jump to content
my subreddits
more »
want to join? sign in or create an account in seconds|
[-]
use the following search parameters to narrow your results:
subreddit:subreddit
find submissions in "subreddit"
author:username
find submissions by "username"
site:example.com
find submissions from "example.com"
url:text
search for "text" in url
selftext:text
search for "text" in self post contents
self:yes (or self:no)
include (or exclude) self posts
nsfw:yes (or nsfw:no)
include (or exclude) results marked as NSFW
e.g. subreddit:aww site:imgur.com dog
this post was submitted on
4,494 points (93% upvoted)
shortlink:
reset password

todayilearned

unsubscribesubscribe8,565,439 learners readers
12,927 users here now
  • You learn something new every day; what did you learn today?
  • Submit interesting and specific facts that you just found out (not broad information you looked up, TodayILearned is not /r/wikipedia).

Posting rules

  1. Submissions must be verifiable. Please link directly to a reliable source that supports every claim in your post title. Images alone do not count as valid references. Videos are fine so long as they come from reputable sources (e.g. BBC, Discovery, etc).
  2. No personal opinions, anecdotes or subjective statements (e.g "TIL xyz is a great movie").
  3. No news or recent sources. News and any sources (blog, article, press release, video, etc.) more recent than two months are not allowed.
  4. Nothing related to recent politics.
  5. No misleading claims. Posts that omit essential information, or present unrelated facts in a way that suggest a connection will be removed.
  6. Rephrase your post title if the following are not met:
    1. Titles must begin with "TIL ..."
    2. Make them descriptive, concise and specific (e.g. not "TIL something interesting about bacon").
    3. Titles must be able to stand on their own without requiring readers to click on a link. Starting your title with a why/what/who/where/how modifier should be unnecessary.*
    4. "TIL about ..." and other broad posts don't belong on TIL. Try /r/Wikipedia, etc. instead, or be more specific (and avoid the word "about").
    5. "TIL how to ..." posts belong on /r/HowTo.
  7. No tips related to the usage, existence or features of specific software/websites (e.g. "TIL you can click on widgets in WidgetMaker 1.22").
  8. All NSFW links must be tagged (including comments).

    Please see the wiki for more detailed explanations of the rules.

Additional info

  • If your post does not appear in the new queue and you think it meets the above rules, please contact the moderators (include a link to your reddit.com post, not your story).
  • Please report spam, inaccurate or otherwise inappropriate posts by messaging the moderators, as this helps us remove them more promptly!
  • More information available on the TIL FAQ and wiki.

Etiquette

We ask that you please do the following:
  1. avoid mobile versions of websites (e.g. m.wikipedia.org)
  2. link to the appropriate heading when referencing an article (particularly on Wikipedia)
  3. link to the appropriate start time when referencing videos (e.g. on YouTube)
  4. add [PDF] or [NSFW] tags to your posts, as necessary.
  5. Please avoid reposting TILs that have already made the front page in the past
Please also read the site-wide Reddiquette.
Talk with us on IRC: #todayIlearned on irc.freenode.org, or just click here.
  • To adapt this style to your own subreddit, message /u/legweed! Thanks legweed!
  • You are loved.
a community for
No problem. We won't show you that ad again. Why didn't you like it?
Oops! I didn't mean to do this.
Announcement: For the love of all that is holy, PLEASE read the rules in the wiki or sidebar before posting, and PLEASE message the mods about inappropriate/inaccurate posts.
top 200 commentsshow 500
[–]MagicCoat 1442 points1443 points1444 points  (463 children)
My secondary school GCSE English class had the word "nigger" on the wall because we were studying Of Mice and Men, but everyone was mature enough to not bat an eyelid.
The day we walked in and saw "nigger" amongst the key-words on the wall our teacher told us she trusted in us to be mature and understand the context behind the word's placement and why it was an important part of our studies. Bare in mind this is a class full of 16/15 year-olds, 3 years ago, able to understand the importance of such a word and accept its place in our classroom and compare it to a university Professor being outright banned from teaching for quoting in the exact same context.
