Fully Baked Left Wing Vegan Cookies

Nodin

jank wrote: »

Even when we had the example of a Labour minster espousing the virtues and 'good' of a nanny state?

Even so. I seem to remember the Conservative passed Criminal Justice act back in the mid 90's was nannying with added cane. Not that labour are any slouches, but it's hardly the preserve of the "left" (though I have my doubts as to how left labour are).

Karl Stein

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

KomradeBishop wrote: »

It's funny really, that right-wing posters don't understand that all money is conjured out of thin air - since we're using a fiat currency; they come out with this 'magic money tree' nonsense, as if the idea of money being created from nothing is obviously ridiculous, when that's exactly how it's been done for the best part of a century.

Hilarious that a person who self-identifies as a 'financier' has to be schooled by someone who he has criticised as having 'whacky monetary theories'.

I'm trying to figure out if you're actually blissfully unaware that fiat money is conjured out of thin air and is intrinsically worthless or whether you're purposefully using terms like 'magic money tree' in a failed attempt to stigmatise dissenting economic views.

The Black Oil

This came up in my podcast feed. I've not listened to it yet, but thought it may be of interest to the OP.

Do Liberals Stifle Intellectual Diversity On The College Campus?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlF2gstvLAY

jank

Good video. Worth a watch. Some scary examples there of liberal students and administrators cutting off the right to an individuals free speech. The motion was easily carried as well.

K4t

jank wrote: »

Good video. Worth a watch. Some scary examples there of liberal students and administrators cutting off the right to an individuals free speech. The motion was easily carried as well.

Both liberals and conservatives are culpable in cutting off the right to an individuals free speech. The difference? Liberals usually attempt to do it out of what they think are good intentions, to protect minorities and so on, however misguided they may be.

Turtwig

K4t wrote: »

Both liberals and conservatives are culpable in cutting off the right to an individuals free speech. The difference? Liberals usually attempt to do it out of what they think are good intentions, to protect minorities and so on, however misguided they may be.

You could just as easily argue conservatives do it with good intentions too. Most people have good intentions the goods they deliver just happen be evil and they don't know it.

K4t

Turtwig wrote: »

You could just as easily argue conservatives do it with good intentions too. Most people have good intentions the goods they deliver just happen be evil and they don't know it.

Of course. My post wasn't meant as liberals good conservatives bad! but more in relation to the liberal apologist behaviour we see in the media and from governments regarding self censorship. I'd be considered as very conservative in my views on the right to free speech, as I believe in as little restrictions and limits on it as possible.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

BlaasForRafa

Turtwig wrote: »

You could just as easily argue conservatives do it with good intentions too. Most people have good intentions the goods they deliver just happen be evil and they don't know it.

Eh, I think right-wingers are a bit more open about expressing their self-interest, left-wingers are more prone to hide their self-interest behind a "for the good of society" spiel.

robindch

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Fixed your post there by adding the (important) missing condition.

Not sure how many people who self-describe as liberals will do this though. Personally, I know of one -- there certainly are others.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

KomradeBishop

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Ya not surprising such an organization targets 'Liberals', given it's association with various right-wing think tanks, and containing board members like claims-to-be-feminist anti-feminist Christina Hoff Sommers (much loved among the "Feminists are Evil" portion of the Mens Rights movement - which is how I discovered that organization before, debunking MRA arguments), herself a member of various right wing think tanks (including those previously known for supporting denial of global warming, like the AEI).

The idea that it's anything other than one of many various right-wing front groups, is not very convincing - and the idea that it exists to promote anything other than faux-'Intellectual Diversity' in universities, is also not very convincing.

Least convincing of all, being the idea that Libertarian's - of the school of thought, that private businesses (i.e. private colleges) should have the 'freedom' to discriminate against who they do business with (i.e. students) - who support/fund such an organization, do it for ideologically pure motives.

The Black Oil

I listened to the podcast version. It was only 50 minutes. There were opening statements, 2 rounds (iirc), Q&A, then conclusions. I don't know if I missed anything - I'll check the video later in the week.

Also, trigger warnings, as mentioned in the debate, is this mostly an American college thing? And what's the intention, like a TV watershed? Surely if you're going to hear about rape law it's going to be somewhat difficult in some respects. I did a module in biology in college many years ago. When we got to evolution the lecturer said he didn't have an issue if this was at odds with the Christian beliefs of anyone in the class.

ETA - 'speech codes' sound a bit disconcerting. Once you've anti-bullying policies and other governance structures in place, that should be enough.

