be careful, you might be blacklisted!

How so? School is well over 10y ago.

You might end up on a list of shitty men if the OP had anything to say about it.

I'll take my chances.

fingers crossed!

A good flashing detail is sexy as fuck.

The word flashing is offensive to people who have been flashed.

^good

If the server is rockin, don't come a-knockin.

Many young people today are asexual. It is a thing.

I used to have to try hard to offend people...these snowflakes are making it too easy.

As a Caucasian I find the term snowflakes offensive...

sorry I meant to say honkey.

As a ciscracker I feel much more comfortable with honkey, thanks.

jla-x, nobody is surprised you try to offend, that's why you fail so hard at it.

"Many young people today are asexual. It is a thing." In the words of one of my favorite SNL Characters "Well isn't that Special"

rofl snowflakes.

We know it when we hear it. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people these days who will take offense if you say " good morning". It's going to be very hard to maintain a good workplace in a multi-cultural, multi-lingual world where one person's mild joke is another's horrific insult.  Maybe we should think about dialing down our sensitivity meters just a notch.

Thank you, Donna. I guess that kind of person is a lost cause anyway. The place to start for me, ideally, is just making people more selfaware... somehow.

And geezertect, it's convenient that that frame of mind benefits you so greatly.

Yeah, not being a wuss does benefit people...you should try it.

Donna your take is as usual the most sensible in the thread.

If I set up a straw man slippery slope argument with no basis in reality, I CAN TURN MY BRAIN OFF LALALALALALA!!

"Unfortunately, there are a lot of people these days who will take offense if you say " good morning"." 

No there aren't

"Unfortunately, there are a lot of people these days who will take offense if you say " good morning". I think you are hanging around with a bad crowd. There are happy easy going people in the world, I know I've read about it in a blog.

Sex worker's bath would be more appropriate, but then you have to worry about offending people whose religion opposes bathing. It's a complicated world.

I used the term "dog's breakfast" the other day and none of my coworker's had heard it.

That is offensive to Koreans.

Koreans is offensive to Chinese

LOL.

I use "Dead dog space" a lot ...

Grab bag of mashed ass is another favorite...

How old are you, Finjohn?

I am deeply offended by people who are easily offend-able.

Yeah, fuck them!

"Political Correctness" is a dog-whistle term that refuses to acknowledge nuance, difference, or the "other." Instead it allows people to fight back against the boogey man that's supposedly out to get you. Often this is achieved by getting you to vote against your best interests.

Replace it with "Giving a shit about people who aren't you" and you'll get closer to the truth.

^^^“If people would stop phrasing their opinions as statements of fact, confusion would diminish. "I find that music bad." vs. "That music is bad." It's not difficult.“

suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure.

Some music is objectively bad, though.

Not offended actually. Just getting concerned...

For the future of profession actually being able to make substantive changes to school (and work place) environment

Change can be good or bad. But if we were to make a list of adjectives that may offend people and then try to shame people for using them as political correctness does then it is a bad change IMO. This has sadly already happened to much of society and I gave up keeping track of what is and isn't politically correct when I saw it for what it was. If I found myself offended for someone using the word 'sexy' to describe a building or building component I would think I'm the one that needs to change for being offended over something so trivial.

former work place sent out a list of words that would be flagged in emails..... it was the end of productive work for the day

TIL. Thank you.

Musk is a smart human with the maturity level of a middle-schooler.

Why not?

Oh shit I can't stand Elon Musk but did he really make his cars all spell sexy because that makes me laugh. Life is complex.

Donna, he really did. Tesla’s models are the S, 3, X and Y. Ford owns the trademark for ‘Model E’ which is why Tesla switch to the Model 3.

I don't even circle the subject and instead call them rape spots / corners. Gets the message across very well.

I prefer to you the term “murder corner.”

*use, not you

My first year professor called them "Dead Cat Spaces", which is a far better term.

Very very offensive to PETA and to cats. Also, to be inclusive to live cats we should call it “ Schrodinger spaces” as the cat in that space may be alive or dead. STOP Assuming the quantum state of cats!

Those spaces are where dogs go to die.

or cats.

Those are all great words. News flash, the entirety of school (and design in general) is subjectif. You can't just pick and choose which adjectifs people can use when they try to describe something. IF it's not reflective of your intent, you've either failed at communicating design or you need to ask the one making the sexy comment to clarify their intent.

Also, you must not be very good in studio if you don't get public/private.

I once described my project to my American professor as panty-like or something which included the word panty/panties, while panties are underwear in English of course, got some strange looks and giggles. I actually meant stockings which in Dutch are called 'panty' after pantyhose...

That's the point. We are already so picky about language in architecture, why not go for ones that have actual consequences in our immediate environments? The public/private thing comes up often, and each professor has their own attachment to these terms .

One professor said he has been trying to not use the word public space in teaching students anymore because it there is better work to be done in theorizing public space. If this is already being done for defining and describing speculative spaces in our pedagogy, maybe we can work at looking what language we use that contribute to a toxic culture.