There were also no complaints raised from other teachers or students. I distinctly remember the head walking in during one lesson showing parents around during one lesson where we were discussing the subject of the slur.
We also had no qualms with saying the word while reading (though we usually referred to it as "the n-word" when speaking about its use, except in essays).
The contrast of maturity between Year 11s (teenagers) and adult university students actually astounds me.
Today, I am an adult university student studying both journalism and screenwriting, and I am still in lessons where these kind of slurs and graphic content are displayed in a purely educational context (specifically, this year I studied law and ethics in Journalism including defamation), and luckily none of the students deliberately take it out of that context to improve some kind of self-image, and I am thankful for that.
My edits are to add more context and correctness.
[–]SJHillman 173 points174 points175 points  (28 children)
When we did Of Mice And Men in 11th grade, we had to write it as N with a circle around it (including direct quotes) and call it "N-circle" in class discussion, or even when reading aloud. It seems like if you're old enough to discuss topics like the Holocaust and use the relevant terminology, you should be old enough to discuss racial history, including using the relevant terminology.
[–]ncocca 144 points145 points146 points  (22 children)
That is so fucking stupid.
[–]Brownt0wn_ 31 points32 points33 points  (13 children)
Well, is it any different than saying "n-word"? I'm not sure I'd be comfortable saying the word out loud in a setting where someone might be upset/offended by it (even though I understand that shouldn't be the case). There's a difference between me saying it outside of class and a friend telling me off, as opposed to in class and a peer being upset/offended/angry/uncomfortable.
[–]Brian_Official 66 points67 points68 points  (8 children)
There's a comedian who talks about this. When you say n-word you're just forcing everyone to say the word nigger inside their head
[–]Emoyak 35 points36 points37 points  (6 children)
You're thinking of Louis C.K.
[–]oatmealfoot 95 points96 points97 points  (5 children)
Let's just call him Circle K, to be safe
[–]bigbadblazer 4 points5 points6 points  (0 children)
Strange things are afoot at the circle k.
[–]over-my-head[S] 495 points496 points497 points  (356 children)
This is as it should be.
Refusing to acknowledge the existence of racist language and banning its usage in academic contexts leads to burying the past which serves no one.
In the proper historical context describing the mistreatment of blacks by white slave-owners in the U.S., what better typifies the hatred and disregard the slave-owners had for their slaves:
"N-Word"
or
"Nigger"?
Which word provides a better example of how blacks were viewed with prejudice, as property, and as an "other" by racist whites?
"N-Slur"
or
"Nigger"?
EDIT: It's interesting to note how you, /u/MagicCoat still censored yourself, even when describing the use of a slur in the proper historical context.
I bet it was simply automatic for you. That's exactly how language and thought policing works (through the development of self-censorship).
EDIT 2: Here is a very interesting video by Slavoj Žižek on the insidious nature of Politically Correct language, and how it is actually a more dangerous form of coercion than the outward application of force from a totalitarian oppressor in terms of controlling thought.
He argues that PC language and censorship is more insidious and dangerous than oppressive commands from above regarding acceptable language/thought, which would be backed by the threat of force, because it is easier to rebel against such an enemy, since they are so clearly identifiable as a dangerous oppressor.
Meanwhile, the imposition of politically correct language and the banning of certain words teaches the individual to censor themselves, and their feelings, to fall in line with those which are prescribed by a given society or movement.
And therefore, this is much more effective in controlling thought, and is much more difficult to rebel against.
Interestingly enough, this interpretation is fully in line with the views of other critical thinkers/post-structuralists such as Foucaut, who is mandatory reading in gender studies courses (see "The History of Sexuality), and also follows the same line of argument as Noam Chomsky's work in "Manufacturing Consent" and "Necessary Illusions" regarding how the media operates to manage popular thought on political issues.
And these guys are absolutely massively leftist (as am I).
But I think there is something fundamentally wrong with this new form of extreme-leftist based PC censorship.
EDIT 3: Cheers, /u/MagicCoat. Your edits as of 12:18 PM EST provide much more depth and make your point resonate that much further, by not fearing to use the actual slur in the appropriate historical context.
