Fully Baked Left Wing Vegan Cookies

silverharp

god forbid lecturers are critical of the cream of the crop :rolleyes:


http://www.universitytimes.ie/2016/05/after-lecturer-mocks-exam-answers-on-facebook-german-department-apologises/

After Lecturer Mocks Exam Answers on Facebook, German Department Apologises


Trinity’s Department of Germanic Studies has apologised after Dr Clemens Ruthner, an Assistant Professor in the department, mocked students’ exam answers in Facebook posts.

In the Facebook posts, Ruthner mocked a number of the answers second-year Germanic students gave in the German cultural history exam, listing and quoting the “shining answer [sic]” the students gave. Ruthner, who was nominated for the Provost’s Teaching Award in 2011, directly referred to the exam and year of students that he was correcting.

In another Facebook post, Ruthner listed more of the “most creative answers” given in the exam.

Responding to a request for comment from The University Times, Ruthner said by email that his “privacy setting” for his Facebook posts was “accidentally in the ‘public’ position”. “Unfortunately, I found out much too late… However, the post was never meant for public sharing”, he said.

He went on: “I only meant to share some exam answers with some friends who are in the teaching profession as well, out of a certain frustration while grading exams, asking for their opinion: I am a devoted teacher and I found it sad that after a term of intensive lecturing, I would still encounter problems with rather basic knowledge questions.”

Hoping for “productive feedback” from his friends, he said that his posts were “by no means” meant to “hurt anybody’s feelings or to ‘mock’ students”. Having said that, he said, “I can only offer my sincere apologies if this came across in the wrong way”.

The department is undertaking an investigation into the Facebook posts, and told students in an email that “steps have been taken to ensure the integrity of the examination process”.

In the email, sent to all students, the Head of the Department of Germanic Studies, Dr Caitríona Leahy, described the comments as “inappropriate”. She said: “On behalf of the Department I wish to condemn in the strongest possible terms what has occurred and apologise unreservedly for the breach of trust.”

These Facebook posts included students’ answers to questions on who was Wilhelm Tell, a question on Sigmund Freud, and another on the nature of a coming-of-age novels, known as Bildungsroman.

Leahy assured students that the department is “taking matters very seriously”.

Ruthner must fall

PopePalpatine

What does this have to do with the far-left? I don't see any quotes from "hysterical leftists" that this thread is used to mock.

silverharp

PopePalpatine wrote: »

What does this have to do with the far-left? I don't see any quotes from "hysterical leftists" that this thread is used to mock.

I think Leahy's reaction is a bit over the top , the lecturer made a mistake, I don't think it calls for an "investigation". the general air of hair trigger offense seems to be at play here, its the equivalent of hitting cc all on an email, that would get you a bit of ribbing at the water cooler where I work.

Trent Houseboat

PopePalpatine wrote:

What does this have to do with the far-left? I don't see any quotes from "hysterical leftists" that this thread is used to mock.

It's as bad as After Hours in here. Everything is a leftist conspiracy.
Someone on the Luas Drivers thread blamed a(n unfair in my opinion) ban of a troll on social justice warriors.

I stubbed my toe, it's political correctness gone mad.

magicbastarder

Deleted User wrote: »

Ruthner must fall

yep, he's a total idiot quoting exam answers on facebook. any student whose answers were shared like that would be right to question his capabilities.

JPNelsforearm

Trent Houseboat wrote: »

It's as bad as After Hours in here. Everything is a leftist conspiracy.
Someone on the Luas Drivers thread blamed a(n unfair in my opinion) ban of a troll on social justice warriors.

I stubbed my toe, it's political correctness gone mad.

Well, who else are the biggest proponents of speech restrictions and moderation online? Aside from obvious restrictions such as gore and porn etc, what is liable to get one thrown off an internet platform, be it boards, twitter, facebook, youtube etc?

Lurkio

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Well, who else are the biggest proponents of speech restrictions and moderation online? Aside from obvious restrictions such as gore and porn etc, what is liable to get one thrown off an internet platform, be it boards, twitter, facebook, youtube etc?

Racism?

Trent Houseboat

JPNelsforearm wrote:

Well, who else are the biggest proponents of speech restrictions and moderation online? Aside from obvious restrictions such as gore and porn etc, what is liable to get one thrown off an internet platform, be it boards, twitter, facebook, youtube etc?

Why did you quote me? I posted about SJWs being the new reds under the bed.

Unless you think that the person in the Luas thread was booted for social justice reasons and if so I'd like to know what they are.

