Fully Baked Left Wing Vegan Cookies

Absolam

Is one even a proper feminist if one is prepared to discuss who has the best poll?

robindch

Absolam wrote: »

Is one even a proper feminist if one is prepared to discuss who has the best poll?

Which feminist as the best poll?

#patriarchalpuns

silverharp

the regressive echo chamber is coming up with some odd solutions ......


http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/01/31/the-reason-why-uconn-decided-to-build-a-dorm-only-for-black-men/

College Announces Plans of a Dorm Only For Black Men — And Students Reacted

In order to help black males graduate, the University of Connecticut is constructing a dorm with a living space only for them.

Called the ScHOLA2RS House, the living community for African American males is set to open in 2016. According to UConn’s website, the ScHOLA2RS House is “a scholastic initiative to groom, nurture, and train the next generation of leaders to address grand challenges in society through the promotion of academic success in undergraduate programs at the University of Connecticut and in competitive graduate programs.”

Dr. Erik Hines, an assistant professor of educational psychology and the future faculty advisor to those in the dorm, said UConn will implement the living space as a “forward-thinking” solution to the fact that black male students graduate at a lower rate.

“It is a space for African American men to one, come together and validate their experiences that they may have on campus. Number two, it’s also a space where they can have conversation and also talk with individuals who come from the same background who share the same experience,” Hines told WTIC-TV.

However, some students have taken issue with the idea.

“I was not pleased, my immediate thought was ‘What?’” Haddiyyah Ali, a fourth-semester Africana studies and political science major told the Daily Campus. “I know there had to be a lot of research that went into it…but just for me coming from a student perspective, my initial thought was what about black women and girls – what about us?”

“Just this idea that 43 black men get retention programming and everyone else is left in limbo,” Ali continued. “I will always contest to the fact that black men on the campus aren’t given enough resources, I will in no way dispel that fact, but my questioning isn’t if they need, but is if they need it in this way.”

David Ouimette, executive director of first year programs and learning communities, told the Daily Campus that UConn received a grant specifically for a living-learning community.

“It’s interesting this hang up on the living part. I don’t really understand the hang up,” he said.

“The white portion of the University of Connecticut is probably not ready for it,” Isaac Bloodworth, a puppetry major, said of the criticisms. “You have people who are going to go against it because they are just racist and they see this as a form of segregation or that we’re getting better things than they are.”

Bloodworth continued to say that while he’s supportive of the community, he’s fearful that the living space could lead to a racial divide on campus.

ScHOLA2RS House will be housed in a more than 200,000-square-foot dorm set to open in 2016, according to WTIC.

After living spaces comes transport spaces right?

Perhaps half of the bus could be designated for a certain minority, a quarter for another, an eighth for another, and then the remainder can sit/stand at the back?

silverharp

Deleted User wrote: »

After living spaces comes transport spaces right?

Perhaps half of the bus could be designated for a certain minority, a quarter for another, an eighth for another, and then the remainder can sit/stand at the back?

Remember the female carriages idea for the tube. Intersectional trains ftw....

Nodin

Deleted User wrote: »

After living spaces comes transport spaces right?

Perhaps half of the bus could be designated for a certain minority, a quarter for another, an eighth for another, and then the remainder can sit/stand at the back?

Fair enough, though I can't imagine the Corkonians taking it well.

The Randy Riverbeast

Nodin wrote: »

Fair enough, though I can't imagine the Corkonians taking it well.

We can do a 3/5s thing so their votes don't count as much.

Links234

Ahem...

http://www.snopes.com/blacks-dorm-uconn/

Nodin

Links234 wrote: »

Ahem...

http://www.snopes.com/blacks-dorm-uconn/

For a second there I was worried all those stories about Cork people had been proven false.

Hardly 'falsified' now is it?

From the link provided -> http://lc.uconn.edu/schola2rshouse/

Who can apply to live in ScHOLA²RS House?
Any male undergraduate student enrolled at the University of Connecticut and eligible for on-campus housing can apply to live in ScHOLA²RS House. Male students who will be freshmen or sophomores in the next academic year and who identify as African American/Black or mixed-race will be prioritized in selection, however any student in any year interested in engaging in topics related to the experience of black males in higher education is invited to apply and will be considered. The community will also engage in and hold events open to the broader university community.

The wording there is very similar to what EQUATE is trying to remove from Irish schools...

Same logic doesn't hold?

silverharp

Links234 wrote: »

Ahem...

http://www.snopes.com/blacks-dorm-uconn/

cool!

Ill have ago with this


This is in Canada but have heard the same thing happened in Maynooth that a Men's discussion group wasn't allowed because there is a feminist society which makes no sense. Everyone is saying men should discuss issues like male suicide more yet when they try to , these misandrists put the boot in.