Maybe we could actually work on fixing real problems rather than invent new ones. Your speech policing has no endgame does it? I mean, can we ever ban all the offensive words...or will new ones become offensive? It’s like telling a kid to clean his room. It’s obvious when it’s really dirty...like clothes on floor, old pizza boxes...eventually though you need to define “clean”. What kind of totalitarian parenting would it take to make it suitable for surgery? Do we take out the microscope? Is there really a “clean” or is the point to constantly have something to scold people over...

I am for questioning the norm as a way to fix the problem of a pervasive toxic culture. It's only one way, but it's a start. Unless you have a better idea?

big.dk, sexy, sensual, masturbation are only markers of where we are at right now. and they are useless and not helping anyone.

“Pervasive toxic culture” is a subjective statement. I find language policing to be pervasive and toxic. Why is your version of “toxic” more sanctimonious than mine?

for instance I don’t find the term sexy offensive. It’s far more offensive that someone would regard themselves so morally correct and absolute as to tell me what I can and cannot say.

Well, then go after language policing all around then. Again, it's already happening, so why take issue with the one instant that it could address an actual occurring problem - school and workplace culture that is apathetic in the face of male sexual misconduct.

Again, “sexual misconduct” is subjective. You want to police language and can’t ground your position. You are more interested in virtue and control than fixing anything. Only academia falls for this shit...normal people are laughing at the ridiculous illogical religion it’s become.

Smiling is sexual misconduct. Prove me wrong or stop smiling. That’s essentially your argument. You get to choose the offense and everyone has to change their behavior. The offenses are of course endlessly small and ever changing...so you endlessly get to dictate morality... like a spoiled little brat...”ban things I don’t like and protect things I do like
”

My solution is very simple. If you are that fragile...wrap yourself in padding rather than try to turn all of society into a giant padded room for the liberally insane.

This is great. Jla doing a volley-ball style spike with the microphone. I'm rather aroused now.

Go hump a building :)

Jla, I am not as young as I want to be. It'll take me a few minutes.

What's offensive about "public space"? Or Bjarke Ingels Group dot Denmark?

A sexy building?

Non, well done control joints usually get me going...

^ I am attending a seminar on control joints (not a joke) next week. I think I'll need to pack a spare pair of work pants.

safe space is all the rage right now in gov projects... that and active shooter. I kind you fucking not. Remember, I don't like in 2nd Amendment crazed usa.

Insert X sensibilities also.  I swear, in your typical gov staff pool, there is at least one person allergic to everything.  Carpet? Nope... Vynil floor? nada... what about sexy moss living walls? big fat no (am I fat-shaming no with that comment?).  Next thing we'll need to design for is zodiac signs and people's colour auras.  If anyone is offended by me shitting on their aura sensibilities, then I say good.  I am happy that I offended your nonsense.  Almost a true story... likely to become true at one point in the not so distant future.

Agreed

+++volunteer

Not to mention the curtailing of freedom of speech and the press in an attempt to attack dissident opinions that question the status quo under the guise of "preventing" fake news to spread. That is what the EU or American tech companies are doing these days.

Did you forget positionality on purpose or is that just reflective that you don't know you own?

What's positionality

Positionality? Sounds kinky. Or even... sexy.

I admit, I've caressed more than one building in highly inappropriate ways. Where is my Netflix documentary?

Hey man, as long as you keep your junk away from the MEP stuff it’s no ones business...MEP fetishes are for perverts and engineers.

I call bullshit on that. Show me one MEP who actually gives a fuck about MEP.

Offensive. I like vaginas

LOL!

I prefer more pronounced ribbing.

And it looks like it has testicular cancer which is offensive to survivors. And not circumcised which offends some religions. The stripes are also racist.

Offensive. I like architecture.

That's a sexy comment!

What does that even mean? Sexy is extremely subjective. You are fetishizing something that may be attractive to one person, but not another.

Definition of fetish: a form of sexual desire in which gratification is linked to an abnormal degree to a particular object, item of clothing, part of the body, etc.

When a prof. asks you to create something "sexy" they mean do something that will catch attention or be "edgy" in the most peripheral non-substantive way possible. The prof is essentially telling you that he's not excited by your work and doesn't know how to explain why...

I would totally take that as a form of sexual harassment and sue the school and ruin the profs life....because we must remove nuance from speech!!! Sexy only means one thing- we fuckin...isn’t it funny how people complaining about nuance like Sneakypeter are trying to remove the
nuance from language and behavior?

And my interpretation IS THE reality because I am the center of the universe...meh what do u expect from the narcissistic me me trophy generation...

Can PC culture ever go too far? If so, where is the line?

I am offended by the term line. It implies limitation and I am morally and spiritually opposed to limits.