[–]thetasigma1355 314 points315 points316 points  (244 children)
But I think there is something fundamentally wrong with this new form of extreme-leftist based PC censorship.
There is. And it drives many liberals, like myself, bat-shit crazy. I'm liberal because I believe that the economics and politics make sense. Not because I think we should create a society that isn't allowed to offend any body or a society that should give two-flying fucks about someone's "triggers".
[–]over-my-head[S] 184 points185 points186 points  (212 children)
I almost wish there was a way we could reclaim the terms "liberal" and "progressive" in order to distinguish ourselves from these PC, SJW-type censorious radicals.
I am NOT going to call myself a "moderate" or "moderate liberal" or "moderate leftist" or something like that.
I am definitely leftist in the vast majority of my opinions.
But this censorship, tone control, and language/thought policing is NOT something I will support.
[–]Dath14 79 points80 points81 points  (45 children)
But this censorship, tone control, and language/thought policing is NOT something I will support.
It is funny how the further to the left or right you go, the more it seems that the political mindset is more of a circle instead of a line.
[–]Alonick 64 points65 points66 points  (18 children)
As a 'Righty', I agree.
It also hurts that when debating perfectly viable and well thought out positions on Economics, Foreign policy, or Culture that each side, as a defense mechanism, will point out the other's extremes.
As a "Righty", I believe in the word of law being equally dolled out. Due to that belief, I am pro Same-Sex marriage because our Constitution (I'm a US Citizen) does not give the Government the power to regulate social institutions such as marriage. Being a strict constructionist... that is the only stance to have on the subject.
Yet, when debating someone on the left about Economics (for example), and I'm advocating for a more laissez faire position by the Federal Government... it never fails that at one point someone will bring up the far Right's advocation of banning Same Sex Marriage.
I've seen the same type of behavior the other way around.
[–]snerp 12 points13 points14 points  (4 children)
I've seen that too, from both sides of arguments. Seems like, whenever someone realizes they have no proof or backing for their opinion, rather than change themselves, they label you as Conservative or Liberal so they can assure themselves that you don't really know anything.
[–]Alonick 5 points6 points7 points  (0 children)
That's true. Though in my example I meant it to mean that people do that to show the hypocritical nature of conservatism (for the religious right... they are hypocrites) because you're advocating for the government staying out of people's lives economically but still want to tell them what to do in their love lives.
It just doesn't work with me because I agree with the left that those stances are hypocritical of each other.
[–]anonFAFA 21 points22 points23 points  (18 children)
I know how you feels. Libertarians are often bucketed with conservatives who are bucketed with hard-line Christians because of some common beliefs such as smaller government with less intrusion.
[–]ASlowBee 14 points15 points16 points  (15 children)
Depends on where you are. I've found I like the Libertarian mindset in one state (NH), but in the Southwest, Libertarian and Tea Party are nearly identical.
Also (more of a reply to the thread in general now rather than just you), I live in a Tea Party run city, they pull so much of the crap that most right wing people fear will happen under left wing government; e.g. heavy police force and being suspected for anything, red light/speed cameras, political correctness concerns, strict monitoring of what can be taught in schools.
The idea that left and right is separated by more control vs less control is absurd. They both want a lot of control, it's just what groups of people are okay with which things are controlled.
[–]padraig_garcia 10 points11 points12 points  (13 children)
The idea that left and right is separated by more control vs less control is absurd. They both want a lot of control, it's just what groups of people are okay with which things are controlled.
This needs to be repeated. Nonstop. Especially during election seasons.
[–]alexisaacs 123 points124 points125 points  (21 children)
I am as far left as can be when it comes to social governance. Total social anarchy is where society should be, as not a single law should exist that limits what someone does unless it infringes on the rights of someone else.
So naturally, I don't believe in any form of censorship, and I can't even begin to comprehend why logically people are offended by words rather than context. Words derive meaning from context, not from definition alone. A man masturbating on the swingset at a park while screaming "HELP I'M DROWNING!!" will send a different message than if he were in the ocean.
Context is everything.
The same dipshits who are offended by a racial slur in an educational context should, logically, run up to the guy masturbating on the swing set and perform mouth-to-mouth.
