NationStates Jolt Archive

OK. I thought last Friday someone, I think it was either Jesussaves or Kahta, made a post saying that he wrote a really racist paper and his professor was mad at him and we'd get an update on Monday about what the professor said.

I can't find the post and didn't catch any updates along the lines of either "see, liberal college professors are corrupting our nations racist and intolerant values," or "I'm being shipped of to a re-education camp until I think the KKK are bad people."

Was there any news I missed?

I can't stand a cliffhanger. Argh!

OK. I thought last Friday either Jesussaves or Kahta made a post saying that he wrote a really racist paper and his professor was mad at him and we'd get an update on Monday about what the professor said.

I can't find the post and didn't catch any updates along the lines of either "see, liberal college professors are corrupting our nations racist and intolerant values," or "I'm being shipped of to a re-education camp until I think the KKK are bad people."

Was there any news I missed?

I can't stand a cliffhanger. Argh!
It was Vote Early, and he cut and run after people dogpiled on him.

It was Vote Early, and he cut and run after people dogpiled on him.

And conservatives call liberals chicken. :mad:

It was VoteEarly, and it turns out that the professor just wanted him to clean up the less than exemplary structure of the paper.

And conservatives call liberals chicken. :mad:

Not to mention that our conservative politicians managed to chickenhawk their way out of Vietnam, but that's another thread...

I have no idea about what you are referring to, but I did recently hear of an interesting discussion. Which is worse, the conservative right censorship of what they consider to be anti-American sentiment (communism in the 50's, anti-vietnam in the 70's, anti-Bush sentiment now) or the liberal left's censorship of politically incorrect speech (racist speech, anti-feminist speech, anti-gay speech)? Both forms of censorship have become commonplace, both in formal institutions and informal cultural norms. The question is, is one worse than the other? Is the 1st Amendment limited on both sides? Is censorship OK?

It was VoteEarly, and it turns out that the professor just wanted him to clean up the less than exemplary structure of the paper.
Thats great, with all the conservatives that wanted to jump on the left and so they called it a good paper....

People on both sides do that, its still funny...

Thats great, with all the conservatives that wanted to jump on the left and so they called it a good paper....

People on both sides do that, its still funny...

Yeah, it turned out that the professor just wanted him to make the paper better. From what VoteEarly said, content didn't really enter in to it. The professor had come to expect more from him than that paper, it seems.

Is censorship OK?

Partend my langrage but

FUCK NO! WWW. BLOW ME.COM!

(the above quote for Dennis Leary's Lock and load Spetal on HBO)

I talked to him in a thread (don’t remember which it was) he said he Got an A for the paper :) so much for being "discriminated" against
Probably got the A so that the prof wouldn’t have to deal with his BS (I’m sorry but for a collage level paper it was not well put together)

I <3 Victor Davis Hanson.

OK. I thought last Friday someone, I think it was either Jesussaves or Kahta, made a post saying that he wrote a really racist paper and his professor was mad at him and we'd get an update on Monday about what the professor said.
It was VoteEarly, and yes it is interesting that we never heard about it again.

I have no idea about what you are referring to, but I did recently hear of an interesting discussion. Which is worse, the conservative right censorship of what they consider to be anti-American sentiment (communism in the 50's, anti-vietnam in the 70's, anti-Bush sentiment now) or the liberal left's censorship of politically incorrect speech (racist speech, anti-feminist speech, anti-gay speech)? Both forms of censorship have become commonplace, both in formal institutions and informal cultural norms. The question is, is one worse than the other? Is the 1st Amendment limited on both sides? Is censorship OK?
Both sides are bad, but I think the McCarthyist side is worse. They wanted to ban freedom to pick your own ideology. Being racist is not as important or intellectual as a political ideology.

Both sides are bad, but I think the McCarthyist side is worse. They wanted to ban freedom to pick your own ideology. Being racist is not as important or intellectual as a political ideology.

It's really all the same. The same people who are trying to take away freedoms of conscience are the same people who think that a certain kind of culture and racial stock has proprietary rights over the lower half of the North American continent.

The McCarthyists and the racists are really coming from pretty much the same place. A fear that "our" kind are going to be replaced by "their" kind. Whether "their" kind is blacks, liberals, or athiests doesn't really make that much difference.

Most professors are very left, but not all are discrimative towards students who are not. Granted, I do know of many who are. Ex: That fake native American "Culture Studies" professor who wrote a speech calling the victims of 9-11 mini Hitlers. I once knew a guy who had a college professor who threatened to give him a D in his class every time he challenged his views on issues such as abortion. But again, not all professors are thought Nazis. That is the point you guys are trying to make, correct?

When it comes to censorship I am very anti. I feel a person has every right to say/do whatever they want...without causing any direct harm.

Case and point: Fred Phelps, some would say that his newsletters should be censored for the hate they spread. However, he is protected by the first amendment and thus cannot be silenced.

I may utterly DISPISE everything the man stands for, but I cannot do anything about it, but flood his website with spam (my little way of protesting).

