Images pas cool, justice sociale & steaks saignants

[Atika]

le SJWisme et autres activisme c'est le milieu reve pour les gens de couleur racistes, et dieu sait qu'il y en a.

Ces gens expliquent le monde a travers leurs principes de gros raciste et s'imaginent que les blancs sont aussi racistes qu'eux-memes ce qui est tout simplement faux la plupart du temps.

 

Bah mathématiquement il y a beaucoup de blancs sjw haha

 

Troll à part oui je suis pas expert en psychologie mais on dirait qu'ils font refléter sur les autres leurs propre mode de pensée dans un procès d'intention. Assez narcissique

 

A moins que ma dernière phrase ne soit elle aussi qu'un procès d'intention et qu'ils sont juste d'une stupidité abyssale, ou un mix des deux

 

Leur racisme anti-blanc s'approche assez de l'antisémitisme

 

[Brock]

ah oui tiens pas con

[Mathieu_D]

Même les asiat' s'y mettent chez eux ?

[Mobius]

Probablement déçue que l'unité 731 ne se soit pas occupée d'elle

[PABerryer]

Ce fil est une tentation permanente de me faire militer activement pour l'euthanasie.

[Brock]

militer pour l'etat nazi?

[Flashy]

Oui, je me suis toujours demandé ce que les SJW pensaient des juifs.

Est-ce une minorité opprimée? Ont-ils un privilège insupportable?

Je suis curieux.

[Eltourist]

It depends

[Lancelot]

Oui, je me suis toujours demandé ce que les SJW pensaient des juifs.

Est-ce une minorité opprimée? Ont-ils un privilège insupportable?

Je suis curieux.

Ça dépend bien sûr, mais souvent pas du bien.

[Jesrad]

Oui, je me suis toujours demandé ce que les SJW pensaient des juifs.

Est-ce une minorité opprimée? Ont-ils un privilège insupportable?

Je suis curieux.

Tous les mouvements antirationnels sont aussi antisémites.

[Tramp]

Micheal Bloomberg et Charles Koch prennent position pour la liberté d'expression et la fin des safe Space et autres conneries dans les universités (si quelqu'un est abonné au WSJ) :

http://www.wsj.com/articles/why-free-speech-matters-on-campus-1463093280

http://reason.com/blog/2016/05/13/charles-koch-and-michael-bloomberg-colle

[Hayek's plosive]

[FabriceM]

i'll keep up standing for all women

 

Pour toutes les femelles. Vraiment ?

 

[foo]

Pour toutes les femelles. Vraiment ?

Le terme "femelle" est affreusement spéciste, utilise plutôt "femme"

[FabriceM]

Le terme "femelle" est affreusement spéciste

 

Mmm ne peut-on pas plutôt dire que c'est "femme" qui est spéciste, du fait que l'usage de ce terme est un privilège des seules femelles homo sapiens ?

[Neomatix]

Micheal Bloomberg et Charles Koch prennent position pour la liberté d'expression et la fin des safe Space et autres conneries dans les universités (si quelqu'un est abonné au WSJ) :

http://www.wsj.com/articles/why-free-speech-matters-on-campus-1463093280

http://reason.com/blog/2016/05/13/charles-koch-and-michael-bloomberg-colle

Why Free Speech Matters on Campus

‘Safe spaces’ will create graduates unwilling to tolerate differing opinions—a crisis for a free society.

ENLARGE

PHOTO: GETTY IMAGES

By MICHAEL BLOOMBERG and CHARLES KOCH

May 12, 2016 6:48 p.m. ET

390 COMMENTS

During college commencement season, it is traditional for speakers to offer words of advice to the graduating class. But this year the two of us—who don’t see eye to eye on every issue—believe that the most urgent advice we can offer is actually to college presidents, boards, administrators and faculty.

Our advice is this: Stop stifling free speech and coddling intolerance for controversial ideas, which are crucial to a college education—as well as to human happiness and progress.

Across America, college campuses are increasingly sanctioning so-called “safe spaces,” “speech codes,” “trigger warnings,” “microaggressions” and the withdrawal of invitations to controversial speakers. By doing so, colleges are creating a climate of intellectual conformity that discourages open inquiry, debate and true learning. Students and professors who dare challenge this climate, or who accidentally run afoul of it, can face derision, contempt, ostracism—and sometimes even official sanctions.