University Won't Recognize Men's Issues Group after Feminists Say it Makes Women Feel Unsafe | MRCTV

University Won't Recognize Men's Issues Group after Feminists Say it Makes Women Feel Unsafe


Ryerson University has denied the final appeal to recognize a student group dedicated to addressing issues impacting men because feminists said its existence does not promote equality and would make women feel unsafe.

Ryerson’s independent student newspaper the Eyeopener reports the Ryerson Students’ Union (RSU) has “rejected the last appeal” to have the school sanction the Men’s Issues Awareness Society (MIAS).

According to the group's president, Kevin Arriola, the point of the group is to raise “issues that have never been [talked] about or usually disregarded.”

MIAS has received its major opposition from the school’s Feminist Collective.

In November, Ryerson Feminist Collective organizer Arezoo Najibzadeh called the idea of the group “horrifying.”

Najibzadeh said, “I think it’s just horrifying. I don’t see the benefit of having them on campus.”

Alyson Rogers, another Feminist Collective organizer, said the group’s connection with the Canadian Association for Equality has made women claim that “they don’t feel safe on their campus and they don’t want to come to their classes.”

In addition to allegedly making women feel unsafe, MIAS has also been attacked for supposedly not promoting equality—despite the existence of a Feminist Collective group dedicated solely to addressing women’s issues.

PopePalpatine

Thank His Noodly Appendage for AdBlock, here's another article from the university's own paper on the story instead of that Media Research Center (run by L. Brent Bozell III, who also runs the Parents Television Council, a socially-conservative media watchdog) article. I'm disappointed that neither article went into much detail as to the reasoning behind those opposing MIAS's recognition who had safety concerns for women, particularly in the case of sexual assault survivors.

I looked up the Canadian Association for Equality which contacted Ryerson's student union on MIAS's behalf, and had a look at their Wikipedia page. They've garnered controversy in the past association with Warren Farrell, most famous for his book "The Myth of Male Power". There's also allegations of links between CAFE and the extreme MRA group A Voice For Men, as a post on their site from February 2014 advertises a conference by AVFM in Detroit (although CAFE claim in that post that they are unaffiliated with any other group). To his credit, Justin Trottier (CAFE's founder) has tried to distance his organisation from extreme MRAs/redpillers, and it looks like Arriola wanted to too, to the point that he tried to placate the student union's concerns (probably due to those allegations about links with AVFM) by promising not to host CAFE members on-campus.

silverharp

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Thank His Noodly Appendage for AdBlock, here's another article from the university's own paper on the story instead of that Media Research Center (run by L. Brent Bozell III, who also runs the Parents Television Council, a socially-conservative media watchdog) article. I'm disappointed that neither article went into much detail as to the reasoning behind those opposing MIAS's recognition who had safety concerns for women, particularly in the case of sexual assault survivors.

I looked up the Canadian Association for Equality which contacted Ryerson's student union on MIAS's behalf, and had a look at their Wikipedia page. They've garnered controversy in the past association with Warren Farrell, most famous for his book "The Myth of Male Power". There's also allegations of links between CAFE and the extreme MRA group A Voice For Men, as a post on their site from February 2014 advertises a conference by AVFM in Detroit (although CAFE claim in that post that they are unaffiliated with any other group). To his credit, Justin Trottier (CAFE's founder) has tried to distance his organisation from extreme MRAs/redpillers, and it looks like Arriola wanted to too, to the point that he tried to placate the student union's concerns (probably due to those allegations about links with AVFM) by promising not to host CAFE members on-campus.

thats great and all but so what? are they organisaing a rape army or something illegal? has it got to the stage where everyone has to agree with any views expressed on a campus? personally I find communist views extremist but I could care less if they have a society in a college.

PopePalpatine

Of course they're not organising a "rapist army", I just wondered if there was any nuances to the story that a conservative group like the Media Research Council would ignore, so I went to find another source.

jackofalltrades

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I'm disappointed that neither article went into much detail as to the reasoning behind those opposing MIAS's recognition who had safety concerns for women, particularly in the case of sexual assault survivors.

There's a bit more info here.
http://theeyeopener.com/2015/11/community-reacts-to-mens-issue-group-at-ryerson/

The Feminist collective didn't want a Men's Rights group on their campus.
It seems like the old saying "Misery loves company, but hates competition" rings true in this case.
This isn't the first campus this has happened on and it probably won't be the last either.
They should really take the power for making these sort of decisions away from Student Unions.

silverharp

jackofalltrades wrote: »

There's a bit more info here.
http://theeyeopener.com/2015/11/community-reacts-to-mens-issue-group-at-ryerson/

The Feminist collective didn't want a Men's Rights group on their campus.
It seems like the old saying "Misery loves company, but hates competition" rings true in this case.
This isn't the first campus this has happened on and it probably won't be the last either.
They should really take the power for making these sort of decisions away from Student Unions.

