Total Posts:7|Showing Posts:1-7
Jump to topic:

University of Oregon Halloween Controversy

dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2016 6:45:42 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
My university is currently embroiled in an absurd controversy after one of the law professors came to a Halloween party dressed as a black character. Her costume consisted of blackface, an afro, and a white suit. It's not entirely clear who she was trying to resemble, but there's no reason to think she was trying to dress up as something as offensive as a "generic black person". As she should have known students went berserk the moment it got out, immediately demanding that she be fired for "racism". Apparently, it's evil to modify one's skill color in order to resemble another person on a day dedicated to that purpose. The university put out a statement condemning the act as reinforcing racist stereotypes and undermining inclusion. Despite what you may have heard, black people aren't actually black, claims the university. That's just an evil stereotype perpetuated by people with eyes. The fact that a white person should even attempt to look like a black person works to enhance the validity of racist beliefs. No explanation is given for why this should be so, or why it's obvious enough to justify firing her. Is it because the differences between whites and blacks are so fundamental that any attempt by one to look like the other will be so off as to be mocking? Is it because race is something much, much more than color? Is it because it draws attention to a rather superficial physical difference, and to the fact that the races are not identical? No really, what is the reason - what makes this so inherently racist as to make irrelevant all the other details of the case.

The professor in question was acting stupidly of course, whose grasp of the trigger warning culture that has infested all universities is woefully lacking, and whose inability to see the headache this would cause her institution is astonishing (they forced her to apologize and to admit that she knew it was wrong all along, as if this were Soviet Russia, but lol). Some are trying to justify their outrage on historical grounds, pointing to the ways blackface has been used by racists in the past. This defense is simply unbelievable. First of all, these are the same people who cry racism anytime something like this happens, whether or not history supplies them with an excuse to complain (they would be offended no matter the race). Second, not everyone knows about the history of blackface. If you presented the story to a group of middleschoolers who don't know anything about the history of blackface and asked them whether it was racist, I would be willing to bet money that most of them would say it is. Such a reaction is predictable. And finally, it should be possible for people to hold in their mind the distinction between blackface used maliciously and blackface used with quite obviously no racist motive.

There's a good chance she will lose her job, perhaps not unjustifiably. But ultimately, she doesn't have to. She's almost certainly not a racist, and blacks have it in them to forgive her if they wanted to, not to mention the rest of the student body.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2016 6:53:51 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/8/2016 6:45:42 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
My university is currently embroiled in an absurd controversy after one of the law professors came to a Halloween party dressed as a black character. Her costume consisted of blackface, an afro, and a white suit. It's not entirely clear who she was trying to resemble, but there's no reason to think she was trying to dress up as something as offensive as a "generic black person". As she should have known students went berserk the moment it got out, immediately demanding that she be fired for "racism". Apparently, it's evil to modify one's skill color in order to resemble another person on a day dedicated to that purpose. The university put out a statement condemning the act as reinforcing racist stereotypes and undermining inclusion. Despite what you may have heard, black people aren't actually black, claims the university. That's just an evil stereotype perpetuated by people with eyes. The fact that a white person should even attempt to look like a black person works to enhance the validity of racist beliefs. No explanation is given for why this should be so, or why it's obvious enough to justify firing her. Is it because the differences between whites and blacks are so fundamental that any attempt by one to look like the other will be so off as to be mocking? Is it because race is something much, much more than color? Is it because it draws attention to a rather superficial physical difference, and to the fact that the races are not identical? No really, what is the reason - what makes this so inherently racist as to make irrelevant all the other details of the case.

The professor in question was acting stupidly of course, whose grasp of the trigger warning culture that has infested all universities is woefully lacking, and whose inability to see the headache this would cause her institution is astonishing (they forced her to apologize and to admit that she knew it was wrong all along, as if this were Soviet Russia, but lol). Some are trying to justify their outrage on historical grounds, pointing to the ways blackface has been used by racists in the past. This defense is simply unbelievable. First of all, these are the same people who cry racism anytime something like this happens, whether or not history supplies them with an excuse to complain (they would be offended no matter the race). Second, not everyone knows about the history of blackface. If you presented the story to a group of middleschoolers who don't know anything about the history of blackface and asked them whether it was racist, I would be willing to bet money that most of them would say it is. Such a reaction is predictable. And finally, it should be possible for people to hold in their mind the distinction between blackface used maliciously and blackface used with quite obviously no racist motive.

There's a good chance she will lose her job, perhaps not unjustifiably. But ultimately, she doesn't have to. She's almost certainly not a racist, and blacks have it in them to forgive her if they wanted to, not to mention the rest of the student body.

Halloween costume, right?

Not intentionally designed to be demeaning, right?

