Red Mosquito

Sure, the connotation and the denotation are both changed.

McParadigm wrote:A little context helps.

Weinstein has been an increasingly polarizing figure there, as he has previously opposed other race-related efforts (including efforts to diversify the faculty) and ran to Tucker Carlson and other hard right media to "plead" his case / put the university down. Regardless of the merits of the effort, the perception there is that he likes to publicize himself at the U's expense (it doesn't help that he didn't pitch this fit in earlier years, when it was people of color who were staying away from campus for a day).

It doesn't surprise me that the NYT locked into the Breitbart version of this...but it does disappoint.

This context does not, in fact, help.

.

Here's an addition Op-Ed on the Evergreen stuff

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/03/opin ... pe=article


Regardless of the circumstances at Evergreen I think the NYT article does kind of hit on why race/minority relations are having such a hard time progressing at all. There is a small extreme mindset on either side that is able to shut down any DISCUSSION of race/minority issues as being inherently racist.

The word "racist" or "bigot" is the end of any conversation, not the beginning of one.

McParadigm wrote:A little context helps.

Weinstein has been an increasingly polarizing figure there, as he has previously opposed other race-related efforts (including efforts to diversify the faculty) and ran to Tucker Carlson and other hard right media to "plead" his case / put the university down. Regardless of the merits of the effort, the perception there is that he likes to publicize himself at the U's expense (it doesn't help that he didn't pitch this fit in earlier years, when it was people of color who were staying away from campus for a day).

It doesn't surprise me that the NYT locked into the Breitbart version of this...but it does disappoint.

i liked you better when you weren't carrying water for middlebrow shitliberalism tbh

.

--- wrote:

McParadigm wrote:A little context helps.

Weinstein has been an increasingly polarizing figure there, as he has previously opposed other race-related efforts (including efforts to diversify the faculty) and ran to Tucker Carlson and other hard right media to "plead" his case / put the university down. Regardless of the merits of the effort, the perception there is that he likes to publicize himself at the U's expense (it doesn't help that he didn't pitch this fit in earlier years, when it was people of color who were staying away from campus for a day).

It doesn't surprise me that the NYT locked into the Breitbart version of this...but it does disappoint.

i liked you better when you weren't carrying water for middlebrow shitliberalism tbh

That's fine. My point wasn't that the response has been reasonable...it's been absurd...just that this is sort of a culmination of a fairly long-brewing conflict between a campus and a professor, and not effectively capturing that is clickbaity reporting. Even the article's title, "when the left turns on its own," is misrepresentative and Drudge-like. The op-ed piece Skitch posted was a lot better.

Maybe I didn't express it well, but my irritation was aimed at the reporting. The Times has been showing a lot of cracks lately, and it bothers me.

tragabigzanda wrote:Yes, the Times has been sucking pretty bad for a few years. Their investigative reporting is still top-notch, but far too much of their real estate has become devoted to, well, expensive real estate, identity politics, and art & culture trends.

Articulated it better than I.

.

The reply piece raised a lot of really interesting points, and in a way I actually agree with the professor when he says that history is being made. We'll look back at right now as a breaking point for a lot of issues. There is a huge fatigue in America about race, almost like nobody understands why it's still such a problem. At this point it's like the ten boxes of bullshit at the end of a move, and everybody's tired, so the conversation becomes "why is this still here?!?" and "it has nothing to do with me" more than anything else that's actually useful. Call-in culture and empathetic discussion is one of the only useful and proven ways of changing things, but it's also incredibly difficult to do, and we live in a horrible climate for it. Hooray!

Hopefully if we ever meet aliens we can avoid the part where we do horrible things to each other and then build a nation together while it festers for centuries.

.

Isn't "non-black POC" a wildly dismissive, broad, and racist term? How is that okay?

It refers to people of color who are not black. It is super straightforward and I don't see why the term itself would be objectionable

I understand it means that. It doesn't seem weird to you to group all of those races together as one thing?

LoathedVermin72 wrote:I understand it means that. It doesn't seem weird to you to group all of those races together as one thing?

Beyond the odd unhinged tweet, I haven't really seen it used in a way where it's trying to say something about those races ("NBPOC are this or that"); rather, it's been a way for black authors to attempt to elaborate on specific racial issues that are unique to/especially prevalent in the black experience. Sort of in the same way that "racism" and "anti-blackness" are not the exact same thing.

tragabigzanda wrote:Why has society agreed to lump all the various asians, Indians, and first Native American people into one big group?

It really hasn't though. That term isn't even that popular

theplatypus wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:I understand it means that. It doesn't seem weird to you to group all of those races together as one thing?

Beyond the odd unhinged tweet, I haven't really seen it used in a way where it's trying to say something about those races ("NBPOC are this or that"); rather, it's been a way for black authors to attempt to elaborate on specific racial issues that are unique to/especially prevalent in the black experience. Sort of in the same way that "racism" and "anti-blackness" are not the exact same thing.

I get this too. I just think it creates a really weird categorization. It implicitly winds up grouping people into only three possible categories: black, white, or non-black POC. Even if it isn't intended to be so, it comes off very reductive and condescending.

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

theplatypus wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:I understand it means that. It doesn't seem weird to you to group all of those races together as one thing?

Beyond the odd unhinged tweet, I haven't really seen it used in a way where it's trying to say something about those races ("NBPOC are this or that"); rather, it's been a way for black authors to attempt to elaborate on specific racial issues that are unique to/especially prevalent in the black experience. Sort of in the same way that "racism" and "anti-blackness" are not the exact same thing.

I get this too. I just think it creates a really weird categorization. It implicitly winds up grouping people into only three possible categories: black, white, or non-black POC. Even if it isn't intended to be so, it comes very reductive and condescending.

I can understand that. I haven't really encountered this usage of it or interpreted it in that way