Simple sollution: You don't like what a person is showing, just ignore it, no one is forcing you to watch it.

OK. I thought last Friday someone, I think it was either Jesussaves or Kahta, made a post saying that he wrote a really racist paper and his professor was mad at him and we'd get an update on Monday about what the professor said.

I can't find the post and didn't catch any updates along the lines of either "see, liberal college professors are corrupting our nations racist and intolerant values," or "I'm being shipped of to a re-education camp until I think the KKK are bad people."

Was there any news I missed?

I can't stand a cliffhanger. Argh!

Actually, the Left censored it out of the forums.

Okay, so I had one of these discussions today and this occoured to me:

The idea was forwarded that a 'liberal' college isn't really being open minded if it 'shoots down' non-liberal thought. So, here's a few things that occour to me.

First of all, conservativism is the protection of the status quo, the imposed norm. To challenge the norm, look for change and examine is what open mindedness is in reference to, putting it in theoritical opposition to the status quo. It becomes irrelevant if it doesn't challenge the status quo. So to say that open mindedness is invalid if it challenges the status quo is to fundementally missunderstand how it works and is mere gain say. I call it Gallahger logic, looking at terms on a surface meaning without any real consideration of practical, applied meaning. (they are called driveways because they are the path you drive, no matter how short, from the road to your house. Whether or not you park on them is irrelevant.) This is not to say that the status quo is to be dismissed out of hand, but in order to be challenged it has to be put in opposition.

That's what gets me, is the belief that ideas that are challenges somehow should be without opposition. The idea that tolerance should tolerate intolerance. Just gain say, intolerance is in opposition to tolerance and if you can't reach that level of understanding, out of the pool-it's adult swim.

But that's prelude to what bothered me today. The idea that was also forwarded by Vote Early that his ideas where challenged that the college was somehow stiffling his ideas. Thing is, your ideas are supposed to be challenged in college. Even when I wrote papers that where in line with the professors thinking I still wasn't given a rubber stamp if my argument was crap. Open mindedness or liberalism is NOT take every idea that comes down the pike and accept them all universally, rather hear them out and challenge them as neccisary to determine thier worth.

So, in essence, if you want someone to accept what ever little thought that falls out of your pea head without challenge hang out with yes men and get out of college. Your ideas are supposed to be challenged. If someone does that they aren't oppressing you, they are challenging you. It's thier job.

When it comes to censorship I am very anti. I feel a person has every right to say/do whatever they want...without causing any direct harm.

Case and point: Fred Phelps, some would say that his newsletters should be censored for the hate they spread. However, he is protected by the first amendment and thus cannot be silenced.

I may utterly DISPISE everything the man stands for, but I cannot do anything about it, but flood his website with spam (my little way of protesting).

Simple sollution: You don't like what a person is showing, just ignore it, no one is forcing you to watch it.
As long as, and this is probably closer to what I was getting at, we understand(and clearly you do) that freedom of speech does not mean freedom from criticism. Thats the thing that bugs me the most. Especially when conservatives bitch about liberals wanting to ban everything, because it speaks to a fundemental misunderstanding in their own positions-that if you don't like something you ban it, rather than if you don't like something you critisize it. They are not the same thing but when I see conservatives complain about liberals they seem to be under the impression that criticism is the same as calling for laws to ban.

When it comes to censorship I am very anti. I feel a person has every right to say/do whatever they want...without causing any direct harm.

Case and point: Fred Phelps, some would say that his newsletters should be censored for the hate they spread. However, he is protected by the first amendment and thus cannot be silenced.

I may utterly DISPISE everything the man stands for, but I cannot do anything about it, but flood his website with spam (my little way of protesting).

Simple sollution: You don't like what a person is showing, just ignore it, no one is forcing you to watch it.
Actually, if the speech incites violence or advocates violent action against the government, it can be silenced. (Advocate violent action against is not the same as criticise)

OK. I thought last Friday someone, I think it was either Jesussaves or Kahta, made a post saying that he wrote a really racist paper and his professor was mad at him and we'd get an update on Monday about what the professor said.

I can't find the post and didn't catch any updates along the lines of either "see, liberal college professors are corrupting our nations racist and intolerant values," or "I'm being shipped of to a re-education camp until I think the KKK are bad people."

Was there any news I missed?

I can't stand a cliffhanger. Argh!

I'm in high school still. It wasn't me.

But that's prelude to what bothered me today. The idea that was also forwarded by Vote Early that his ideas where challenged that the college was somehow stiffling his ideas. Thing is, your ideas are supposed to be challenged in college. Even when I wrote papers that where in line with the professors thinking I still wasn't given a rubber stamp if my argument was crap. Open mindedness or liberalism is NOT take every idea that comes down the pike and accept them all universally, rather hear them out and challenge them as neccisary to determine thier worth.
.