PopePalpatine

From what I understand of them, "trigger warnings" are, as the name suggests, a warning that an upcoming topic may be distressing to some people. I've usually seen it used in relation to rape and sexual assault.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

The Black Oil

Hmm, yeah. I had heard around rape and mental health topics in terms of online articles. Didn't realise they were slipping into education as well. Certainly none about the place when I was in secondary school. I'd favour more mental health literacy in schools, not story content panic stations.

robindch

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I'll certainly grant that - the meaning which attaches to the word in the US certainly does appear to mean the worst kind of benighted, innovation-stomping, communist thought-police.

To distinguish it from the meaning used by the rest of the English-speaking world, though, I usually spell the US variant as "librul" and you'll just have to imagine that spoken with a Texas twang.

Turtwig

I have to say I think Trigger Warnings are a good idea.

"Warning the books in this section may depict images of the Prophet"

"Warning this class may assess literary works that depict scenes of rape and abuse".

One cannot overestimate how much impact similar descriptions of a trauma can have on an individual that experienced Trauma.

Warn people of potential content but don't under any means remove or alter that content. That's my two cents anyway.

Shrap

Thanks Turtwig. Was thinking of saying that, but in more words and quite badly, so I refrained (for once )

jank

robindch wrote: »

Fixed your post there by adding the (important) missing condition.

Not sure how many people who self-describe as liberals will do this though. Personally, I know of one -- there certainly are others.

If you watch the video it clearly gives the terms of reference regarding the scope of what a 'liberal' is in this context.

jank

Regarding trigger warnings. It was interesting in the debate that the side who were against the motion were very split on the issue. One was a great advocate of it, the other thought it was a 'ridiculous perversion..'
Go to 1:02 of the video to see that part of the discussion.

Trigger warnings are of course well intention-ed (as are many progressive ideas) but the problem stems when they become expected by administrators and students and therefore become some what mandatory which then culminates an atmosphere of wariness and fear in case one upsets or offends someone in a class or on campus. Should classic works of literature like Huck Finn be censored as to not offend people? Then of course one has to ask where does it end and what exactly is a trigger?

Adults going to University should know the basic fact that life does not come with a trigger warning. I suppose it all ties into the OP and the Spectator article on UK colleges exhibiting very American polices when it comes to offense and wrapping would be adults in cotton wool.

Turtwig

Where does it is end is just slippery slope nonsense. It ends where we choose to let it end.

Adults are in many ways no different from children. This nonsense about being mentally tough is rather depressing. Mental toughness isn't always something you learn from exposure. If anything, exposure knocks you down a peg and few recover from it. But we are a progressive society and that few is no longer enough. It's a pathetic thing to describe this as molly coddling of adults. Adults are in many ways just as soft as children. The saddest thing is that many people insist on denying this.

No literary work should ever be censored but if those works contain stuff that may offend some party or other a printed warning doesn't seem like going overboard. Heck, it's not that hard PEGI already show how easily and unobtrusively such a thing can work. The logical thing in my eyes is to apply similar ratings and content information on works of literature. Last thing anyone wants is an 8 year old reading about Esther Greenwood's attempts at suicide. Or a rape victim reading in graphic detail the rape and beating of a slave that so eerily reminds them of their own experience.

jank

Turtwig wrote: »

Adults are in many ways no different from children. This nonsense about being mentally tough is rather depressing. Mental toughness isn't always something you learn from exposure. If anything, exposure knocks you down a peg and few recover from it. But we are a progressive society and that few is no longer enough. It's a pathetic thing to describe this as molly coddling of adults. Adults are in many ways just as soft as children. The saddest thing is that many people insist on denying this.

Eh what? Adults are in many ways different to children. The laws see this as self evident. That is why the age of sexual consent is 16 not 6. That is why the voting age is 18 not 8. That is why one is allowed to buy alcohol at 18 not 8... and so on...

We are talking about adults in the context of a University setting, a setting where the sharing of ideas, the free expression of thoughts and rigorous debate is encouraged. Nobody is talking about mental toughness that one has to be 'tough' to engage in a debate but this is what is actually inferred with trigger warnings. As the person (who was against the motion by the way) in the video above explained about free speech, put on your big boy shoes and pants and go out and fight for that right...

Turtwig wrote: »

No literary work should ever be censored but if those works contain stuff that may offend some party or other a printed warning doesn't seem like going overboard. Heck, it's not that hard PEGI already show how easily and unobtrusively such a thing can work. The logical thing in my eyes is to apply similar ratings and content information on works of literature. Last thing anyone wants is an 8 year old reading about Esther Greenwood's attempts at suicide. Or a rape victim reading in graphic detail the rape and beating of a slave that so eerily reminds them of their own experience.

The key phrase there is 'may offend'. You laughed off the slippery slope argument yet the 'may offend' phrase could literally mean anything could be offensive. A evangelical Christian may find the idea of an Atheist offensive, should that incur a trigger warning before discussing a book like Animal Farm or any piece of literature with an atheist character?

