corruptions, of what used to be liberalism and conservatism.
                    Very difficult to indoctrinate someone if you allow opposing views.

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by JDJarvis View Post
                      If you sign a cotract with a code of conduct (which many studets do) you can indeed find yourself bound by the terms of that cotract.
                      Are you suggesting contracts should not be enforcable?
                      Right. Members of student government are expected to abide by certain behavioral rules as role models and representatives of the university. Miss Sethi was punished for tweeting
                      Forget #BlackLivesMatter, more like #AllLivesMatter
                      but to help make your point - she likely would have also been punished for tweeting
                      #UHCougarsFootball SUCKS and I am rooting for TCU this Saturday
                      The First Amendment is not really applicable when we are referring to a behavioral code limited to certain privileged leadership positions. I should have specified when bringing up the First Amendment that I was referring to 'free speech zones' and 'charging to protest' policies taking place on many campuses and not so much the Rohini Sethi incident.

                      However, I find her case indicative of everything that is wrong and dangerous about modern liberalism. It is campus liberals that came up with this ridiculously worded code - that a student leader is prohibited from engaging in “any conduct consisting of words or actions that are unwelcome or offensive to a person in relation to race, color, national origin, age, marital status, sex, sexual orientation, disability, religion, genetic deformation, or veteran status.” Wow! Haven't we come a long way from 'sticks and stones'? Such a loose definition allows student government to simply remove any individual they do not like - that may not be liberal enough for their liking.

                      Instead of engaging in political discussion the left has become quite comfortable with simply shutting down any alternative views. Once champions of the First Amendment, liberals today use positions of power to bully opposition into submission. College campuses today are as welcoming to opposing views as Hitler youth camps. After two generations of discouraging free thought during 'higher' education it appears the majority of college graduates have complied.

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


                      • #12
                        The "all lives matter" message is and has been consigned to the realm of hate-speech like it or not. University policies are not secret. If students don't like it they should act to change it.
                        ​​​​
                        How is it a shock that the dominant faction gets to make the rules? There is no secret plot here. If eough peope care ad actually act things will change, if not the people who like the current status quo will make the rules.

                        The general issue (PCism gone mad) was part of public awareness and in film over 20 years ago: http://m.imdb.com/title/tt0110759/
                        Last edited by JDJarvis; 08-10-2016, 06:06 AM.

                        מה מכילות החדשות?


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by JDJarvis View Post
                          The "all lives matter" message is and has been consigned to the realm of hate-speech like it or not. University policies are not secret. If students don't like it they should act to change it.
                          ​​​​
                          How is it a shock that the dominant faction gets to make the rules? There is no secret plot here. If eough peope care ad actually act things will change, if not the people who like the current status quo will make the rules.

                          The general issue (PCism gone mad) was part of public awareness and in film over 20 years ago: http://m.imdb.com/title/tt0110759/
                          Having always been interested in how changes happen within a culture, I am looking to see the means used that gave us this PC meme. You can look at this ALM deal, as being consigned as hate speech. If some group or individual created it, and if it remained within such a PC group, it would never spread out within the general population. So, what is the device used to spread it? And let us say it is media that grows it, that it proliferates it. The question then, is why they spend time and energy in doing this? Is there motive involved, or is it innocent? We can observe in regards to other changes in culture, like attitudes towards homosexuals the involvement of TV networks, Hollywood, and MSM being actively involved in the change of perception, consciously working to condition attitudes. That is, quite unnatural, in that it was contrived.

                          SO, there is a manufacturing of consent at work with some of these changes, that involve changing societal perception. So, CONTROL of a sort. But WHO are the controllers? And this kind of control can be used for less benign changes, and probably has been used for such. Granted, this sort of thing has perhaps not new, but the areas it has moved into, outside of selling a product for a business has been prolific. And I dare say that most people are totally oblivious to the fact that they are being controlled, herded like cows into a particular perception of reality. That isn't reality at all. But the manufactured change in perception is serving some other group, in some beneficial way. Of course this has been a popular subject in old sci fi novels written right after the rise of propaganda tactics in the early 20th century. It was even said that it would in part replace wars, for you could get people to come to your view by devising very clever propaganda, for it can be very powerful and humans are so subject to it, and consent can be manufactured with no blood spilled. So control and the controlled. It has a very bad smell coming from it, and seems to be an enemy to freedom. It does not mesh well with freedom, in principle. But what that came from the Nazis does? We may be closer to the Nazi mindset than we want to admit.

                          מה מכילות החדשות?


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by JDJarvis View Post
                            The "all lives matter" message is and has been consigned to the realm of hate-speech like it or not. University policies are not secret. If students don't like it they should act to change it.

                            Right. Just like any persecuted group, they must act to change it. We are talking about the oppression of logic and independent thought. The logical must overcome fear of punishment and bullying to speak their common sense – regardless of the resulting punishments and failing grades.
                            Originally posted by JDJarvis View Post
                            How is it a shock that the dominant faction gets to make the rules? There is no secret plot here. If eough peope care ad actually act things will change, if not the people who like the current status quo will make the rules.

                            What is shocking is that a fringe minority has so easily managed to become the dominant faction – and on campus today even the majority. Thirty years of brainwashing and bullying has led to this. The minority has been running the majority for so long that they have now actually become the new majority.
                            Originally posted by JDJarvis View Post
                            The general issue (PCism gone mad) was part of public awareness and in film over 20 years ago:

                            I remember this movie (PCU) well as I thought it was hilarious. My college days lasted from 1987 to 1992 so this movie was a great parity of the experiences I had. However, the secret to the humor in this movie is that the politically incorrect are the ‘good guys’ and the extreme single issue groups are the hateful and unreasonable. In 1994 we were still allowed to recognize the ridiculousness of political correctness. If remade today Jeremy Piven’s group of free thinkers would be portrayed as the deranged ones.

                            מה מכילות החדשות?

                            Working...
                            X