If the above to are "yes" and "no", whats the problem?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2016 6:59:31 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/8/2016 6:53:51 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/8/2016 6:45:42 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
My university is currently embroiled in an absurd controversy after one of the law professors came to a Halloween party dressed as a black character. Her costume consisted of blackface, an afro, and a white suit. It's not entirely clear who she was trying to resemble, but there's no reason to think she was trying to dress up as something as offensive as a "generic black person". As she should have known students went berserk the moment it got out, immediately demanding that she be fired for "racism". Apparently, it's evil to modify one's skill color in order to resemble another person on a day dedicated to that purpose. The university put out a statement condemning the act as reinforcing racist stereotypes and undermining inclusion. Despite what you may have heard, black people aren't actually black, claims the university. That's just an evil stereotype perpetuated by people with eyes. The fact that a white person should even attempt to look like a black person works to enhance the validity of racist beliefs. No explanation is given for why this should be so, or why it's obvious enough to justify firing her. Is it because the differences between whites and blacks are so fundamental that any attempt by one to look like the other will be so off as to be mocking? Is it because race is something much, much more than color? Is it because it draws attention to a rather superficial physical difference, and to the fact that the races are not identical? No really, what is the reason - what makes this so inherently racist as to make irrelevant all the other details of the case.

The professor in question was acting stupidly of course, whose grasp of the trigger warning culture that has infested all universities is woefully lacking, and whose inability to see the headache this would cause her institution is astonishing (they forced her to apologize and to admit that she knew it was wrong all along, as if this were Soviet Russia, but lol). Some are trying to justify their outrage on historical grounds, pointing to the ways blackface has been used by racists in the past. This defense is simply unbelievable. First of all, these are the same people who cry racism anytime something like this happens, whether or not history supplies them with an excuse to complain (they would be offended no matter the race). Second, not everyone knows about the history of blackface. If you presented the story to a group of middleschoolers who don't know anything about the history of blackface and asked them whether it was racist, I would be willing to bet money that most of them would say it is. Such a reaction is predictable. And finally, it should be possible for people to hold in their mind the distinction between blackface used maliciously and blackface used with quite obviously no racist motive.

There's a good chance she will lose her job, perhaps not unjustifiably. But ultimately, she doesn't have to. She's almost certainly not a racist, and blacks have it in them to forgive her if they wanted to, not to mention the rest of the student body.

Halloween costume, right?

Not intentionally designed to be demeaning, right?

If the above to are "yes" and "no", whats the problem?

The problem is that it runs afoul of the movement-without-a-head.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2016 7:05:15 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
You are a stain that must be wiped out. Did I not tell you just now that we are different from the persecutors of the past? We are not content with negative obedience, nor even with the most abject submission. When finally you surrender to us, it must be of your own free will. We do not destroy the heretic because he resists us: so long as he resists us we never destroy him. We convert him, we capture his inner mind, we reshape him. We burn all evil and all illusion out of him; we bring him over to our side, not in appearance, but genuinely, heart and soul. We make him one of ourselves before we kill him. It is intolerable to us that an erroneous thought should exist anywhere in the world, however secret and powerless it may be. Even in the instant of death we cannot permit any deviation. In the old days the heretic walked to the stake still a heretic, proclaiming his heresy, exulting in it. Even the victim of the Russian purges could carry rebellion locked up in his skull as he walked down the passage waiting for the bullet. But we make the brain perfect before we blow it out. The command of the old despotisms was 'Thou shalt not'. The command of the totalitarians was 'Thou shalt'. Our command is 'THOU ART'. No one whom we bring to this place ever stands out against us. Everyone is washed clean. Even those three miserable traitors in whose innocence you once believed -- Jones, Aaronson, and Rutherford -- in the end we broke them down. I took part in their interrogation myself. I saw them gradually worn down, whimpering, grovelling, weeping -- and in the end it was not with pain or fear, only with penitence. By the time we had finished with them they were only the shells of men. There was nothing left in them except sorrow for what they had done, and love of Big Brother. It was touching to see how they loved him. They begged to be shot quickly, so that they could die while their minds were still clean.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2016 7:07:53 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/8/2016 7:05:15 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
You are a stain that must be wiped out. Did I not tell you just now that we are different from the persecutors of the past? We are not content with negative obedience, nor even with the most abject submission. When finally you surrender to us, it must be of your own free will. We do not destroy the heretic because he resists us: so long as he resists us we never destroy him. We convert him, we capture his inner mind, we reshape him. We burn all evil and all illusion out of him; we bring him over to our side, not in appearance, but genuinely, heart and soul. We make him one of ourselves before we kill him. It is intolerable to us that an erroneous thought should exist anywhere in the world, however secret and powerless it may be. Even in the instant of death we cannot permit any deviation. In the old days the heretic walked to the stake still a heretic, proclaiming his heresy, exulting in it. Even the victim of the Russian purges could carry rebellion locked up in his skull as he walked down the passage waiting for the bullet. But we make the brain perfect before we blow it out. The command of the old despotisms was 'Thou shalt not'. The command of the totalitarians was 'Thou shalt'. Our command is 'THOU ART'. No one whom we bring to this place ever stands out against us. Everyone is washed clean. Even those three miserable traitors in whose innocence you once believed -- Jones, Aaronson, and Rutherford -- in the end we broke them down. I took part in their interrogation myself. I saw them gradually worn down, whimpering, grovelling, weeping -- and in the end it was not with pain or fear, only with penitence. By the time we had finished with them they were only the shells of men. There was nothing left in them except sorrow for what they had done, and love of Big Brother. It was touching to see how they loved him. They begged to be shot quickly, so that they could die while their minds were still clean.

Here, here.
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz

"No aspect of your facial structure suggests Filipino descent."
~ YYW