The line is right behind you

Thats deep. It’s “Vector” from now until infinity

PC culture has already gone too far. Either we have freedom of speech or we don't. Of course people need to be sensitive of others but it has gone so far that so many are so easily offended over so many things. Now they are even talking about eliminating pronouns for goodness sake! That is definitely crossing the line.

Nuance is totally fucking lost on some.

Great vid about where PC is leading us and how wrong it can be: https://youtu.be/iKcWu0tsiZM

How about tolerating how other people talk rather than trying to dictate speech? I find it highly “offensive” when Ivy League elites try to dictate the speech of other cultures and sub-cultures that they deem vulgarians.

Agreed

Aww, you guys. It's a love fest of carelessness up in here.

What have we said that is careless?

PC Culture doesn't exist. It's a made up term that's been weaponized by assholes who are too fragile to face the accountability and social ostracization that comes with being an asshole.

We have freedom of speech. What you're asking for is freedom from consequence, which is dumb.

tduds is correct.

That video is embarrassing. You should be embarrassed to have shared it.

"The progressive liberal agenda isn’t about being nice. It’s about confronting evil, violence, trauma, and death. It’s about acknowledging the ways systemic power, systemic oppression, systemic evil, work in our world around us. I’m not fighting for diversity. I’m not fighting for tolerance. I’m fighting to overturn horrific systems of dehumanizing oppression." https://medium.com/@tuckerfitzgerald/intolerant-liberals-4ecd712ac939

Can I decide what offends me and demand others accommodate or do I need to be an ally of the authoritarian left to qualify?

“It’s about confronting evil, violence, trauma, and death.” Ahhh so your “good” and people who disagree are “evil”. Do you realize how seriously insane and self serving that sounds?

“We have freedom of speech. What you're asking for is freedom from consequence, which is dumb.“. No we are just exercising our freedom of speech by pointing out how dumb, unhelpful, and biased most pc bs is. We are also fighting against this shit from being codified by administrators and used to turn the university into a monoculture of religious loonies.

You're whining about imaginary problems. Ironically.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/why-the-origins-of-political-correctness-should-frighten-you

Ahhh so your “good” and people who disagree are “evil” 

Swing and a miss.

Why are people who haven't been in college for decades so obsessed with the minutia of speech on college campuses? What a bunch of fake outrage.

“I’m fighting to overturn horrific systems of dehumanizing oppression." This statement needs to be grounded. How do we know when this goal has been accomplished? Like the example of the messy room and the never satisfied parent....how much dirt are we willing to accept? Some? None? Do we demand that the room is never clean and impose the impossible goal of total sterilization..?

Of course declaring that our society is equal would render Marxism no longer necessary. It’s existence relies on the struggle of power between the oppressed and the oppressor. So as society becomes more and more just and equal the microscope keeps focusing on smaller and smaller specks of dirt....the more ridiculous the claim the more fair the society is.

Vox: “Knitting is racist!”
Normal person “My god that’s one fair society you must have there!”

The university is the most liberal place the world has seen...so no surprise the Leftists will find the most ridiculous claims of oppression to keep the narrative alive...It’s all about power anyway...the open ended goals are a means to keep it.

LOL

The fundamental misunderstanding here (so fundamental I have trouble believing it's not a deliberate misunderstanding) is that a request is interpreted as a demand and consequence is interpreted as oppression. 

There's a difference between a law that prevents someone from shouting the N-word in public and common decency that suggests it's a horrible thing to do.

It's not illegal to be an asshole, but that doesn't make one any less of an asshole.

Again, tduds, you are fighting the good fight - also the right one, the one that follows the logical conclusion of any thinking person who wants to live in a functional society - but you're whistling in the wind when it comes to changing the minds of some people. Still, I appreciate you writing your thoughts because they are so clearly stated!

tduds, I fully understand the difference...where did I say anything about free speech being violated?

I don't know if labelling something the 'good' or even 'right' fight is that helpful, it immediately disqualifies other(s') as bad or wrong, no?

jla-x: Finjohn said it. I'm responding to the argument and not you personally.

Thanks Donna. My goal in debate is not to change the mind of the person I'm debating, but to sway a neutral / susceptible audience member. Just here to provide a counterpoint.

tduds, I don’t believe that people are truly offended by the word “sexy” in reference to a building. I think it’s bullshit. It seems like many people in academia are simply trying to exert social and cultural control. The virtue signaling is mostly self serving nonsense. I’m not saying that it’s some conspiracy, but rather a social phenomenon that has been worsened by social media. As Johnathan Hiaght has said in “the coddling of the American Mind” there seems to be a social game in play where the offended are trying to gain social points with peers...a sort of virtue signaling that looks ever deeper for smaller and smaller things to be upset about...And...a longing to be the underdog/victim in a world where they have seen more privilege than anytime in human history... I simply refuse to play this dumb game. I’m not going to walk on eggshells at the expense of real debate, humor, fun, art... to please some brat looking to find the smallest most obscure offense...”wow buddy if that offends you...you must be really really sensitive therefore really really good!” It’s a bs manipulation designed to simply get ones way and feel as if they are affecting the system..controlling the public like they controlled their moms and dads. Little brats can kiss my ass. Social and cultural norms in language change over time naturally...they aren’t demanded and mandated by 20yo’s and cowering administrators.

