whiny babies at Yale University confront instructor over [!]TRIGGERING[!] halloween costume e-mail

this is considered the right thing to do these days

ffs kill all millennials #SocialMediaEugenics

EDIT:

the e-mail in question:
Dear Sillimanders:

Nicholas and I have heard from a number of students who were frustrated by the mass email sent to the student body about appropriate Halloweenwear. I’ve always found Halloween an interesting embodiment of more general adult worries about young people. As some of you may be aware, I teach a class on “The Concept of the Problem Child,” and I was speaking with some of my students yesterday about the ways in which Halloween – traditionally a day of subversion for children and young people – is also an occasion for adults to exert their control.

When I was young, adults were freaked out by the specter of Halloween candy poisoned by lunatics, or spiked with razor blades (despite the absence of a single recorded case of such an event). Now, we’ve grown to fear the sugary candy itself. And this year, we seem afraid that college students are unable to decide how to dress themselves on Halloween. I don’t wish to trivialize genuine concerns about cultural and personal representation, and other challenges to our lived experience in a plural community. I know that many decent people have proposed guidelines on Halloween costumes from a spirit of avoiding hurt and offense. I laud those goals, in theory, as most of us do. But in practice, I wonder if we should reflect more transparently, as a community, on the consequences of an institutional (which is to say: bureaucratic and administrative) exercise of implied control over college students.

It seems to me that we can have this discussion of costumes on many levels: we can talk about complex issues of identify, free speech, cultural appropriation, and virtue “signalling.” But I wanted to share my thoughts with you from a totally different angle, as an educator concerned with the developmental stages of childhood and young adulthood.

As a former preschool teacher, for example, it is hard for me to give credence to a claim that there is something objectionably “appropriative” about a blondehaired child’s wanting to be Mulan for a day. Pretend play is the foundation of most cognitive tasks, and it seems to me that we want to be in the business of encouraging the exercise of imagination, not constraining it. I suppose we could agree that there is a difference between fantasizing about an individual character vs. appropriating a culture, wholesale, the latter of which could be seen as (tacky)(offensive)(jejeune)(hurtful), take your pick. But, then, I wonder what is the statute of limitations on dreaming of dressing as Tiana the Frog Princess if you aren’t a black girl from New Orleans? Is it okay if you are eight, but not 18? I don’t know the answer to these questions; they seem unanswerable. Or at the least, they put us on slippery terrain that I, for one, prefer not to cross.

Which is my point. I don’t, actually, trust myself to foist my Halloweenish standards and motives on others. I can’t defend them anymore than you could defend yours. Why do we dress up on Halloween, anyway? Should we start explaining that too? I’ve always been a good mimic and I enjoy accents. I love to travel, too, and have been to every continent but Antarctica. When I lived in Bangladesh, I bought a sari because it was beautiful, even though I looked stupid in it and never wore it once. Am I fetishizing and appropriating others’ cultural experiences? Probably. But I really, really like them too. Even if we could agree on how to avoid offense – and I’ll note that no one around campus seems overly concerned about the offense taken by religiously conservative folks to skinrevealing costumes – I wonder, and I am not trying to be provocative: Is there no room anymore for a child or young person to be a little bit obnoxious… a little bit inappropriate or provocative or, yes, offensive? American universities were once a safe space not only for maturation but also for a certain regressive, or even transgressive, experience;increasingly, it seems, they have become places of censure and prohibition. And the censure and prohibition come from above, not from yourselves! Are we all okay with this transfer of power? Have we lost faith in young people's capacity – in your capacity to exercise selfcensure, through social norming, and also in your capacity to ignore or reject things that trouble you? We tend to view this shift from individual to institutional agency as a tradeoff between libertarian vs. liberal values (“liberal” in the American, not European sense of the word).

Nicholas says, if you don’t like a costume someone is wearing, look away, or tell them you are offended. Talk to each other. Free speech and the ability to tolerate offence are the hallmarks of a free and open society.

But – again, speaking as a child development specialist – I think there might be something missing in our discourse about the exercise of free speech (including how we dress ourselves) on campus, and it is this: What does this debate about Halloween costumes say about our view of young adults, of their strength and judgment?

In other words: Whose business is it to control the forms of costumes of young people? It's not mine, I know that.

Happy Halloween.
 
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...tolerance-of-student-activism-at-yale/414810/

According to The Washington Post, “several students in Silliman said they cannot bear to live in the college anymore.” These are young people who live in safe, heated buildings with two Steinway grand pianos, an indoor basketball court, a courtyard with hammocks and picnic tables, a computer lab, a dance studio, a gym, a movie theater, a film-editing lab, billiard tables, an art gallery, and four music practice rooms. But they can’t bear this setting that millions of people would risk their lives to inhabit because one woman wrote an email that hurt their feelings?