He didn't say my argument was crap, he said it was overall a rather good paper, but with 2-3 of the paragraphs, at least 2-3, I sort of went off on a tangent and other than that, he wants me to support what I say more, so I can more easily defend my arguments from those who will seek to challenge it. He said he wants me to get an A and so I can revise it as long and often as I want, until I get an A.

He didn't say my argument was crap, he said it was overall a rather good paper, but with 2-3 of the paragraphs, at least 2-3, I sort of went off on a tangent and other than that, he wants me to support what I say more, so I can more easily defend my arguments from those who will seek to challenge it. He said he wants me to get an A and so I can revise it as long and often as I want, until I get an A.

So .... you gonna give us all an apology for automatically assuming it was some vast liberal conspiracy against you when, in fact, it was a teacher trying to teach you?

No ... probably not ... but oh well. The world will continue turning.

-academic censorship by the left?-
I remember somebody on NS wrote a thesis paper against Affirmative Action and got suspended for it.

Oh, and the whole liberal concept of political correctness is censorship IMHO

Oh, and the whole liberal concept of political correctness is censorship IMHO
PC is NOT a 'liberal' concept. (By liberal I'll assume you mean progressive)
Not discriminating is a 'liberal' concept.
PC is what people who discriminate in their minds use to hide that fact from the ourside world and make themselves look good.

PC is NOT a 'liberal' concept. (By liberal I'll assume you mean progressive)
Not discriminating is a 'liberal' concept.
PC is what people who discriminate in their minds use to hide that fact from the ourside world and make themselves look good.
Sry for the confusion - it's just that I hear PC being spouted by many people who call themselves "liberal"

He didn't say my argument was crap, he said it was overall a rather good paper, but with 2-3 of the paragraphs, at least 2-3, I sort of went off on a tangent and other than that, he wants me to support what I say more, so I can more easily defend my arguments from those who will seek to challenge it. He said he wants me to get an A and so I can revise it as long and often as I want, until I get an A.
gee, so it turns out you jumped to a totally mistaken conclusion, and blamed your own failure to complete the assignment on "racism" and "political discrimination." you produced poor work, and immediately sought to blame it on somebody else's bias, with no basis for your accusations whatsoever.

i hope you think long and hard about your mistake. it would be too much to hope that you will apologize to the professor, or anybody else, for your disrespectful and dishonest attempt at smearing a well-meaning educator, but hopefully you will at least avoid making the same error in the future.

gee, so it turns out you jumped to a totally mistaken conclusion, and blamed your own failure to complete the assignment on "racism" and "political discrimination." you produced poor work, and immediately sought to blame it on somebody else's bias, with no basis for your accusations whatsoever.

i hope you think long and hard about your mistake. it would be too much to hope that you will apologize to the professor, or anybody else, for your disrespectful and dishonest attempt at smearing a well-meaning educator, but hopefully you will at least avoid making the same error in the future.


He did make it clear, he disagreed with most of what the paper said, but he said it is my right to write what I wish and he just wants to help me support it better. And he made it clear, he said it was a decent paper, but I could do better. He didn't say, "poor" he said "C+ B- range" (but for me that is poor) and he admitted that he knew I can get an A to A+ and he wants to be able to give me one.

I obviously won't make the same mistake again, but hey, we all make mistakes, eh?

Most professors are very left, but not all are discrimative towards students who are not. Granted, I do know of many who are. Ex: That fake native American "Culture Studies" professor who wrote a speech calling the victims of 9-11 mini Hitlers. I once knew a guy who had a college professor who threatened to give him a D in his class every time he challenged his views on issues such as abortion. But again, not all professors are thought Nazis. That is the point you guys are trying to make, correct?

I don't think it's a matter of censorship when professors threaten grades for "thinking out of turn." I think it's far more often a matter of arrogance. These people spend years gathering knowledge in their field and some of them let it go to their heads and take it personally if you disagree with them.

Most professors do tend to be liberal, but it breaks down if you take a look at the disciplines seperatly.

Economics and Business professors tend to be conservative because they became business and economics professors by getting rich in business. Business people tend to be fiscal conservatives.

History and poli-sci profs tend to be liberal because they know what happens when liberal politicians are in charge. They know it can go too far, but they know that that's not going to happen in this country any time soon. They also know that liberals tend to be more in favor of academic freedom and less inclined to try to pervert their disciplines for partisan ends. Partly because they aren't very good at it and partly because when they do it's just to get people to be nice to each other and a little more well off. Conservatives try to make people more afraid and more willing to give stuff up.

Humanities professors tend to be liberal because liberal politicians tend to give bigger grants to their disciplines (National Endowment for the Arts and such). Conservative politicians hate government sponsership of such things with a fiery passion. They'll be more inclined to interpret news in favor of politicians they think of as liberal (these will be the sort of people who think that Clinton was liberal), but they usually don't know much more than the average well educated person about the actual issues.

Science and engineering profs tend not to worry much about politics except by osmosis from their out-of-discipline colleagues. If they do exhibit a liberal tendency it's usually just because of the 3 to 1 majority liberals hold in the other offices.