:insert kavanaugh face meme here:

Lot to unpack here... *cracks knuckles*

Sigh... post got deleted. This interface needs some fixing, Archinect.

I don’t believe that people are truly offended by the word “sexy” in reference to a building.

Me either! That, in fact, was my original post in this thread.

It seems like many people in academia are simply trying to exert social and cultural control.

No they're not! In this case, one person made a suggestion. It was pretty universally countered. End of discussion. 

I’m not saying that it’s some conspiracy, but rather a social phenomenon that has been worsened by social media.

It's worsened by traditional media who are inclined (& in some cases mandated) to give "both sides" of an argument. In cases where an opposing side doesn't really exist, they often unwittingly give equal stature to a radical and insignificant voice. This is what's happening in this thread. One person made a suggestion which, again, was nearly universally shut down, and a few folks pounced on it as evidence of a big scary trend. Any statistician can tell you that one data point does not a trend make. If the responses in this thread were overwhelmingly in favor of banning the word 'sexy' from Architectural discussion, maybe you'd have a point in our objection. But that's simply not happening.

I simply refuse to play this dumb game.

You are playing the game though. By taking a righteous stance against an imaginary villain, it reinforces the false narrative that these two sides are somehow equal, or that the danger of word policing in Architectural academia even exists (it doesn't). 

The way to play the game is to recognize this thread for what it is: A well-meaning but misguided suggestion, for which the answer is a simple dismissal. That you're on a soapbox about The Kids Today is, in fact, you playing the game.

My original rant was better. Sorry y'all.

Yes professors can use the word "sexy", but they should recognize that there are social dynamics and contexts in which 'sexy' is not the best word to use. This doesn't require legislation, but simple social awareness of the weight their authority carries and the responsibility expected of someone in a position of authority / education. 

That's the consensus here. If you disagree with that, at least disagree with that. Don't make up something else to disagree with and then accuse me of taking the side of your imagination.

That's fine. I want my buildings to be elegant too, even though I shouldn't. I am just asking for the professors to be more aware of their behavior. Especially in light of multiple faculty being on that list.

"There was a professor at my school who insisted we couldn't just "like" something." 

From a pedagogical standpoint, I support this. He's teaching you to think critically about your opinions, which is how one becomes a designer.

If he pulled that at a cocktail party, sure I'd think it's pedantic & condescending. But that kind of critical instigation is why you go to design school. 

Society (western) is built in a way that protects everyone’s interests. This is why we have rights that apply to “the individual” not to every intersectional group imaginable (which happens to eventually reduce to the individual anyways because everyone is different:) Your post actually gets to the core of the issue- Identity politics and the emphasis on intersectional groups rather than the individual taking over academia and half of society. Our society has progressed and become more fair because of the idea that the individual is the primary unit. The left is trying to undo this and put the emphasis on the group. This is dangerous and counterproductive. If you view the world as a battleground between groups, rather than a collection of individuals, then I can see why you would push this kind of pc leftist agenda. micro aggressions, offensive language, etc...only works if you believe that group identity of paramount. If you believe that individual identity is paramount (as I do) the idea of “accommodating everyone” is problematic as each person has individual grievances and perspectives that determine offensive
.

*speech and actions. The implications on this ideology has damaged architecture and landscape architecture education and less so practice...which is why I gripe about it so much.

Spelling and grammar is a mess...sorry

shazaaammm: Thanks.

jla-x: Lol no

.

shazaaammm & tduds

Oops. Well, just wanted to say I appreciate your insight and sort of see where I went wrong. Of course, I can't attack a single set of words, and also I shouldn't believe something like an archinect discussion will fix anything. From where I stand, I do feel lack of accountability or even acknowledgement of the inappropriate behaviors the shitty architecture men list documented, for my faculty at least. Even though not all of my professors were on there, the reactions on this forum are pretty reflective of the "protect the old guard" attitude that is looming over. It is imaginative, yes, but given that we all know who was on that list and have to inhabit the same space daily, questioning why, imagination is one place to resort to.

The nuance is a bit of a work around, and no, my skin is not as thin as some have suggested. But at the current state, erring on the side of being proactive seems necessary to move the conversation forward.

Your words definely haven't fallen on deaf ears. Just hope that clarified my thoughts.

100% agree that Architecture is riddled with toxic culture and toxic humans. There are a whole lot of issues to be fixed, especially in prestigious universities and prestigious offices. Between burnout culture and persistent misogyny / sexism / racism, something has to change. I think there is a lot of good commentary to be found in this thread between the bouts of heated exchange.

^misogyny/sexism/racism cannot be reduced through pc word control, or by further feeding identity politics (which is actually the force behind racism.) getting back to actual liberal ideals that respect Individuality above all else, and that focus on individual betterment rather than social engineering will.

