The Insane "Social Justice" Thread II

[rhino]

Meh. The law has to protect bad people too, I suppose. I don't like it, but that's the way it has to be.

Just like the 1st Amendment is there to remind us that speech that we don't like is what is protected.

 

[actaeon277]

https://humandefense.com/roundhouse-kicker-arrested/
ARRESTED: Man Who Roundhouse Kicked Pro-Life Leader Detained

1006 16:55 Man Arrested In Assault Invst, Jordan Hunt, 26 https://t.co/x7wIhBR2u7
— Toronto Police (@TorontoPolice) October 6, 2018 He is charged with:

1. 8 counts of assault
2. 7 counts of mischief under $5,000

The release by the Toronto Police Services further alleges connection with an assault on August 2nd against a Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform intern earlier this summer.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Eurogamer Demands That Lovecraftian Horror Be Abandoned, Because Lovecraft Was Racist

 

[femurphy77]

That's unfortunate. Had someone like me used the exact same words 10 years ago, I think the outcome would have been different.

Well, you ARE a purple rhino. . . .

 

[actaeon277]

Eurogamer Demands That Lovecraftian Horror Be Abandoned, Because Lovecraft Was Racist

If people like it, they will buy it.
If not...

 

[Route 45]

Minnesota teacher resigns over 'kill Kavanaugh' post - Story | KMSP

 

[jamil]

Probably shouldn’t lose her job for that. It was obviously a joke. I’d like the mob to have less power over people’s lives. But using “whose” instead of “who’s”, now THAT she should lose her job over.

 

[churchmouse]

Probably shouldn’t lose her job for that. It was obviously a joke. I’d like the mob to have less power over people’s lives. But using “whose” instead of “who’s”, now THAT she should lose her job over.

Those eyebrows are an issue as well.....

 

[mmpsteve]

You don't think the rhetoric raises the potential for real violence? ... uh ... OK

Probably shouldn’t lose her job for that. It was obviously a joke. I’d like the mob to have less power over people’s lives. But using “whose” instead of “who’s”, now THAT she should lose her job over.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Instagram says it will now detect bullying in photos

 

[HoughMade]

You don't think the rhetoric raises the potential for real violence? ...

In theory? Sure. This comment? I doubt it. Sure it needs to be investigated, but every intemperant comment should not garner a criminal penalty. If she were not a teacher, I wouldn’t think firing her would be in order.

 

[EMDX6043]

Those eyebrows are an issue as well.....

It's a shame. She was really pretty before she got infected with [fill in the blank].

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Instagram says it will now detect bullying in photos

One of the things they conciser bulling is, no joke, having a side by side image of two people where one person looks better than the other.

 

[EMDX6043]

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Minnesota teacher resigns over 'kill Kavanaugh' post - Story | KMSP

Probably shouldn’t lose her job for that. It was obviously a joke. I’d like the mob to have less power over people’s lives. But using “whose” instead of “who’s”, now THAT she should lose her job over.

I don't know about school teachers but I was told, a long time ago, as a new engineer, I was "always on the clock"...even when I wasn't really. Meaning, if I conducted myself in such a way that embarrassed the company, I could be disciplined...up to termination. I have to believe if I posted something online about killing a well known person and it got widespread notice like this instance did, that might just qualify for a visit to the HR office and possibly an escort from the premises by security.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

I think you got some nipplage in there.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Harvard, NYU law reviews sued for preferring female, nonwhite, LGBT members

Not only is Harvard University going to trial next week over allegations that it discriminated against Asian-American applicants, but now another group that fights race preferences has filed federal lawsuits against Harvard Law Review and the New York University Law Review, and their law schools, alleging race and sex discrimination in member article selection. To quote:

[T]hey allege that faculty are suffering from these practices in two ways: because their submitted articles may be rejected on account of the faculty member’s immutable traits, and they may be reviewed by the “less capable students” who secured their membership apart from academic merit. Faculty, Alumni, and Students Opposed to Racial Preferences, a Texas-based nonprofit, doesn’t identify its leaders, but its website is similar in format to that of Students for Fair Admissions, the plaintiff in next week’s Harvard trial. Membership on law reviews “until recently” was conditioned on grades and writing competitions, but the elite law reviews targeted in these lawsuits “in recent years” have preferred women, racial minorities (only those “underrepresented” for Harvard), “homosexuals, and transgendered people,” both suits claim.

The Harvard suit says its law review has used racial preferences for more than 20 years, and added sex preferences five years ago. More than a third of its membership slots are chosen by unspecified “holistic” evaluation, but the review invites applicants to submit “aspects of their identity,” including “racial or ethnic identity, physical disability status, gender identity, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic status.” They can also explain identities that are not “fully captured” by the listed categories. It also gives preferential treatment to women and minorities in selecting articles for publication, the suit claims. Harvard is ignoring its own nondiscrimination policy, as well as “the clear and unambiguous text of Title VI and Title IX,” by allowing these practices.