The examples are legion. The University of California considers statements such as “America is the land of opportunity” and “everyone can succeed in this society, if they work hard enough” to be microaggressions that faculty should avoid. The roll of disinvited campus speakers in recent years continues to grow, with the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education identifying 18 attempts to intimidate speakers so far this year, 11 of which have been successful. The list includes former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who is scheduled to give the commencement address at Scripps College this weekend. Student protests have vilified her as a “genocide enabler” and 28 professors have signed a letter stating they will refuse to attend.

Colleges are increasingly shielding students from any idea that could cause discomfort or offense. Yet without the freedom to offend, freedom of expression, as author Salman Rushdie once observed, “ceases to exist.” And as Frederick Douglass said in 1860: “To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker.”

When a professor last year decided to write online about the trend toward intolerance on campuses, he did so under a pseudonym out of fear of a backlash. “The student-teacher dynamic,” he wrote, “has been reenvisioned along a line that’s simultaneously consumerist and hyper-protective, giving each and every student the ability to claim Grievous Harm in nearly any circumstance, after any affront.”

We believe that this new dynamic, which is doing a terrible disservice to students, threatens not only the future of higher education, but also the very fabric of a free and democratic society. The purpose of a college education isn’t to reaffirm students’ beliefs, it is to challenge, expand and refine them—and to send students into the world with minds that are open and questioning, not closed and self-righteous. This helps young people discover their talents and prepare them for citizenship in a diverse, pluralistic democratic society. American society is not always a comfortable place to be; the college campus shouldn’t be, either.

Education is also supposed to give students the tools they need to contribute to human progress. Through open inquiry and a respectful exchange of ideas, students can discover new ways to help others improve their lives.

The importance of such inquiry is obvious in science. Thanks to the freedom to make and test hypotheses, we have discovered that the Earth is round, how gravity works, the theory of relativity, and many other monumental scientific achievements. The ability to challenge the status quo leads to unimaginable innovations, advances in material well-being and deeper understandings of the natural world. But this principle doesn’t just apply to biology, chemistry, physics and other scientific fields.

Whether in economics, morality, politics or any other realm of study, progress has always depended upon human beings having the courage to challenge prevailing traditions and beliefs. Many ideas that the majority of Americans now hold dear—including that all people should have equal rights, women deserve the right to vote, and gays and lesbians should be free to marry whom they choose—were once unpopular minority views that many found offensive. They are now widely accepted because people were free to engage in a robust dialogue with their fellow citizens.

We fear that such dialogue is now disappearing on college campuses. As it fades, it will make material and social progress that much harder to achieve. It will also create graduates who are unwilling to tolerate differing opinions—a crisis for a free society. An unwillingness to listen to those with differing opinions is already a serious problem in America’s civic discourse. Unless colleges reverse course, that problem will worsen in the years ahead, with profoundly negative consequences.

Administrators and faculty must do more to encourage a marketplace of ideas where individuals need not fear reprisal, harassment or intimidation for airing controversial opinions. These members of campus leadership would be wise to look at the University of Chicago’s Statement on Principles of Free Expression, which paraphrases the wise words of the university’s former president, Robert M. Hutchins: “without a vibrant commitment to free and open inquiry, a university ceases to be a university.”

The continued march of justice and progress depends on free speech, open minds and rational discourse. Colleges and universities—and those who hold their degrees—have helped lead the way for most of this nation’s history. The well-being of future generations of Americans depends on the preservation of that great legacy.

Mr. Bloomberg, the founder of Bloomberg LP, was mayor of New York City from 2002-13. Mr. Koch is the chairman and CEO of Koch Industries Inc.

[Tramp]

Merci

[Noob]

Des fous...

[foo]

Mmm ne peut-on pas plutôt dire que c'est "femme" qui est spéciste, du fait que l'usage de ce terme est un privilège des seules femelles homo sapiens ?

Non, le terme femelle est dégradant et offensant, il est anormal que les autres espèces n'aient pas le privilège d'être appelées des femmes.

La photo que tu as postée est une femme moustique

[FabriceM]

Non, le terme femelle est dégradant et offensant, il est anormal que les autres espèces n'aient pas le privilège d'être appelées des femmes.

La photo que tu as postée est une femme moustique

[sJW]

Nonossage requis.