These same dipshits don't understand that because context is where words derive their meaning from, if you ban the use of one word, another will take its place, so long as the context for that original word remains.
We were all in elementary school when you could get detention for saying "suck." Did we become nice kids as a result? Nah we just said "you stink." It became equally offensive, because of fucking context.
[–]MrEvilPirate 13 points14 points15 points  (8 children)
You sound more like a libertarian than someone on the far left. Your second sentence is as libertarian as it gets. Cheers.
[–]nfreakoss 119 points120 points121 points  (41 children)
Shit I consider myself a fucking socialist and I can't wait until this entire tumblr social justice fad dies out.
[–]MrCaul 72 points73 points74 points  (32 children)
I'm left wing. And I live in Scandinavia. That pretty much means I'm a progressive type of communist. I too am so, so tired of the idiotic SJW PC bullshit.
It feels like they've highjacked what it means to be liberal.
[–]meatchariot 34 points35 points36 points  (27 children)
We are the next movement, a reactionary political group of freethought liberals. You see in this thread alone how many of us there are, it just has to get to a breaking point of inane far-left thought policing, and the right figureheads have to emerge, and then bam we have a strong movement.
[–]Not_Bull_Crap 53 points54 points55 points  (21 children)
Hi I'm a conservative and I would probably support a movement to get rid of the PC ringleaders even if it was led by left-wingers.
[–]over-my-head[S] 32 points33 points34 points  (19 children)
The enemy of my enemy is my friend?
[–]moodog72 98 points99 points100 points  (10 children)
The enemy of common sense is everyone's common enemy.
[–]phengineer 35 points36 points37 points  (2 children)
Nah, it's even better than that. A lot of young conservatives just saw the early warning signs of the SJW shitstorm that was brewing and decided to GTFO. I'm actually pretty liberal, but in the grand scheme of things, being a little too conservative is well-worth it if it means avoiding leftist totalitarianism.
Not sure what connotations this holds for you, but that ended up being one of the huge underlying currents of gamergate. Really strong theme of, "I don't agree with your political views at all, but I still think you have the right to free speech, and we need to work together or we'll both lose that right".
SJW's are basically the equivalent of evangelicals in the sense that unless you accept the Original Sin of privilege, they really don't have anything to talk about with you, and you must be evil.
[–]NightOfTheLivingHam 3 points4 points5 points  (0 children)
I've learned that sitting on any side of the political spectrum leads to these kinds of radical movements, the Radicals that took over the Tea party movement come in mind.
This new radical liberalism is the left's Tea Party.
It's never a bad thing to like things from both sides of the spectrum.
I can be considered a lefty on several things, but however, I also believe in gun rights, capitalism, and other conservative ideals as well.
Because they are not exclusive concepts.
It's the left vs right split that's tearing the country apart. All or nothing is the problem, and you end up with these extremes, with little or no voice in between.
[–]A_mellifera 13 points14 points15 points  (1 child)
I'm also pissed about the fact that there is a lot of real social justice work to be done. For instance, some of the social justice work on reintegrating abusers into productive members of society is incredibly interesting and important. It's still an exciting field, and the term "social justice" is the most descriptive for the type of work that is being done. Except it's been taken over by people who are "triggered" by merely encountering opinions they find offensive. I'm all for calling people on their racism. The whole, "You're free to say whatever you like, and I am free to judge you for it." The first clause is every bit as important as the second. Using social pressure to keep people from saying certain things doesn't address the underlying problems. It just shifts the names and terms for the thing rather than addressing the thing itself.
[–]MasterofForks 23 points24 points25 points  (6 children)
Refuse to self-define. I stopped years ago when I realized that my views were too complex to pin down to just one school of thought.
I've found that it's just as hard to label others as well and usually serves to poison the well before even speaking or isn't entirely accurate anyway.
[–]rottenseed 5 points6 points7 points  (3 children)
I think you put too much into what your brand is called. Just hold the beliefs you have and not the ones you don't. Who cares what you call yourself.