JPNelsforearm

Lurkio wrote: »

Racism?

You dont even have to go that far unfortunately, posting inconvenient facts or even jokes, will do.

Lurkio

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

You dont even have to go that far unfortunately, posting inconvenient facts or even jokes, will do.

....you mean thinly disguised racism then.

Links234

Trent Houseboat wrote: »

I stubbed my toe, it's political correctness gone mad.

I’ve Been Censored, And It’s Getting Dark: How Cultural Marxism Locked Me Out Of My Car

Honestly, this thread has gone beyond ridiculous, it was started by a religious kook as a response to the thread about right-wing conservative christians who have a dangerous mix of politics and religion, you know, a thread that actually had something to do with atheism and religion, descended into a far-right link-dump and /pol/ meme spamfest by posters who are totally not racist at all and not pushing an agenda whatsoever, and managed to get even worse from there because over the last few pages it's turned into a complete bitching match that nobody engaging in is coming out smelling like roses, it's become more circular than a circle. I've been hesitant to even open this thread while browsing this place, because every time I do it's made my braincells ache, and quite frankly it's made me miss posters like JimiTime, because at least he didn't regurgitate junk from Koch funded think-tanks ad nauseam. I'm out...

You've made me miss JimiTime for crying out loud!

JPNelsforearm

Trent Houseboat wrote: »

Why did you quote me? I posted about SJWs being the new reds under the bed.

Unless you think that the person in the Luas thread was booted for social justice reasons and if so I'd like to know what they are.

What were they booted for, if not political correctness, someone getting offended at a post. Unless you are posting pure spam/gore/porn massively derailing a thread, the only reason you are getting banned is due to offense culture.

JPNelsforearm

Back to the purpose of the thread, Salon continues its quest to normalise paedophilia.

https://www.facebook.com/salon/videos/vb.120680396518/10153674192981519/?type=2&theater

The Randy Riverbeast

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Well, who else are the biggest proponents of speech restrictions and moderation online? Aside from obvious restrictions such as gore and porn etc, what is liable to get one thrown off an internet platform, be it boards, twitter, facebook, youtube etc?

It depends where you are. In some places its saying something against Trump, in others saying something like you dont have a problem with homosexuality.

Neither of which would fall under the SJW banner, although they arent really any different.

jackofalltrades

I know it's an older topic but just the thread back on track.

From the Spectator.
Also covered here.

Oxford’s Rhodes Must Fall co-founder hits back over waitress altercation: ‘even if she’s working class, she is linked to whiteness’.

Last month Oxford’s Rhodes Must Fall co-founder Ntokozo Qwabe made the news after he revelled in making a waitress shed ‘white tears‘ at a restaurant in Cape Town.
The incident occurred after his friend wrote a note to the waitress explaining they would only tip her when she ‘returned the land’.

Here's some of what the racist had to say in his defence.
I love the way he's bound by the rules of Identity politics and has to minimise the fact that she's working class.

‘The act was not directed at Ashleigh, the waitress.
Quite frankly, her feelings are irrelevant to us.
If you think people demanding a just society in South Africa is a borderline offence then you are clearly out of touch.
Her working class status isn’t as material as it is made out to be.
Even if she’s working class, she is linked to whiteness. By virtue of her skin colour, she is privileged.
The aftermath has revealed to us that there’s no such thing as “this is an oppressed white person”.
There will be lit things that will happen. And it will be scary to whiteness.’

He then went into full identity politics mode and brought up the patriarchy.

These innocent white girl tears re-entrenches patriarchy because white women’s tears make white men want to jump in and save white women from all these aggressive black people.’

Trent Houseboat

JPNelsforearm wrote:

What were they booted for, if not political correctness, someone getting offended at a post. Unless you are posting pure spam/gore/porn massively derailing a thread, the only reason you are getting banned is due to offense culture.

They were banned for trolling/wumming. It's not as though they offended some low energy cuck with their non-PC alpha opinions.
I already said that I didn't think it was a fair ban, I thought it was a pretty obvious and entertaining wind up. But you're accepting the conspiracy theory that it must have been the femenazis with no knowledge of the events.
You're tilting at windmills.

silverharp

jackofalltrades wrote: »

I know it's an older topic but just the thread back on track.

From the Spectator.
Also covered here.


Here's some of what the racist had to say in his defence.
I love the way he's bound by the rules of Identity politics and has to minimise the fact that she's working class.


