Some Students Protest Commencement Speaker

http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/story/news/local/2014/12/13/protesters-turn-msu-commencement/20352147/

Honestly, I'd be pissed I would have to deal with this regardless of political affiliation.

Fuckin liberals

Yeah, it sounds like it was totally disruptive. Fuck rights of expression.

Jesus, when will people realize that college is neither the time nor the place for shit like this.

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/story/news/local/2014/12/13/protesters-turn-msu-commencement/20352147/

Honestly, I'd be pissed I would have to deal with this regardless of political affiliation.

What does politics have to do with his comments on rape?

Heat Miser wrote:

What does politics have to do with his comments on rape?

Everything needs to be politicized, second word in the article is conservative.

I wish George Will would get butt raped. I'd love to read that column afterward..

Heat Miser wrote:

What does politics have to do with his comments on rape?

I guess you didn't read the article?

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

Heat Miser wrote:

What does politics have to do with his comments on rape?

I guess you didn't read the article?

Yes I did. Did you?

Heat Miser wrote:

Yes I did. Did you?

Yes I did. Did you read my OP? You seem over the top pissed off about politics. Did George Will rape you?

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

Heat Miser wrote:

Yes I did. Did you?

Yes I did. Did you read my OP? You seem over the top pissed off about politics. Did George Will rape you?

Yes I did, and my question remains. What does politics have to do with it? I wouldn't want him speaking at my commencement after saying that dumb shit either. His politics are irrelevant.

And what gave you the impression I was "over the top pissed off" about anything?

Cym Jim wrote:Jesus, when will people realize that college is neither the time nor the place for shit like this.

Agreed. When will we learn to never question, challenge, or otherwise hold others accountable? Who wants a society capable of thinking critically or even thinking for themselves?

Heat Miser wrote:

Yes I did, and my question remains. What does politics have to do with it? I wouldn't want him speaking at my commencement after saying that dumb shit either. His politics are irrelevant.

And what gave you the impression I was "over the top pissed off" about anything?

OK. We're on the same page here. My bad. As always,  emotions don't translate well on message boards. I'll shut up now. 

Heat Miser wrote:Yes I did, and my question remains. What does politics have to do with it? I wouldn't want him speaking at my commencement after saying that dumb shit either. His politics are irrelevant.

And what gave you the impression I was "over the top pissed off" about anything?

Though we disagree on whether what he said was dumb, is that the new standard?

No one that has ever said anything dumb may speak at a commencement?

If so, just fuck ever having any commencement speakers.

LooseGoose wrote:

Though we disagree on whether what he said was dumb, is that the new standard?

No one that has ever said anything dumb may speak at a commencement?

If so, just fuck ever having any commencement speakers.

Or just let people protest in silence because it's not a big deal.

LooseGoose wrote:

Heat Miser wrote:Yes I did, and my question remains. What does politics have to do with it? I wouldn't want him speaking at my commencement after saying that dumb shit either. His politics are irrelevant.

And what gave you the impression I was "over the top pissed off" about anything?

Though we disagree on whether what he said was dumb, is that the new standard?

No one that has ever said anything dumb may speak at a commencement?

If so, just fuck ever having any commencement speakers.

We disagree on this being "dumb"?

"Most notably, Will wrote a column last summer in which he suggested female college students who report sexual assault have a "coveted status" that brings "privileges" on campus."

How about "fucking stupid"?

LooseGoose wrote:


Though we disagree on whether what he said was dumb, is that the new standard?

No one that has ever said anything dumb may speak at a commencement?

If so, just fuck ever having any commencement speakers.

What he said on women's prestige after they've been raped, isn't dumb. It's blindly fucking ignorant. If I had a daughter who had been raped and he had said that about her, I'd have hired people to rape him. All I can do now is hope it someday happens to him. It's only fair. I'm also not a liberal, I'm just amazed at his stupidity in this manner. Let him speak, let the kids protest, let his ignorant comment have light shed on it. I'm good with all of that.

Context my friend, context.

Why not read the column in whole and see what's so damned offensive rather than accept plucked out of context quotes?

Colleges and universities are being educated by Washington and are finding the experience excruciating. They are learning that when they say campus victimizations are ubiquitous (“micro-aggressions,” often not discernible to the untutored eye, are everywhere), and that when they make victimhood a coveted status that confers privileges, victims proliferate. And academia’s progressivism has rendered it intellectually defenseless now that progressivism’s achievement, the regulatory state, has decided it is academia’s turn to be broken to government’s saddle.