[–]thetasigma1355 47 points48 points49 points  (37 children)
I couldn't agree more. I view the whole "SJW-type radical" as the equal and opposite to the Tea Party. The only thing the two movements have in common is that they are both uneducated extremists.
[–]moodog72 23 points24 points25 points  (10 children)
Maybe we should work to get both major parties to ignore the extremists. Oh wait, the extremists are the major contributors, creating the illusion of popular support. Also they follow the money.
Alright, the centrists need to make our own party
With blackjack, and hookers
Ah, forget the whole thing.
[–]Carcharodon_literati 19 points20 points21 points  (0 children)
They have more in common than that - both groups are easily outraged and believe that everyone should conform to their values, or else they'll throw a hissy fit and shut things down.
[–]phengineer 27 points28 points29 points  (6 children)
they are both uneducated extremists
I think the scary part of SJW's is that they ARE educated, or at least in the nominal sense. They all have (useless) college degrees and a huge sense of entitlement and uniqueness. They are absolutely convinced that because they took Womyn's Studies 101, they are the moral authority that the world needs.
A much more apt comparison is religious extremism. Both rely on essentially unfalsifiable principles, and profound sense of moral superiority, and a relentless zeal for proselytizing.
[–]TheCard 3 points4 points5 points  (2 children)
Yes they're "educated" by society's standards, and the scariest thing is they think that they're geniuses because of it. As a current high school student, I can tell you that the SJWs tend to be the "smart" kids that are actually fairly dumb in reality; they just seem PC and lavish to their teachers which makes them seem "smart." I fucking hate it.
[–]learath 2 points3 points4 points  (1 child)
Comparing a group currently enjoying mainstream support and encouragement from the entire higher learning (and growing into the entire education) system to the extremist far right is terrifying and telling.
[–]ManiyaNights 5 points6 points7 points  (0 children)
Those "uneducated" SJW's are often found on college campuses. Maybe stupid would be a more applicable term.
[–]domdest 7 points8 points9 points  (2 children)
There is a way to reclaim these terms:
  • By practicing the abandonment of bias and reductivism toward ideological labels and buzzwords. "Liberal"/"Conservative" is no longer a two-dimensional axis, and even "moderate liberal" doesn't begin to encompass or convey who you are as a person. If your opinions are complex enough that they cannot be conveyed in a couple of words - as is the case with most social issues, then the discussion should be more protracted and in a setting where rapport can be established between participants, not as an anonymous "Other" who will be forgotten when the thread is over.
  • By becoming mindful of and avoiding projection, the practice of assigning a person to an entire ideological group, because they made one statement of opinion that is aligned with that group.
  • By observing that extremism is not mainstream at every level of society, and as a society we do not have to conform to extremes. When we do so, we caricaturize these traits, and then the traits themselves become inhospitable. "Politically correct" in its standard definition does not mean shrieking that you're triggered when someone reads the word "nigger" in a novel. "Liberal" does not mean burning flags and avoiding showers. "Conservative" does not mean whacking Bibles on street corners and throwing blood at abortion patients. TL;DR: moderation in all things, even moderation
Edit: Some words
[–]Xzal 3 points4 points5 points  (0 children)
The problem comes these days because many people cannot grasp that you can be Liberal AND conservative at the same time.
You can be economically conservative and socially liberal, You can be socially conservative and economically liberal,
But modern society has somehow broken people down to Left or Right only.
[–]NightOfTheLivingHam 11 points12 points13 points  (3 children)
What's great is most of this "Progressive" shit is actually very backwards thinking, and is leading to things like the insidiously named "Safe Spaces" which means different things to different people. in Colleges, it's used to segregate people out based on gender, race, and orientation. So you get what amount to segregated areas of campus. They see this as progressive and new. They did that back in the pre 60's south too. "But it's different!" How? people are being divided in what seems an innocent way, they just want a place to discuss their own issues. Okay. clubs have done that for years. However, authority types will make that the norm instead of the exception, and leaving said "safe spaces" will be punished. Depending on who is in charge, certain groups may be more equal than others and the quality of said safe spaces maybe improve or decline based on who is more preferential on the progressive stack. (institutionalized discrimination) Yeah sure, now it's the evil white man, the new strawman of the liberal era. But give it time, and the bad guy will change.