If one is going to call for trigger warnings on books (the idea of walking into a book shop and having those cert stickers on them is pretty depressing), then one also has to call for Trigger warnings over pretty much every published media material online, on TV, radio and in print. May as well just lock yourself in your bedroom in case the headline of the day pushes one over the edge. Are humans really that weak in your view?

Turtwig

jank wrote: »

Eh what? Adults are in many ways different to children

What part of this statement disagrees with anything I said.

I pointed out they were more similar than people think. You just stated the law which may or may not be wrong and then pointed out differences between adults and children. Which of course would imply I stated adults were identical children. I didn't.

Let's try it again :
In many ways a swan is not that different to a goose. Are you now going to state how a goose is not a swan? Because that's pretty much what you did.

Turtwig

jank wrote: »

The key phrase there is 'may offend'. You laughed off the slippery slope argument yet the 'may offend' phrase could literally mean anything could be offensive.

Nit pick a word is great but it's pretty clear I meant rigidly define each step on the slope. That's something we can do quite easily. Now, maybe a stupid law will be enforced but that's not to say a sensible law cannot be enforced. Which is they key thing. You could implement trigger warnings on a very finite spectrum. It's not that hard PEGI does it excellently.




Btw, I don't think any rule or law should be enforced. Such warnings should just serve as a courtesy. I don't see anything wrong with extending such courtesy. To me it seems a fair resolution to people getting pissy about depictions of their prophet. It also takes into consideration the experiences of others.

Turtwig

jank wrote: »

If one is going to call for trigger warnings on books (the idea of walking into a book shop and having those cert stickers on them is pretty depressing), then one also has to call for Trigger warnings over pretty much every published media material online, on TV, radio and in print. May as well just lock yourself in your bedroom in case the headline of the day pushes one over the edge. Are humans really that weak in your view?

Such warnings already exist on tv and radio.
"Viewers may find some of these images disturbing"
*graphic footage of a child breaking his leg*

South park works rather well too.

No need for crazy hyperbole. Fwiw I think humans are incredible.

jank

Turtwig wrote: »

What part of this statement disagrees with anything I said.

I pointed out they were more similar than people think. You just stated the law which may or may not be wrong and then pointed out differences between adults and children. Which of course would imply I stated adults were identical children. I didn't.

Let's try it again :
In many ways a swan is not that different to a goose. Are you now going to state how a goose is not a swan? Because that's pretty much what you did.

If you are going to infer that indeed adults need to be coddled like children because they are 'softer than people think' then fine. The simple facts of the matter are that adults are not children and the law sees it as such. Comparing an adult to a child in terms of discussing Huck Finn (at a University may I add) holds no water.

jank

Turtwig wrote: »

Such warnings already exist on tv and radio.
"Viewers may find some of these images disturbing"
*graphic footage of a child breaking his leg*

South park works rather well too.

No need for crazy hyperbole. Fwiw I think humans are incredible.

And for books? Do you really want to walk into Waterstones or Easons and find all the books rated with the appropriate Trigger warning on the front page?

Interesting you mention South Park as that warning is clearly satirical.

KomradeBishop

Yes lets not 'coddle' rape victims suffering from PTSD, by warning them about potentially deeply unsettling events in what they're reading, that are highly likely to trigger their traumatic memories...

No. This is a black and white situation after all, where the above is similar to an Evangelical Christian, taking petty offence, to finding an evil Atheist in his book.

Shrap

jank wrote: »

Eh what? Adults are in many ways different to children. The laws see this as self evident. That is why the age of sexual consent is 16 not 6. That is why the voting age is 18 not 8. That is why one is allowed to buy alcohol at 18 not 8... and so on...Are humans really that weak in your view?

jank wrote: »

If you are going to infer that indeed adults need to be coddled like children because they are 'softer than people think' then fine. The simple facts of the matter are that adults are not children and the law sees it as such.

Missing the point spectacularly. Humans who have been through the experience of rape for example, have had that consent you mention taken away from them and as I'm sure you are aware, this can have devastating and long term emotional consequences.

I for one would welcome trigger warnings so that I can choose not to be surprised by a graphic description of a rape that could sit in my heart like a stone, requiring me once again to deal with the self-blame and self-disgust that the memory of having control over my body taken away from me engenders.

I frequently choose not to read such material online based on the trigger warnings, depending on how sensitive/stressed I am at the time. It's called self-care, and I would welcome the opportunity to choose whether to read triggering material or not. Indeed adults can be soft on the inside. Who'd want to be that hard that reminders of experiences like rape no longer effect you?