Meanwhile, the newest campus idea for preventing victimizations — an idea certain to multiply claims of them — is “trigger warnings.” They would be placed on assigned readings or announced before lectures. Otherwise, traumas could be triggered in students whose tender sensibilities would be lacerated by unexpected encounters with racism, sexism, violence (dammit, Hamlet, put down that sword!) or any other facet of reality that might violate a student’s entitlement to serenity. This entitlement has already bred campus speech codes that punish unpopular speech. Now the codes are begetting the soft censorship of trigger warnings to swaddle students in a “safe,” “supportive,” “unthreatening” environment, intellectual comfort for the intellectually dormant.

It is salutary that academia, with its adversarial stance toward limited government and cultural common sense, is making itself ludicrous. Academia is learning that its attempts to create victim-free campuses — by making everyone hypersensitive, even delusional, about victimizations — brings increasing supervision by the regulatory state that progressivism celebrates.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-will-college-become-the-victims-of-progressivism/2014/06/06/e90e73b4-eb50-11e3-9f5c-9075d5508f0a_story.html

Shame he said that dumb crap..always liked his baseball writings and he's great in ken burns documentaries.

DWags wrote:

What he said on women's prestige after they've been raped, isn't dumb. It's blindly fucking ignorant. If I had a daughter who had been raped and he had said that about her, I'd have hired people to rape him. All I can do now is hope it someday happens to him. It's only fair. I'm also not a liberal, I'm just amazed at his stupidity in this manner. Let him speak, let the kids protest, let his ignorant comment have light shed on it. I'm good with all of that.

No. What he said is if you reward victimhood, victims proliferate. In other words false rape reports are made. Ring any bells?? This was written in June well before the Rolling Stone and Dunham debacles.

I love people who carry signs then never do one positive fuck ing thing in the world for the rest of their lives.

LooseGoose wrote:Context my friend, context.

Why not read the column in whole and see what's so damned offensive rather than accept plucked out of context quotes?

Colleges and universities are being educated by Washington and are finding the experience excruciating. They are learning that when they say campus victimizations are ubiquitous (“micro-aggressions,” often not discernible to the untutored eye, are everywhere), and that when they make victimhood a coveted status that confers privileges, victims proliferate. And academia’s progressivism has rendered it intellectually defenseless now that progressivism’s achievement, the regulatory state, has decided it is academia’s turn to be broken to government’s saddle.

Meanwhile, the newest campus idea for preventing victimizations — an idea certain to multiply claims of them — is “trigger warnings.” They would be placed on assigned readings or announced before lectures. Otherwise, traumas could be triggered in students whose tender sensibilities would be lacerated by unexpected encounters with racism, sexism, violence (dammit, Hamlet, put down that sword!) or any other facet of reality that might violate a student’s entitlement to serenity. This entitlement has already bred campus speech codes that punish unpopular speech. Now the codes are begetting the soft censorship of trigger warnings to swaddle students in a “safe,” “supportive,” “unthreatening” environment, intellectual comfort for the intellectually dormant.

It is salutary that academia, with its adversarial stance toward limited government and cultural common sense, is making itself ludicrous. Academia is learning that its attempts to create victim-free campuses — by making everyone hypersensitive, even delusional, about victimizations — brings increasing supervision by the regulatory state that progressivism celebrates.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-will-college-become-the-victims-of-progressivism/2014/06/06/e90e73b4-eb50-11e3-9f5c-9075d5508f0a_story.html

You think that makes it better?

Used to like the guy. Not so much now.

LooseGoose wrote:

No. What he said is if you reward victimhood, victims proliferate.

Jesus, I got nothing. "Reward victimhood". Never would I think two words could be put together, especially when one was raped. Like I say, I only wish and hope he gets raped someday. Only because I'd love to read his column.

I would, however do my part not to reward his victimhood. I certainly would hate to be part of the problem.

Another case of it being pointless to argue with closed minds.

Those that espouse and supposedly embrace inclusion and diversity doing their best to exclude anyone that diverges from the hivemind.

LooseGoose wrote:Another case of it being pointless to argue with closed minds.

Those that espouse and supposedly embrace inclusion and diversity doing their best to exclude anyone that diverges from the hivemind.

I'm just going to assume you consider yourself open minded and those that would actually think George Will might just be wrong here are the closed minded individuals. I understand that mentality as I've often bumped into it. It's hard to think of ourselves as the ones who follow the queen bee lock step and those that might diverge from that manifesto he or she publishes are actually the ones who are open minded about it.