I just see this as a freedom of speech and that in college students should be able to and have to defend their ideas, short of something like Scientology or promoting something verging on criminal activity let everyone have their little groups. Feminists have been denying men's groups on various campuses, there was the one in England last year where a student tried to setup one off the back of a suicide of a friend and there is a post below saying the same about Maynooth so it seems to be a pattern.


http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=97288625&postcount=3529

looksee

A reasonable approach then should be for a GenEqual group, which anyone could join, looking for equality of gender. I do not (I am female) see any justification for an all female feminist group - they would just be talking to themselves.

JPNelsforearm

lol at western feminism, women in Pakistan get acid thrown in their face, western women have men politely disagree with them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s86uGGkkycg

Is that real life?

orubiru

Hm. Do you guys think there will be a point where guys like Milo (from the video above) are just banned using from Twitter, Youtube etc?

The guy obviously does his very best to provoke his "opponents", with quite spectacular results it seems. I wouldn't be surprised to find that they are working "behind the scenes" to have him shut down.

I'm seeing guys like Thunderfoot, Amazing Atheist, Sargon of Akkad being mentioned, or having their videos shared, in the Atheism forum quite often. My opinion is that they are just amateur guys giving their opinions online. It's not professionally produced content and, I guess since they don't have producers or editors, they can become pretty annoying, and tiresome, pretty quickly. They can be listened to or ignored as you see fit. I don't feel like they have much influence.

Despite the fact that their opinions are sometimes rather reasonable, they are thought of as these "anti feminist" pantomime villains.

Do you reckon we will ever reach a stage where they are just going to be banned from Youtube outright? Would that be a good or bad thing?

robindch

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

lol at western feminism, women in Pakistan get acid thrown in their face, western women have men politely disagree with them.

Not all people "politely disagree" with hard-line feminists. There are a number of unpleasant websites which appeared in the wake of Elevatorgate and which are dedicated to insulting hard-line feminists and what they stand for (or claim to stand for). Occasionally in quite a gross fashion - Slyme Pit is one - there are others:

http://slymepit.com/phpbb/

I've no idea who these posters are, or whether there's sock puppetry going on, whether hard-line feminists might be posting there, or anything else. All one can say for certain is that somebody's doing it and that it didn't really happen before hard-line feminism began to intrude into the realms of atheism and skepticism.

silverharp

I hadn't heard of those kind of sites. Its the downside though if YouTube go all sjw, they will hollow out the middle and these sites will take off. Risky strategy.

orubiru

robindch wrote: »

Not all people "politely disagree" with hard-line feminists. There are a number of unpleasant websites which appeared in the wake of Elevatorgate and which are dedicated to insulting hard-line feminists and what they stand for (or claim to stand for). Occasionally in quite a gross fashion - Slyme Pit is one - there are others:

http://slymepit.com/phpbb/

I've no idea who these posters are, or whether there's sock puppetry going on, whether hard-line feminists might be posting there, or anything else. All one can say for certain is that somebody's doing it and that it didn't really happen before hard-line feminism began to intrude into the realms of atheism and skepticism.

I was reading up on "Elevatorgate" before. It's honestly such a non-event and I can't believe it all kicked off the way it did.

Seems to me like a lot of people already harbored a strong dislike for Rebecca Watson and this was their excuse to go all out with attacking her.

Sure, herself and PZ don't exactly come across as very likeable people but the reaction was WAY over the top.

There really aren't that many prominent women speaking out as Atheists so I can see where there is room for a bit of Feminism there.

Unfortunately it looks like the people they chose to push for that were too aggressive and too confrontational. It comes across as "hard line feminism" when it should have just been a case of introducing female voices with interesting things to say without any big fanfare. Instead they basically said that Atheism is not welcoming to women and everyone should stop being massive sexual harassers at conventions and also check their privilege. Jeez, you have PZ Myers accusing guys like Michael Nugent of providing a haven for rapists!

I wouldn't fancy my chances when trying to lecture a group of skeptics about their privilege or about how Atheism is dominated by "old white men". Definitely not when some of the most vocal Atheists out there can be rather egotistical at times.

It also doesn't help that they may as well have made an official announcement saying "We Feed Trolls".

So now you've got two sides who basically hate each other and are too stubborn to even attempt some kind of reconciliation.

JPNelsforearm

Just googled elevatorghazi(-gate is so passé ;-)), seems like a load of ****e, lad asks some chick up to his room for "coffee", chick makes a big whine out of it, cop on. She seems like a bit of a nutter, reminds me of this case.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/12146351/No-one-is-safe-from-prosecutors-terrifying-incompetence-on-sex-crimes.html

Obviously not everyone "politely" disagrees with feminists, Milo, however, does, and they still lose their ****, he should convert to Islam and he'd get a pass.