The thing is, when you try to tell people what to do, and label them as “bad” they usually will tell u to fuck off and double down on whatever it is that they did. It’s basic human nature to rebel against authority. When something good is being forced you end up with people rebeling by doing the opposite. Anyone with kids knows this. Force feeding veggies will produce really bad eating habits.

Said above that I get the whole word point. If starting any conversation about toxic culture is oppressive to you, that says more about you than me.

Seriously, why are the old boys' club ways so important to you all?

Ah, my bad . I'm an asshole.

It seems like j-lax cannot reach any level of acceptable accountability, and wants to dismiss it outright as authoritarian. I Read your comment following that strain of thought.

Change can't be forced down anyone's throat and should be natural in some sense. But the way it is being ignored and resisted particular in light of a major cultural moment is unnatural.

I feel that the arguments on here, by a select few, have been MRA-adjacent. Sorry to loop you into that.

Haha ok I get. Don't be so serious. Lesson learned in the weirdest kind of way.

“Said above that I get the whole word point. If starting any conversation about toxic culture is oppressive to you, that says more about you than me.“. You dope! The whole point is that “toxic” is subjective. I don’t impose my version of toxic onto others...you are suggesting that we do for your version...sorry doesn’t work like that.

The whole point is that “toxic” is subjective. 

...but there's a bell curve. It's not like everyone's idea is so individual and incongruous that we can't collectively agree on a more or less mean definition of "toxic." Suggesting otherwise might mean that your version is far outside the mean and you'd rather not come to terms with that reality.

Thanks for... defining a bell curve?

your comment is not sexy.

The purpose of government is to protect us from each other. Libertarians like jla-x see this as a violation of their personal freedom, but only when it used to protect someone else. This is one of the fundamental contradictions of libertarianism.

Miles, that shows your ignorance on the subject.

Shazaaaammm, that’s not my quote. You are Fake news.

Miles, libertarians believe that the governments job is the protect individual liberties and rights....you can do as you please so long as you don’t violate the rights and liberties of others. You don’t have a right to be not offended. I do have a right to free speech. You are completely misunderstanding political philosophy.

...now watch my inbox implode due to the dozens of response. Hopefully Mr. Balkinator does not get a whiff of this.

You are right, I misquoted. You said "Society (western) is built in a way that protects everyone’s interests."

The intention of my comment was to say that Western society protects some peoples/groups/corporations/institutions interests more than others. 

Apologies for the misquote....but I believe my point still stands. 

Individual rights and liberties are guaranteed under the law. Is the law equally and fairly applied at all times, no. This is mostly because judges have a certain degree of discretion. Manafort got off light maybe, but this happens with all kinds of people for all kinds of crimes including violent and heinous ones. I agree with your main point though. The problem is, and I addressed this in the “clean room example” are we judging society based on impossible standards of perfection, or relative to other societies and periods of history? The get a 100% perfect society would require an enormous amount of authority and render a dystopian nightmare. We have to accept (not condone but accept) a certain degree of undesirable things in order to have a freedom. The Omar issue is interesting because it’s a leftist being attacked by PC police. She imo has the right to criticize Israel, whether I agree or not, without being accused of bigotry. This is a perfect example of PC bs stifling debate and silencing dissenting opinions. I really didn’t see anything anti-Semitic in her statements. Seemed she was critical of the regime, not the people. PC is often weaponized to shut people up. That’s anti-intellectual and counterproductive. Why wouldn’t we want people to speak their minds? Even if they have terrible ideas, how can we debate them and educate them if they are keeping those ideas in the closet out of fear from social and economic repercussions?

Also, you implication that the justice system is racist/classist is the problem with identity politics. Some individuals within it likely are racist/classist, but you are suggesting that racism permeates eventually throughout the System. This isn’t true, and it demonizes the mostly good people who try to apply the law fairly. A few bad apples in the police force for instance doesn’t render all police racist. This tendency to lump people into groups based on a few attributes and then vilify them all based on the bad seeds in the group rather than judge everyone as an individual is identity politics. It is not a recipe to undo racism, it is the root of all racism.

Our country was literally built on genocide + slavery and just because we don't currently practice genocide or slavery doesn't mean those ideals aren't baked into our societal structure.

Are all your takes this bad, or are you just looking for buttons to push?

Name a society that wasn’t.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

"The US isn't racist" 

"Yes it is" 

"Yeah well, all the other countries are racist too." 

This is a weird hill to defend, even for you.

I’m not defending it. I’m stating a fact. Name a racist/sexist policy baked in the books and I am with you that it needs to change. To simply declare the whole thing flawed because of past injustices, despite the fact that the overall ideals/tenents have tended towards, and allowed for, the pursuit and success of a “more perfect union” is counterproductive.