I do know this, once we think the other side is closed minded, We're usually the ones who have shut that door first.

DWags wrote:

I'm just going to assume you consider yourself open minded and those that would actually think George Will might just be wrong here are the closed minded individuals. I understand that mentality as I've often bumped into it. It's hard to think of ourselves as the ones who follow the queen bee lock step and those that might diverge from that manifesto he or she publishes are actually the ones who are open minded about it.

I do know this, once we think the other side is closed minded, We're usually the ones who have shut that door first.

How many conservative rallies do you see or hear about to ban liberal speakers from college campuses? Case closed.

Another man that risks being banned:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/12/14/campus-rape-uva-crisis-rolling-stone-politics-column/20397277/

For months we've been told that there's a burgeoning "epidemic" of rape on college campuses, that the system for dealing with campus rape is "broken" and that we need new federal legislation (of course!) to deal with this disaster. Before the Rolling Stone story imploded, Sens. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., and Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., were citing the Virginia gang rape as evidence of the problem, but now that the story has been exposed as bogus, they're telling us that, regardless of that isolated incident, there's still a huge campus rape problem that needs to be addressed as soon as possible.

And that's the real college rape hoax. Because the truth is that there's no epidemic outbreak of college rape. In fact, rape on college campuses is — like rape everywhere else in America — plummeting in frequency. And that 1-in-5 college rape number you keep hearing in the press? It's thoroughly bogus, too. (Even the authors of that study say that "We don't think one in five is a nationally representative statistic," because it sampled only two schools.)

Sen, Gillibrand also says that "women are at a greater risk of sexual assault as soon as they step onto a college campus."

The truth — and, since she's a politician, maybe that shouldn't be such a surprise — is exactly the opposite. According to the Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics, the rate of rape and sexual assault is lower for college students (at 6.1 per 1,000) than for non-students (7.6 per 1,000). (Note: not 1 in 5). What's more, between 1997 and 2013, rape against women dropped by about 50%, in keeping with a more general drop in violent crime nationally.

This kind of hysteria may be ugly, but for campus activists and bureaucrats it's a source of power: If there's a "campus rape crisis," that means that we need new rules, bigger budgets, and expanded power and self-importance for all involved, with the added advantage of letting you call your political opponents (or anyone who threatens funding) "pro rape." If we focus on the truth, however — rapidly declining rape rates already, without any particular "crisis" programs in place — then voters, taxpayers, and university trustees will probably decide to invest resources elsewhere. So for politicians and activists, a phony crisis beats no crisis.

At least until people catch on. As George Washington University law professor John Banzhaf notes, "After a while, the boy who cried wolf wasn't believed, and the women who cry rape may likewise not be believed, especially with the accusations of rape at Duke University and the University of Virginia fresh in people's minds."

Even one rape is too many, of course, on or off of campus. But when activists and politicians try to gin up a phony crisis, public trust is likely to be a major casualty. It's almost as if helping actual rape victims is the last thing on these people's minds.

LooseGoose wrote:

How many conservative rallies do you see or hear about to ban liberal speakers from college campuses?    Case closed.

Why is it a contest to you?  

It's not just to stop commentators, it's about social protest and there are all kinds from both sides.

February 27, 2009, Various cities to protest the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) U.S. financial system bailouts signed by President George W. Bush in October, 2008, and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 stimulus legislation signed by President Barack Obama

April 15, 2009, In D.C. to coincide with the annual U.S. deadline for submitting tax returns, known as Tax Day

November 5, 2009, March on Washington D.C. to protest health insurance reform.

March 14–21, 2010, in D.C. during the final week of debate on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Ac

Here's a link:

Right wing protests too

Then there are a plethora of other social and political protests.  Should I link pro-life protests outside of clinics or would that do nothing to convince you there is social protest on both sides?  

What exactly would it take to convince you to not believe "Case closed"?

That said, I respect those who use social protest peacefully and stir debate, I enjoy both sides.

George will is wrong here.  He's been right a ton of times before, Rapes are down because rape awareness is up.  Domestic abuse and violent crimes against women are real.  George Will, in my opinion, couldn't be more wrong.  I respect the protesters.  I won't be closed minded like so many here.

DWags wrote:Why is it a contest to you?  

It's not just to stop commentators, it's about social protest and there are all kinds from both sides.