JPNelsforearm

silverharp wrote: »

I hadn't heard of those kind of sites. Its the downside though if YouTube go all sjw, they will hollow out the middle and these sites will take off. Risky strategy.

Its not just youtube, its twitter, facebook etc. Once you start giving in to anti free speech troglodytes its game over.

I dont know if those sites would take off, I'd never heard of them, they seem very niche

orubiru

orubiru wrote: »

.....
Do you reckon we will ever reach a stage where they are just going to be banned from Youtube outright? Would that be a good or bad thing?

What?

Of course it would be a bad thing!

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=98594693&postcount=5

...
Debate > Censorship

Censorship allows a myth / legend to pervade, but destroying someone's arguments can stop them in their tracks.

If you feel like his arguments are nonsense, destroy them. Not silence him.

orubiru

Deleted User wrote: »

What?

Of course it would be a bad thing!

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=98594693&postcount=5

If you feel like his arguments are nonsense, destroy them. Not silence him.

Wow! The introduction video for the BNP guy? Chilling.

Yeah, you need to expose people like that in these kind of debates.

Someone like that finds themselves in power and we are REALLY screwed.

That's the thing with the likes of Milo, really. His opponents play into his hands by making themselves look like crazy, potentially dangerous, people.

Jack Straw and the host there just make it look so easy.

orubiru

orubiru wrote: »

Wow! The introduction video for the BNP guy? Chilling.

Yeah, you need to expose people like that in these kind of debates.

Someone like that finds themselves in power and we are REALLY screwed.

That's the thing with the likes of Milo, really. His opponents play into his hands by making themselves look like crazy, potentially dangerous, people.

Jack Straw and the host there just make it look so easy.

Give people a platform, debate their arguments, show the flaws in their logic. The BBC Question Time clip is a great example of this.

That's how to 'defeat' people who's views you disagree with, certainly not censoring them.

The 'thing' with Milo is that he is happy to speak, he is happy to discuss and debate, and people who go out of their way to avoid that and shut that down must be aware that it is extremely suspicious that they wont engage.

Consider a scenario where one side is objectively and absolutely correct about something, and the opposition are totally and absolutely wrong.

If that former side ('the correct') refuse analysis, criticism and debate, and go out of their way to actively shut down the opposition's (totally incorrect) platform, they cast doubt in the minds of the 'less informed' as to the veracity of their claims.

If you believe something to be nonsense, take a spotlight and shine it on the nonsense, show the cracks in the logic, show the weakness that the arguments are based on.

Don't, absolutely don't, attempt to simply 'win' by silencing the other.

robindch

orubiru wrote: »

I was reading up on "Elevatorgate" before. It's honestly such a non-event and I can't believe it all kicked off the way it did.

The forum ran a long-running thread on the topic. And your's truly was there on the evening concerned - though I was safely in (my own) bed by around two.

orubiru wrote: »

Seems to me like a lot of people already harbored a strong dislike for Rebecca Watson and this was their excuse to go all out with attacking her.

There may have been, but the full fracas was more complicated than that and played out in multiple channels, in multiple ways, generally discrediting most of the main players.

orubiru wrote: »

Unfortunately it looks like the people they chose to push for that were too aggressive and too confrontational.

I don't believe that anybody "chose" a strategy in advance - it just happened that some people took up this issue in a way that was never going to produce a positive outcome, then blamed everybody else when it crashed and burned. The thread above has many, and perhaps most, of the main details and some of the experiences of current and former A+A posters who were involved in it one way or another.

orubiru wrote: »

So now you've got two sides who basically hate each other and are too stubborn to even attempt some kind of reconciliation.

I'd characterize it more as a mainstream who are pretty much as before, though markedly less enthusiastic as self-identifying as "feminist", and a few individuals who do self-identify as "feminist" on the fringe - PZ, RW, Ophelia Benson and some more - who, by their actions, have excluded themselves from polite debate.

I'm not sure if Elevatorgate inspired the recent rise of what you could call "victim-culture" on campuses, or whether the inspiration came in the other direction, or from some common ancestor, but the two arose at around the same time and a linkage seems plausible.

silverharp

robindch wrote: »

I'm not sure if Elevatorgate inspired the recent rise of what you could call "victim-culture" on campuses, or whether the inspiration came in the other direction, or from some common ancestor, but the two arose at around the same time and a linkage seems plausible.

Occupy wallstreet fell apart fairly quickly around the same time because it got infected with identity politics. Technology I'd say was the game changer , smart phones, modern social media all kicked off around the same time.