You are positioning the US as having a uniquely horrible history. I simply stated the fact that it is not unique in that regard unfortunately. Therefore if all societies have flawed roots, shouldn’t we judge by their ability to progress beyond them rather than past atrocities committed by people mostly long dead.

Correction....*rather than judge them on those atrocities committed by people mostly long dead.

"You are positioning the US as having a uniquely horrible history." No I'm not.

Housing policy, for an easy start, is riddled with the vestiges of racism. Redlining 75 years ago persists through inequalities in land value, home ownership, and inter-generational wealth accumulation.

Education gap is another big one.

Here's a great lecture about the implicit racism baked into transportation policy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HHKx5OVJ7w

If you're interested, Tamika Butler (linked above) and Antwi Akom (linked here) are both fantastic speakers on societal structural racism and how the built environment reflects (and can remedy) our racist history. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdpDdyJI3_s

"Therefore if all societies have flawed roots, shouldn’t we judge by their ability to progress beyond them rather than past atrocities committed by people mostly long dead." 

Ok. By this standard, we still haven't progressed much. For a timely microexample, state legalization of marijuana so far has largely benefitted white business owners while countless black men remain in prison for possession of a now-legal substance. Where are their pardons? 

Repealing the unjust law without making attempts to remedy the lives of those harmed by the law is not justice.

Housing policy, for an easy start, is riddled with the vestiges of racism. Redlining 75 years ago persists through inequalities in land value, home ownership, and inter-generational wealth accumulation.“. Yes, but you are conflating cause and effect. Past policies have present effect. True. No one is arguing that society is currently perfect. The problem is what do you do about it? The recent debate about reparations is a relevant example of the left relying on loose identities to correct effects of past policies. The complexity of that would be ridiculous.

And about the weed...the libertarians have been on that page for a while.

"what do you do about it?" affirmative action.

Ruh-oh

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/0...

Political censorship, supported by the corporate media: Rep. Omar told the truth and was labeled "anti-semetic". This is used to derail any criticism of AIPAC, Israel, and Israeli interests.

Yup

#allwordsmatter

#allwordsmattetbutminealittlemorethanyours

Crap! I fucked up my hashtag :(

matte is always sexier than glossy

True, glossy quickly turns cheap/trashy. Except when it's Mies' glossy chrome column obviously.

"We don't need a Ministry of Truth to OK or not OK certain words." 

Is anyone *actually* advocating this? I only encounter arguments against it, usually as a bad-faith derailing attempt when someone suggests we add a word to the list mentioned in your opening sentence. You know who you are.

thou shall not speak ill of our lord Mies (pbuh)

Miles, I'm glad you brought up the Rep. Ilhan Omar kerfuffle. I'm of course a huge fan of her! But I'm trying to be fair, so I've been trying really, really hard this week to think about how often I give a knee-jerk condemnation to people on the right when they say something careless that can be easily pumped up to being perceived as offensive. It's hard. I mean, it's not hard to find examples of it - on both sides! - but it's hard to put in the constant energy to *really think carefully and generously* about what someone means when they speak, and what the context is, and what a fair response is.

tduds, you are pretending that administrations don’t have actual lists of offensive words/gestures and that people are being held accountable for using them. Most are ridiculous. This stuff is being institutionalized. It’s not paranoia to question such a system especially on a college campus that is in charge of facilitating thinking...ESPECIALLY if they are state schools recieving tax dollars.

Gonna need a link there.

Nevermind that universities aren't the government and the principles of the constitution don't apply to them. Losing your job is not equivalent to being convicted of a crime, so it follows that being fired for something your employer deems a fireable offense is not a violation of your rights.

Of course anyone is always welcome to challenge this principle in the courts, but - ironically thanks to Republican policy - 'Right to Work' pretty much guarantees the employer will win the case.

^I never said it did. I also support the rights of a private entity to create its own speech policy within its own space. Archinect can censor whatever it wants. I’m not criticizing the institutions freedom to curtail speech. I am criticizing the culture that would want to.

With state schools it’s different...

I've finally grown tired of chasing these moving goalposts. I'm out - for now.

Gotta go design some sexy canopy details.

I know

Lol. Academia is overwhelmingly left. I don’t understand the question.

"All the smart people are liberals!" is my favorite self-own.

She didn’t make a racist statement. She criticized a regime. The mental gymnastics perpetrated by the ones wanting to silence her expanded the definition of racism to suit their needs. This is a clear issue with a loose ended subjective declaration of offensive speech.

You can depend on jla-x to keep tossing up softballs for you to hit out of the park.

Citations or didn’t happen

Pretty much every response tduds made to you in this thread. I'm sure you feel like you came out on top despite the overwhelming lack of support for your positions. Anarchistic individualism triumphs over the collective! LOL

LOL. Every collectivist society has failed miserably while individualism has led to the greatest advances in everything since the enlightenment...therefore collectivism wins by Miles logic. From the gulags of Long Island.

By Lack of support for my positions

I’d say most people on earth would support individualism over collectivism...even the North Koreans if they had the freedom to think like an individual...