But the fact is that the liberal protests ARE to stop the commentators they disagree with from being heard.  NONE of the "right wing" protests you listed had that as a goal.

You completely ignored my question or more likely knew the answer and tried to swerve to avoid it.   I'll ask it again, "How many conservative rallies do you see or hear about to ban liberal speakers from college campuses?".

My opinion is that Liberals are all for free speech, until it's speech or opinion they disagree with - then they want to limit it.

LooseGoose wrote:

But the fact is that the liberal protests ARE to stop the commentators they disagree with from being heard.  NONE of the "right wing" protests you listed had that as a goal.

You completely ignored my question or more likely knew the answer and tried to swerve to avoid it.   I'll ask it again, "How many conservative rallies do you see or hear about to ban liberal speakers from college campuses?".

My opinion is that Liberals are all for free speech, until it's speech or opinion they disagree with - then they want to limit it.

Was George Will stopped? Did he speak? The protest was perfect. Will got to speak inspite of being incredibly ignorant about women being raped and then "honored", the kids at MSU who, rightfully pointed out his ignorance on the subject peacefully protested, and Will got to make his speech.

Where is the problem here?

Bill Mahar U.Cal Berkley comes to mind, but why are you so upset about college protests? I grew up in the 60's and early 70's. LBJ was ripped in two by college kids. The Great Society LBJ. It's in the DNA of the college campus kid to be very jealous and protective of their commencement and who gets an honory degree and who represents them. We're being investigated for not doing enough as far as reporting of campus rapes and follow up of them. Some kids felt this was an appropriate thing to do. Good for them.

republicans are misogynistic?

I never noticed..

@ all the faux outrage

Robert J Sakimano wrote:republicans are misogynistic?

I never noticed..

Democrats are all corrupt lazy welfare queens that have multiple illegitimate kids?

I've never noticed either..

LooseGoose wrote:

But the fact is that the liberal protests ARE to stop the commentators they disagree with from being heard.  NONE of the "right wing" protests you listed had that as a goal.

You completely ignored my question or more likely knew the answer and tried to swerve to avoid it.   I'll ask it again, "How many conservative rallies do you see or hear about to ban liberal speakers from college campuses?".

My opinion is that Liberals are all for free speech, until it's speech or opinion they disagree with - then they want to limit it.

The frats were in full effect when I was at MSU. They had their little signs everywhere. That said, everything seemed like a big joke to them when you would walk by. No one seemed too worked up. It was like it was a prerequisite for acceptance into their house or something.

LooseGoose wrote:

But the fact is that the liberal protests ARE to stop the commentators they disagree with from being heard.  NONE of the "right wing" protests you listed had that as a goal.

You completely ignored my question or more likely knew the answer and tried to swerve to avoid it.   I'll ask it again, "How many conservative rallies do you see or hear about to ban liberal speakers from college campuses?".

My opinion is that Liberals are all for free speech, until it's speech or opinion they disagree with - then they want to limit it.

You did not seem to have a problem when the police often used force to break up otherwise peaceful Occupy protests. Give me a break with your concern about free speech. You don't give a shit about freedom.

Turtleneck wrote:

You did not seem to have a problem when the police often used force to break up otherwise peaceful Occupy protests. Give me a break with your concern about free speech. You don't give a shit about freedom.

I'm a big advocate for freedom.. until black people decide to vote. At that point, I become very concerned with voter fraud and I firmly believe that the only solution to such a rampant assault on our constitution is a voter ID law.

Turtleneck wrote:

You did not seem to have a problem when the police often used force to break up otherwise peaceful Occupy protests. Give me a break with your concern about free speech. You don't give a shit about freedom.

I didn't? Can you quote me on that?

LooseGoose wrote:

I didn't? Can you quote me on that?

No...so I have two options.

1) I can apologize because after looking at a couple of Occupy threads at 247, I realize I had you confused with another poster.
2) I can make a quote up out of thin air.

I will go with option number 1.

LooseGoose wrote:
At least until people catch on. As George Washington University law professor John Banzhaf notes, "After a while, the boy who cried wolf wasn't believed, and the women who cry rape may likewise not be believed, especially with the accusations of rape at Duke University and the University of Virginia fresh in people's minds."

Even one rape is too many, of course, on or off of campus. But when activists and politicians try to gin up a phony crisis, public trust is likely to be a major casualty. It's almost as if helping actual rape victims is the last thing on these people's minds.

This is the essence of what I took away from Will's column, but perhaps I'm not 'open minded' enough