Another Silliman resident declared in a campus publication, “I have had to watch my friends defend their right to this institution. This email and the subsequent reaction to it have interrupted their lives. I have friends who are not going to class, who are not doing their homework, who are losing sleep, who are skipping meals, and who are having breakdowns.” One feels for these students. But if an email about Halloween costumes has them skipping class and suffering breakdowns, either they need help from mental-health professionals or they’ve been grievously ill-served by debilitating ideological notions they’ve acquired about what ought to cause them pain.

The student next described what she thinks residential life at Yale should be. Her words: “I don’t want to debate. I want to talk about my pain.” In fact, students were perfectly free to talk about their pain. Some felt entitled to something more, and that is what prolonged the debate—not a faculty member who’d rather have been anywhere else.

ME ME ME ME ME!

What a bunch of spoiled, ungrateful brats. Someone tells them they can't have something and they throw a tantrum.
 
I'm glad to see a few, sadly few, publications calling out this bullshit.

The mainstream media has been oddly quiet when it comes to bad press about the "SJW" movement.

The Atlantic has been pretty good about this, and I'm glad for that because it is a traditionally moderately liberal publication.

This article is a pretty good example: The Coddling of the American Mind.
 
The problem is that "safe spaces" cannot be open to the public. Safe spaces, by definition, hame some restriction on what you can and can't say. Everyone in them agrees to abide by that rule. Which is fine, when done in private. Have all the safe space you want, on your own blog or inside your own home. But it doesn't work when you stake out a public venue and declare it to be "safe", because everyone else in that public venue did not necessarily agree to your rule.

Popehat explains this better than I can.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ferls and Zeorus
The problem is that "safe spaces" cannot be open to the public. Safe spaces, by definition, hame some restriction on what you can and can't say. Everyone in them agrees to abide by that rule. Which is fine, when done in private. Have all the safe space you want, on your own blog or inside your own home. But it doesn't work when you stake out a public venue and declare it to be "safe", because everyone else in that public venue did not necessarily agree to your rule.

Popehat explains this better than I can.

Safe spaces are fine, yes - but universities and other intellectual spaces can't afford to fit those conditions. It's a shame that idiots like Jerelyn Luther are given such quality education and don't realize this.
 
So let me get this straight: kids who go to goddamn Yale, one of the most expensive schools in the country, are loosing their shit because someone somewhere on campus *might* wear an off color Halloween costume and the staff would rather people use this to foster discussion instead of starting a witch hunt?

This isn't just first world problems bullshit, thus is goddamn 1% problems bullshit. Spoiled rich kids whining fucking Yale isn't hugboxy enough. What the fuck.
 
5uHNsts.png

For those who don't know, this is Sam Hyde of MillionDollarExtreme. He was probably here to trigger people and give facts - it's what he does.
 
Last edited:
Another Silliman resident declared in a campus publication, “I have had to watch my friends defend their right to this institution. This email and the subsequent reaction to it have interrupted their lives. I have friends who are not going to class, who are not doing their homework, who are losing sleep, who are skipping meals, and who are having breakdowns.”

Oh my god. Get over yourselves you spoiled fucking brats. The professor just voiced an opinion you didn't agree with but you are all acting like they kidnapped you and held you at gunpoint. There are thousands of young people in country who will never step foot on such a prestigious campus and you idiots are willing to throw your expensive education away because someone said something that hurt your little feelings.
 
Oh my god. Get over yourselves you spoiled fucking brats. The professor just voiced an opinion you didn't agree with but you are all acting like they kidnapped you and held you at gunpoint. There are thousands of young people in country who will never step foot on such a prestigious campus and you idiots are willing to throw your expensive education away because someone said something that hurt your little feelings.

If these lazy cunts don't want to go to class or do their homework, I'm sure there are plenty of actual, real, oppressed PoCs who would be glad to take their place at Yale and actually put in some effort at getting an education.

If the administrators weren't complete pussies, they'd be scouring their waitlist for people to replace those who are oppressed by being at Yale.
 
Unlike the baby boomers, most of these dumbasses will never be able erase their involvement with this madness with what they willingly share. Not to mention that we live in a high surveillance society where everyone has a camera and we have facial recognition software becoming more common. Give it time this will come back to haunt to them :popcorn:
 
Glenn Reynolds: After Yale, Mizzou, raise the voting age — to 25

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...ri-protests-political-debate-column/75577468/

In 1971, the United States ratified the 26th Amendment, lowering the voting age from 21 to 18. In retrospect, that may have been a mistake.

The idea, in those Vietnam War years, was that 18-year-olds, being old enough to be drafted, to marry and to serve on juries, deserved a vote. It seemed plausible at the time, and I myself have argued that we should set the drinking age at 18 for the same reasons.

But now I’m starting to reconsider. To be a voter, one must be able to participate in adult political discussions. It’s necessary to be able to listen to opposing arguments and even — as I’m doing right here in this column — to change your mind in response to new evidence.

This evidence suggests that, whatever one might say about the 18-year-olds of 1971, the 18-year-olds of today aren’t up to that task. And even the 21-year-olds aren’t looking so good.
 
Back