"Every collectivist society has failed miserably" except for China (about 1/4 of the planet's population) and many other countries. Your limited knowledge of the world around you is appalling, but a good basis for your political beliefs.

"I’d say most people on earth would support individualism over collectivism" Did you conduct that survey yourself?

Opinion is not fact. You should learn the difference. Here is a fact: many collective societies such as Native Americans and others were eradicated by "individualist" societies.

Society only functions because of collectivism. Which was the point that you misconstrued in an absurd attempt to advance your idiotic, inhumane political ideology.

I will admit to making a mistake here - unblocking you to address your nonsense. Rest assured that has now been corrected.

you are mistaking cooperative for collective and selfish for individualist. Valuing individuality and applying rights and liberties to individuals rather than groups is more just. Goodnight. Thanks for playing.

Doesn't the fact that individualistic societies eradicated many collectivist societies sort of prove his point that collective societies stagnate and don't innovate?

That's a provocative question, archi-dude. To me it brings to mind the quote about growth for the sake of growth being what a cancerous tumor does. I'm not anti-innovation, but I'm also a big fan of The Lorax! Seriously, destroying your host is not a good strategy. I read a novel recently (The People In The Trees by Hanya Yanagihara) that was about an indigenous society and how existence can become terribly unbalanced terribly quickly (it's a harrowing book, for a lot of reasons, but the anthropological aspect of the story was fascinating).

Is genocide - the most extreme form of racism - innovation?

I don't think anyone is saying that it is, Miles. But genocide definitely seems like a cancer, a pathological drive to change an existing balance, regardless of outcome.

Individualism is not about being a selfish asshole, it is about valuing individuality above group association. It is about protecting the ultimate minority, the individual. It is about judging people for who they are rather than the group they belong to. This used to be the ideal of the liberals. It seems that now, group identity is being elevated to greater importance. This is dangerous imo as it leads to tribalism, racism, and ignorance. The nationalist alt right and the new left is toying with a dangerous game. History proves that it never ends well.

Donna, you need to read that post again. The direct inference is that collective societies stagnate and don't "innovate" (definition required), thereby providing justification for their eradication.

Those savages stand in the way of progress! This is as racist as you can get.

Tribal societies work perfectly. Large modern collectivist
societies do not.

*tribal societies often work...that’s not to say oppression doesn’t exist within them...as well as war.

Again with this bullshit "Rugged Individualism" trope, it's sooo, 8th grade.

Leftist: “we must protect minorities! They are the most vulnerable yay for intersectionality” Classical liberal: How many intersections are there? Leftist: “an infinite amount” Classical liberal: “like one for each person?” Leftist: “I guess” Classical liberal: “I agree, let’s protect the individual!”

Rugged individualism, derived from "individualism", is a term that indicates the virtuous ideal where an individual is totally self-reliant and independent from outside assistance. Often associated with the notion of laissez-faire and its supporters, the term was actually coined by the interventionist American President Herbert Hoover, a Progressive Republican who presided over the beginning of the Great Depression.[1][2]

Hoover, yup, that great Americant

jla-x - what is your definition of intersectionality? just curious...

paperbottle, see the new post below...

b3, you are debating individualism with a definition of a different term “rugged individualism”. I’m not familiar with the latter meaning. I’m guessing it’s a survival of the fittest thing. I don’t think that is a good thing. We can value individuality (as MLK clearly did) while maintaining charitable and altruistic behavior. I’m not sure where this idea came from that individualism is synonymous with selfishness? I also don’t understand this idea that libertarianism mandates selfishness. Both simple give the individual free will to be or not to be selfish. The alternative is forced altruism. How do you force altruism without oppressing? How do you remove free will without diminishing good will to obedience?

that’s the problem with PC. It supposes people are “good” or “correct” for not saying words that carry personal consequences, rather than simply acting out of obedient and self interest. It’s a form of coerced behavior.

beta, that quote! I have also seen another non-MLK version, 'the rich has state help, and the poor have self help'.

*have, idc.

"Tribal societies work perfectly. Large modern collectivist societies do not." 

About as nonsensical as it gets.

Tribal society is the stable social system with a division of labour organised around extended family relations, in which people lived before the rupture into social classes.

“The population is extremely sparse; it is dense only at the tribe’s place of settlement, around which lie in a wide circle first the hunting grounds and then the protective belt of neutral forest, which separates the tribe from others. The division of labour is purely primitive, between the sexes only. The man fights in the wars, goes hunting and fishing, procures the raw materials of food and the tools necessary for doing so. The woman looks after the house and the preparation of food and clothing, cooks, weaves, sews. They are each master in their own sphere: the man in the forest, the woman in the house. Each is owner of the instruments which he or she makes and uses: the man of the weapons, the hunting and fishing implements, the woman of the household gear. The housekeeping is communal among several and often many families. What is made and used in common is common property-the house, the garden, the long-boat. [Origins of the Family, Chapter 9]

“Tribal society” is a description which covers a vast array of societies, from the earliest humans who first stood upright and who have long since disappeared from the Earth, up to the citizens of the early Greek polis before about 600 B.C. and indigenous people in many remote parts of the world today, who maintain herds, live in settled villages and engage in a certain amount of trade.