The NYU suit is apparently somewhat different:

It says the law review explicitly sets aside membership slots – nearly a quarter – for candidates chosen by a “Diversity Committee.” It evaluates the “personal statements” required of all applicants, who must “clearly identify and discuss any personal characteristics, background, unique experiences, or qualifications” they consider relevant. The committee itself, however, explicitly considers “race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, national origin, religion, socio-economic background, ideological viewpoint, disability, and age” when filling these diversity slots. Applicants can also submit a résumé, which the review will use “to realize its commitment to staff diversity.”

For article submissions, the NYU review confronts authors with a series of demographic boxes they are “invited” to check, including several for race, sexual orientation (including “other”) and gender identity (including “neither” and “both”). This is not required by the platform provider, Scholastica, the suit notes. The university and its law school are letting these practices continue in spite of the “clear and unequivocal text of Title VI and Title IX.” It also says the university is in violation of recent 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ precedent on federal antidiscrimination law, by letting the review confer “preferences upon homosexuals and transgendered people.”

And:

The suits identify multiple “injury in fact” conditions for FASORP members – which give the group legal standing – and not just those whose articles are rejected because of their immutable traits or their review by “less capable students.” The law reviews’ policies also “diminish the prestige” of belonging to them, both suits claim: Being an alumnus is now “part of a politicized spoils system and no longer acts as a reliable signaling device for academic ability or achievement.” They cite the view of former 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judge Richard Posner, who currently teaches at the University of Chicago Law School, in his 1995 book Overcoming Law:

The Harvard Law Review, with its epicycles of affirmative action, is on the way to becoming a laughingstock.

Female or minority alumni of the law reviews have suffered because their membership is “now viewed with suspicion” and they’ll struggle to “prove that they earned their law-review membership through academic merit” rather than “diversity set-asides” or “the largesse of the ‘Diversity Committee.'” The suits also name Education Secretary Betsy DeVos for letting both universities receive federal funding while their law reviews violate Title VI and Title IX.

Bloomberg notes that the lawyer who filed the suits, Jonathan Mitchell, is the former solicitor general of Texas and President Trump’s nominee to lead the Administrative Conference of the United States. The agency collects feedback from “expert representatives” to recommend improvements to administrative procedure and procedure.

 

[EMDX6043]

I mean, if everyone is truly equal under the law, why aren't these applications scrubbed of any and ALL identifying characteristics? Schools and employers should be looking for the best, not merely candidates that check all of the right boxes in the name of diversity.

 

[jamil]

Probably shouldn’t lose her job for that. It was obviously a joke. I’d like the mob to have less power over people’s lives. But using “whose” instead of “who’s”, now THAT she should lose her job over.

You don't think the rhetoric raises the potential for real violence? ... uh ... OK

I don't know about school teachers but I was told, a long time ago, as a new engineer, I was "always on the clock"...even when I wasn't really. Meaning, if I conducted myself in such a way that embarrassed the company, I could be disciplined...up to termination. I have to believe if I posted something online about killing a well known person and it got widespread notice like this instance did, that might just qualify for a visit to the HR office and possibly an escort from the premises by security.

Really I was just making a grammar nazi joke. I hadn’t put a lot of thought into it. But I’ll be serious. I’ll try to put myself in the position of deciding what to do. Without a context other than my imagination and first impressions, I would not fire her straightaway just for a tweet. I would not want to be fired just for saying something controversial on the internet without having the opportunity to explain the context.

If it were up to me, I’d wait and talk to her first. Admittedly I am biased towards firing her so it’s really up to her to make the case that her attitude isn’t what it appears to be, and that she’s not a bad influence on students. Appearance is a factor. And probably the first question would be to identify the grammar mistake(s) in the tweet.

 

[mmpsteve]

At this stage in the social media 'evolution', every single person knows that what they do on social media can bear repercussions on their professional life. Yet some choose to throw caution to the wind in order to get their message out to the masses. My question is, do you really want someone who will throw caution to the wind, teaching your children (the generic you)? My two boys are adults now, but I don't want this type of person teaching ANY impressionable young people their poison. It's a matter of judgement, and lack thereof. Most contracts of employment, both public and private, speak to these issues of conduct unbecoming, and I have no sympathy for anyone who breaks their contract of employment. Screw them and the donkey they rode in on.

Really I was just making a grammar nazi joke. I hadn’t put a lot of thought into it. But I’ll be serious. I’ll try to put myself in the position of deciding what to do. Without a context other than my imagination and first impressions, I would not fire her straightaway just for a tweet. I would not want to be fired just for saying something controversial on the internet without having the opportunity to explain the context.

If it were up to me, I’d wait and talk to her first. Admittedly I am biased towards firing her so it’s really up to her to make the case that her attitude isn’t what it appears to be, and that she’s not a bad influence on students. Appearance is a factor. And probably the first question would be to identify the grammar mistake(s) in the tweet.