 

Un tel anthropo-ethno-centrisme est absolument inacceptable. Femelle n'est pas plus dégradant par rapport à "femme" que "noir" par rapport à "blanc".

[/sJW]

[foo]

Bon, au moins nous sommes d'accord sur le fait qu'il faut désigner toutes les espèces de la meme façon

Il faudrait un sondage pour se décider entre femelle et femme

[FabriceM]

Bon, au moins nous sommes d'accord sur le fait qu'il faut désigner toutes les espèces de la meme façon

 

[sJW] Oui tout à fait. D'ailleurs, il faut trouver un nom avec une racine féminine, et non masculine. Sus à l'oppression des racines patriarcales.[/sJW]

[Bézoukhov]

http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=7589

 

 

 

• Springfield College recently cancelled a “Men in Literature” course on the grounds that its inordinate emphasis on one gender creates a “hostile environment” for women.

 

• The school also objected to an essay assignment on the treatment of males in academic environments, saying students should be required to write about the opposite gender.

 

[Lancelot]

Ça mérite d'aller voir l'article en entier.

 

The course was intended to survey contemporary culture’s preoccupation with gender by specifically focusing on the male role in culture.

“He never set out to be a gadfly against progressive dogma or a stalwart opponent of the ideological regime. He was, to the contrary, picked for the part by the regime itself,” Peter Wood, president of National Association of Scholars, explains in a detailed account of Gouws’ case.

Now, though, Springfield has determined that Gouws’ course is unfit to teach after the chair and dean of his department questioned the content of his syllabus, claiming that Gouws focused too much on the male’s societal function rather than his portrayal in literature.

Gouws agreed to change his syllabus to include more literary texts and fewer gender studies readings, but the university still ultimately decided to cancel the course, informing Gouws with a letter from Provost Jean Wyld on March 15.

[...]

“You do not afford students the opportunity to choose a gender to write about nor do you require all students to write about the opposite gender,” the letter admonishes him, saying, “Such is certainly a concern from an academic and even legal perspective.

“Based on this it is our judgement that your chair and dean are well within their rights to question your course content and to request changes in your courses to ensure that they are aligned with the approved course outcomes,” Wyld writes. “We also believe that you should modify any assignment in ENGL 113 or in any other course you teach that would require students to focus on a single gender.”

[...]

Meanwhile, Springfield offers several other English courses focusing on gender and specific racial groups, including “Women and Literature,” “Native American Literature,” “Asian American Literature,” and a two-part course on “African American Literature.”

Nonetheless, the school insists that Gouws’ course was uniquely discriminatory, saying it has advised his department chair to “ensure that [his courses] are properly aligned to the subject matter and are neither discriminatory nor foster a potential hostile environment for students of either gender.”

[Fagotto]

"even legal perspective"... c'est la prochaine étape sjw? Les procès pour les enseignants qui donnent des exercices genrés et des lectures triggerantes?

[Tramp]

Obama vient de prendre une décision de politique pour les toilettes des établissements scolaires qui reçoivent du pognon de sa part.

[Brock]

"even legal perspective"... c'est la prochaine étape sjw? Les procès pour les enseignants qui donnent des exercices genrés et des lectures triggerantes?

 

ils essayent deja de faire virer tous les gens qui expriment une opinion differente sous leur identite reelle.

 

Toutes ces petites merdes avec un diplome de sciences sociales inexploitable vont se retrouver dans les administrations a faire les petits nazis en herbe.Et quand ils vont se retrouver stagiaires dans les cabinets ou la loi est ecrite ca risque de faire mal.

[Lancelot]

"even legal perspective"... c'est la prochaine étape sjw? Les procès pour les enseignants qui donnent des exercices genrés et des lectures triggerantes?

Genrés dans la mauvaise direction, l'hypocrisie est importante.

Meanwhile, Springfield offers several other English courses focusing on gender and specific racial groups, including “Women and Literature,” “Native American Literature,” “Asian American Literature,” and a two-part course on “African American Literature.”

Nonetheless, the school insists that Gouws’ course was uniquely discriminatory, saying it has advised his department chair to “ensure that [his courses] are properly aligned to the subject matter and are neither discriminatory nor foster a potential hostile environment for students of either gender.”

 

Et quand ils vont se retrouver stagiaires dans les cabinets ou la loi est ecrite ca risque de faire mal.

Oui.

[Neomatix]

"Native American Literature"

[Lancelot]

---