What characterises tribal society is that there are no social classes; for this reason the earliest stages of tribal society is sometimes referred to as “primitive communism”.

Marxist

Stop playing yourself.

I edited what I wrote below what you quoted...as you saw...Tribal societies are all very different...yes. What I was saying in response to Miles was that “collective” societies are only stable with very small populations that engage in subsistence living...within tribal societies there are hierarchies...wars...oppression...etc. He implied that tribal societies are collective. Not necessarily true, but yes, on a small scale it can be stable.

No “social classes” every anthropologist on the planet would disagree.

There are many many “tribal societies” that have social strata and hierarchy. What’s your point?

The debate wasn’t about tribal societies...it was about collectivist vs individualist ones....his example of tribes is moot...also over simplified...and idealized... comparing apples and oranges

Enlightening

"Politicians like Bernie and Maxine scream the word about Trump but never seem to offer any examples and ignore the blacks and Latinos who do support Trump."

is the reason you don't like the term 'racist' because people are using that word in reference to yourself? likely because of a political identity you try to associate yourself with? if that is the case, i think it would make more sense for you to try understanding the other person's perspective and why they think that tag applies to you rather than attacking the word used to describe you. liberals typically aren't trying to insult you, they're trying to reduce or eliminate racism in their communities.

Volunteer, it might help to think of the word racist being used not only as in "Bob is *a* racist" but as in "Bob embraces as 'just common sense' a lot of ideas that are based on racist societal structures, and he will understand how they are racist as soon as he learns more about how systematic disadvantages are common in our society." I have hope for Bob - he'll figure it out!

Seriously? I don't know if you're a racist, or just plain ignorant.

https://www.rollingstone.com/p...

The cure for racism is cosmology. Anyone who understands the vastness of space can easily measure the insignificance of race and nationality.

“Racist” should be replaced with the word “imbecile”....it’s more accurate as the root of racism is chronic small mindedness...not being a “racist”

Shoot racists into space.

And how does either the N-word or the R-word describe behavior? They both describe a completely unacceptable attitude toward a human being. Perhaps you should go look in the mirror if you want to see ignorance and bias.

Both words are normally nouns. The R-word is dripping with hate and invective so I say make it as socially unacceptable as the N-word. The R- word stops conversation and discourse every time it is used. It is the 'virtue signaling' word self-anointed elites use to show their self-nominated superiority and to avoid discussing the issues. Time for it to go. But not legally. If you want to keep using the R-word and make a complete ass of yourself go right ahead.

Volunteer, I hadn't read this comment of yours before I made my comment above in which I talk about racist as an adjective. If someone says "That's racist" don't think of them saying *YOU* are racist (unless you're David Duke, which I'm pretty sure you're not).

Prejudice?

nuf'said, probably.

Donna, no worries.I just get tired of all these snowflakes getting 'triggered' when someone sneezes yet feel free to dump the R-word on anything that moves.

OMG beta we just watched Animal House last night! After watching the excellent movie about Douglas Kenney, A Stupid and Futile Gesture.

Donna, that was a very good, but sad movie.

I loved it, thought it was beautifully made with so many cool narrative devices and excellent performances - I literally felt like I was watching young Chevy and Gilda.

Your point? You are purposely confusing libertarianism with anarchy. These two things are not synonymous. Libertarianism is also not opposed to social programs or even saftynets. Its just opposed to state violence to achieve it. It’s also a misnomer that libertarians are primarily concerned with welfare. They are far far more concerned with corporate welfare, subsidies, and military spending. Food stamps are way down on the list.

Also, the idea that we don’t rely on anyone is stupid. You can be an individual and still live in a society of other individuals who all play their part. Your statement is hyperbolic.

i think the libertarian ideal is that it's good for government to fund and maintain the roads jla uses, but putting jla's tax dollars into roads other people use is wasteful. we should only support the programs that help him.

No curt.

state violence. lol.

Damn this weed is strong...

that's good

I would say maybe intersectionality is more about what happens to the person than who they are at their core being

It's the whole

Ugh sorry. Well, anyways, I was going to give an example from Crenshaw's Mapping the Margins, but it is easily accessible and an easy read and there is no way I could do her work justice.

I’m mildly familiar with that text, but will take another look when I get a chance. I think her argument was about the categories within social categories (women, Black, Latino, etc). All I’m saying is that “what happens to a person” is always unique to that person, AND how it shapes “their core being” depends on factors unique to the individuals specific brain structure. I know brothers who lived almost identical lives...one is in jail, the other is very successful. One acts like a jackass, the other is the nicest guy.

Which one is the jackass?

My father once knew a man!

thanks prof