Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Quote:It's a frat house.

So then keep it behind the closed doors of the frat house. No "PC police" there or anyone censoring what is being said.

Quote:So then keep it behind the closed doors of the frat house. No "PC police" there or anyone censoring what is being said.

 

Why should they have to? Because you think it's tasteless?

Quote:Why should they have to? Because you think it's tasteless?

Apparently I'm not the only one since they were made to remove them. Like you said, there's a time and place for that kind of humor and public display is not the place.

Quote:Apparently I'm not the only one since they were made to remove them. Like you said, there's a time and place for that kind of humor and public display is not the place.

 

Only because of PC Madness, which beings us full circle.

Quote:As has been pointed out already, the right to free speech ends when educational institutions are involved... 

 

I understand what you are saying, and while I disagree with the part in bold, this thread isn't specifically about "free speech", it's about "PC".


 

"Colored people" - This term certainly wasn't always offensive, but it was subverted into an extremely offensive term in the era between Jim Crow Laws passing and the end of the Civil Rights movement. Today, though, it is a racially-charged term, and one best left to history classrooms. History classrooms, imo, are where many of the things we consider taboo today should be freely and openly taught. I'm not saying history professors should go around dropping N-bombs left and right, but I do think that it's important that kids, particularly at the high school and college levels, hear that word and know just how much hate and evil existed to form it. Roughly the same rationale applies to the term "colored people", although calling someone colored is not nearly on the same level as dropping an N-bomb on them.

 

I can somewhat agree with you on this.  However, I do think that it should be taught down to the elementary school level.  As an example, I distinctly remember my 4th grade teacher reading Mark Twain to us (I don't remember if it was Huck Finn or Tom Sawyer).  He (my teacher) was a white guy and read the words written by Mark Twain verbatim, including the "n word".  Was he wrong to do that?  Because of political correctness should books by Mark Twain be banned?


 

...

 

I don't think we disagree on the nature of the words, JIB, but I do think we disagree on the application of free speech in classrooms. To me, there is absolutely nothing wrong with a teacher or professor controlling the language of their classroom, no more so than I'd have a problem with an employer saying that their staff couldn't walk around the hallways of the building dropping F-bombs and slinging racial slurs, no matter how playful or harmless the intent. The First Amendment does not exist within a classroom environment.

 

Once again, this thread is about PC not free speech (though they do intertwine at times).  I disagree with your last comment though.  Where is it ever stated that our Constitutional Rights don't exist in certain places?  This can perhaps be another discussion for another thread.


 

Consider this: a student who is otherwise performing well repeatedly uses racial slurs and homophobic language in a class, which frequently derails discussion. The professor expels that student from the course and fails them, and as a result, that student does not graduate on time and loses out on a tremendous job offer that was contingent upon their graduation after that semester. The student then sues the college for violating their First Amendment rights, resulting in lost wages and damage to their reputation.

 

How far do you think that lawsuit would go? Not being sarcastic here. I have a general feeling of how far it would make it, but I'm not entirely certain on that.

 

Your last thought is a sticky subject.  Again, a discussion of First Amendment rights would make for an interesting thread.  As a counter to your argument, what if a student consistently referred to someone as "male or female"?  Does that "derail discussion" within the class?  Should the student be expelled and/or receive a failing grade?

Quote:Only because of PC Madness, which beings us full circle.

It's no more "PC madness" than the scenario I outlined earlier. You're one who says time and place for everything. The place for vulgar humor is not in the public square just like it's inappropriate in an office environment. You can't have it both ways.

Someone please help me here to make sure I understand. You guys are upset because society has become less tolerant of people being offensive in public. Or are you upset that in some circumstances there are ramifications for said speech?

Quote:You want me to explain to you why your opinion is wrong? That can't be done because it's like your opinion man.

 

I simply don't understand what your argument is. There is not enough offensive speech? People ought not be offended when someone says something to them they find offensive? University heads or professors ought not issue rules for their classrooms?  You are perfectly fine with your boss/coworkers/friends/family calling you a little girl? You are all over the place on this one. 

 

Why yes, I do want you to explain why my opinion is wrong.  My question to you was regarding the parts in red.  Let's take a look at them.

 

Gross generalizations, stereotypes, and derogatory/oppressive language are not acceptable.

 

(This includes “The Man,” “Colored People,” “Illegals/Illegal Aliens,” “Tranny” and so on - or referring to women/men as females or males) .

 

Repeated use of oppressive and hateful language will be handled accordingly 

 

I was asking you to explain how the example that I posted from the class syllabus is right.  Assuming you are male, is it "racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic, classist, or generally offensive language" to refer to you as a male?  Would my referring to you as being a male be "oppressive and hateful language"?

 

My opinion is that forbidding the use of the terms "male" and "female" is ridiculous at best, and forbidding those terms is pretty stupid.  Please explain to me how my opinion is wrong.

Quote:Why yes, I do want you to explain why my opinion is wrong.  My question to you was regarding the parts in red.  Let's take a look at them.