He then went into full identity politics mode and brought up the patriarchy.

All this nonsense is doing black people no favors whatsoever , whatever happened to the I have a dream speech and the content of one's character?

Efforts to legitimise racism are beyond bizarre to me.

JPNelsforearm

silverharp wrote: »

All this nonsense is doing black people no favors whatsoever , whatever happened to the I have a dream speech and the content of one's character?

I have friends in SA and its basically verging on penal laws in terms of cultural destruction, place names and statues all changed after 95, now they are removing Afrikaans as a medium of education, as part of this whole "anti racism/de-colonisation" process.

JPNelsforearm

Trent Houseboat wrote: »

They were banned for trolling/wumming. It's not as though they offended some low energy cuck with their non-PC alpha opinions.
I already said that I didn't think it was a fair ban, I thought it was a pretty obvious and entertaining wind up. But you're accepting the conspiracy theory that it must have been the femenazis with no knowledge of the events.
You're tilting at windmills.

I didnt say feminazis, I dont know what happened, I just surmised that it was due to offence, and if you are getting offended on the internet........ You say yourself its not a fair ban, someone has banned them as they are offended, is that not indicative of a low energy leftist cuck.

Trent Houseboat

I said it wasn't fair, it doesn't mean that I this it's the work of the regressive left to undermine free speech. That's like adding 2+2 and getting "coconut" as your answer, and it seems to be what you've done.

Lurkio

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

I have friends in SA and its basically verging on penal laws in terms of cultural destruction, place names and statues all changed after 95, now they are removing Afrikaans as a medium of education, as part of this whole "anti racism/de-colonisation" process.

I can well imagine that you both share a number of views in common despite the distance between you.

JPNelsforearm

Fair enough, but 99% of the time on a major internet platform( boards, YT, facebook, Twitter, reddit etc) who is the one doing the banning? And what are the reasons? When you take all moderation that amounts to spam filtration out of the equation, you are left in the realm of banning because someones feelings got hurt, which is the preserve of the sjw/left wing crowd on all the platforms I mentioned. We aren't posting about atheism or satanism on an exclusive site like "christian mingle" here, these sites are ostensibly set up as platforms for some level of free speech.

Lurkio

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

I didnt say feminazis, I dont know what happened, I just surmised that it was due to offence, and if you are getting offended on the internet........ You say yourself its not a fair ban, someone has banned them as they are offended, is that not indicative of a low energy leftist cuck.

Dear o dear o dear.

Lurkio

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Fair enough, but 99% of the time on a major internet platform( boards, YT, facebook, Twitter, reddit etc) who is the one doing the banning? And what are the reasons? When you take all moderation that amounts to spam filtration out of the equation, you are left in the realm of banning because someones feelings got hurt, which is the preserve of the sjw/left wing crowd on all the platforms I mentioned. We aren't posting about atheism or satanism on an exclusive site like "christian mingle" here, these sites are ostensibly set up as platforms for some level of free speech.

If you're a racist, people don't want you around. It really isn't hard to work out.

JPNelsforearm

Lurkio wrote: »

I can well imagine that you both share a number of views in common despite the distance between you.

Because destruction of cultural heritage and attempted eradication of an indigenous language is to be selectively applauded depending on the victims race..

Trent Houseboat

Lurkio wrote:

Dear o dear o dear.

Talk about quote mining. He was quoting me, and I was joking.

JPNelsforearm

Lurkio wrote: »

If you're a racist, people don't want you around. It really isn't hard to work out.

What definition of racism? Yours? Where biological facts are deemed racist and islamophobic? This is exactly the problem, you have people making emotion based decisions and censoring or advocating censorship of topics they cannot handle because it flies in the face of their particular religion/set of beliefs.

Any genuine racists are not posting on mainstream platforms, and if they are, banning them is no solution(unless they are literally spamming about genocide 24/7). You dont hear any clamour for a ban on communists? So why a ban on an equally reprehensible(millions of dead) and unscientific ideology, that advocates a form of slavery/servitude to a particular form of god.

But again, you are deliberately directing it away from the main point, that is, uncomfortable topics/posters are being banned. Use racism as an example, sure, but its not about racism in isolation, its any post/topic that flies in the face of leftist/pc ideology is under scrutiny and liable to be banned under spurious pretenses, as opposed to the objector being told to harden the **** up.

Lurkio

silverharp wrote: »

All this nonsense is doing black people no favors whatsoever , whatever happened to the I have a dream speech and the content of one's character?

....that was America....