 

Gross generalizations, stereotypes, and derogatory/oppressive language are not acceptable.

 

(This includes “The Man,” “Colored People,” “Illegals/Illegal Aliens,” “Tranny” and so on - or referring to women/men as females or males) .

 

Repeated use of oppressive and hateful language will be handled accordingly 

 

I was asking you to explain how the example that I posted from the class syllabus is right.  Assuming you are male, is it "racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic, classist, or generally offensive language" to refer to you as a male?  Would my referring to you as being a male be "oppressive and hateful language"?

 

My opinion is that forbidding the use of the terms "male" and "female" is ridiculous at best, and forbidding those terms is pretty stupid.  Please explain to me how my opinion is wrong.

Interesting difference in how we view things because I immediately interpreted the above as calling men women and women men in a derogatory way and based on the rest of the parts I think that's how it was intended so yeah I think it's perfectly fine to not allow that in a classroom and I think your opinion is wrong. 

Quote:Someone please help me here to make sure I understand. You guys are upset because society has become less tolerant of people being offensive in public. Or are you upset that in some circumstances there are ramifications for said speech?

 

Whenever people say "Politically Correct"  I mentally change it to "treating people with respect"

Quote:Whenever people say "Politically Correct"  I mentally change it to "treating people with respect"

You are letting the terrorists win. Or the commies. I'm not sure. 

Quote:Interesting difference in how we view things because I immediately interpreted the above as calling men women and women men in a derogatory way and based on the rest of the parts I think that's how it was intended so yeah I think it's perfectly fine to not allow that in a classroom and I think your opinion is wrong. 

 

There's not much "interpreting" involved.  Unless thinking has changed over the years, from the syllabus that I linked to earlier, you can't refer to women as females and you can't refer to men as males.  It's not the way that you "interpreted" it, and now you are giving your opinion on how you "think that it was intended".

Quote:It's no more "PC madness" than the scenario I outlined earlier. You're one who says time and place for everything. The place for vulgar humor is not in the public square just like it's inappropriate in an office environment. You can't have it both ways.

[BLEEP].

Quote:[BAD WORD REMOVED].

Oh look the "PC police" just censored you! Oh noes!!!

Quote:Someone please help me here to make sure I understand. You guys are upset because society has become less tolerant of people being offensive in public. Or are you upset that in some circumstances there are ramifications for said speech?

I'm of the mind that we're replacing religious restrictions with social ones creating new forms of intolerance, frequently in the name of tolerance.

Quote:Oh look the "PC police" just censored you! Oh noes!!!

Private site, I'm aware of the filter.

Quote:You are letting the terrorists win. Or the commies. I'm not sure. 

Commie terrorists?

Quote:Commie terrorists?

A lot of people in, say, Romania would think they were.

Quote:There's not much "interpreting" involved.  Unless thinking has changed over the years, from the syllabus that I linked to earlier, you can't refer to women as females and you can't refer to men as males.  It's not the way that you "interpreted" it, and now you are giving your opinion on how you "think that it was intended".

That's how I took and still how I took it. How you take it is up to you. Your outrage is also up to you just as much as the outrage of people being offended over little things. I term you ever changing crusade in this entire thread as your outrage over people's outrage pretty much the same, TBH. 

 

Again regardless of how you take the meaning of that, given the context of the words proceeding the ones you have an issue with in particular, it's not up to you it's up to the teacher. I wonder if I rolled into a church and said slanderous/misguided or just silly things if I would have the right to stay there or not be chastised. I am guessing no, I would not and rightly so. 

Quote:That's how I took and still how I took it. How you take it is up to you. Your outrage is also up to you just as much as the outrage of people being offended over little things. I term you ever changing crusade in this entire thread as your outrage over people's outrage pretty much the same, TBH. 

 

Again regardless of how you take the meaning of that, given the context of the words proceeding the ones you have an issue with in particular, it's not up to you it's up to the teacher. I wonder if I rolled into a church and said slanderous/misguided or just silly things if I would have the right to stay there or not be chastised. I am guessing no, I would not and rightly so. 

 

LOL, my liberal friend, I really like you.

 

I'm not "outraged" by any means, but very much surprised at how PC is taking over in this country.

 

Let me see if I can break it down into simple terms (if it doesn't offend you).

 

Is it appropriate or not to refer to women as females?  Simple yes/no question.

 

Is it appropriate or not to refer to men as males?  Again, it's a simple yes/no question.

 

It's been pointed out and brought up regarding my avatar in this forum.  Spock is all about logic, not emotion.  When words are passed out by a college professor or otherwise, should those words be taken "literally" or should they be subject to "interpretation"?  Where does the line get drawn?  I've linked to the syllabus twice and quoted text from it.  When I asked about a portion of it, which is literal text, the argument that I get from you is how you "interpret" the text and what you "think" the text actually meant to say.

 

I'm a "logic" kind of thinking person.  I deal with computers a lot, and it's all logic.  Either 1 or 0, true or false, etc.

 

When I look at the text, I take it as the literal meaning of what the professor wrote when creating the syllabus.