It's scary because historically, such tactics have been used to slowly take over countries. Hierarchies, classes of people, races of people. Segregation of people is a dangerous idea. It's used by would-be totalitarians. Mao turned the youth against the old generations, created an us vs them situation. Dehumanized the older generation by turning them into a concept. That they were merely a representation of the old chains that held China down from the glorious future! Divided people on that line. The youth helped him take control.
Mussolini used similar tactics with Italy. Hitler used the jews and other racial groups and divided people based on race and religion, and create these big camps where they could go so they wouldnt intermingle with the rest of the population. He also believed in purity of race and not appropriating cultures, and that Blacks stayed in Africa, Asians stayed in Asia, Indians stayed in India, so on and so forth. Used that all as justification for killing millions of innocent people.
Then the US with its Jim Crow Laws, we know how that goes.
All leads to hate, all leads to creating scapegoats, and leads to people fearing each other and focusing on fighting each other and ignoring the actions of those in power.
Think this shit stops at college? No. These people will go into life with these ideas. That's the point. They are being conditioned to accept a totalitarian form of government and will cheer when people are forcibly segregated from each other. They will cheer when the new bad group of people are thrown into prisons or executed. so on and so forth.
Ironically, I learned about the whole segregating people as a means of control and power from a self-proclaimed professor or social justice, and feminist.
I'd be shocked if she still has a job in the current climate. She's not nearly radical enough because she believes in unity and bringing people together.
[–]weezkitty 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
I am NOT going to call myself a "moderate" or "moderate liberal" or "moderate leftist" or something like that.
Considering the new meaning of the terms, those would probably be more accurate to your view.
Personally, my political views are all over the spectrum on different issues and I refuse to label myself because none of the labels would be accurate.
[–]MagicCoat 11 points12 points13 points  (0 children)
Your posts have raised some good points about my censorship, I've decided to agree with you and I feel it is necessarily correct to have the word uncensored in my post. Thank you for opening my eyes a bit on this.
[–]fencerman 66 points67 points68 points  (48 children)
Except that the whole "racist language" issue by itself really isn't what anyone was complaining about, he wasn't actually fired, and he refused to cooperate in any process that would have resolved the complaints. That's just what the focus of the articles has been because it can stir up the whole "PC boogieman" narrative.
First of all, he wasn't fired at all. He withdrew himself, blaming "health issues", before any of the process of resolving the complaints could actually be resolved.
The only thing the administration requested from him was for someone to sit in on his class and see if the complaints had merit; he refused and quit rather than even permit observation of his class. That seems like there are deeper issues than simply "language". Given the pattern of complaints and his accusations against his own TAs, it seems like it was a generally hostile work environment that he didn't want anyone seeing. And again - he wasn't fired, he quit rather than allow anyone to observe what was actually going on.
I agree that IF someone were censored purely for language, that would be notable - nobody involved at any point in this process supports censoring the discussion of controversial ideas. But that doesn't seem to be the case here at all. The report that supposedly "vindicated" him didn't even speak to anyone who was actually placing a complaint, only the professor, and it was conducted by the professional association whose job is to defend him. So it is less than meaningless.
Clearly the University may have skipped over parts of their own complaint resolution process, and there are obviously some deeper issues with how the university relates to their faculty. It wouldn't surprise me if they wanted to get rid of an expensive professor who was a pain in their ass. But he is very much responsible for the outcome himself.
[–]xtothekcd 6 points7 points8 points  (0 children)
Sigh... Always go to the comments to get the full TIL story...
Now what am I supposed to do with all my righteous anger?
[–]ChipsHanden 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
Thank you for posting that video, I really enjoyed how he approached the subject with levity and intelligence.
Now if only he could stop playing with his nose. >.>
[–]SharMarali 78 points79 points80 points  (10 children)
I remember reading Tom Sawyer in 7th grade English class. A couple of days before we actually started the book, my teacher spoke to us at length about the language that was in the book. She explained that we had come a long way since Mark Twain's time, and that now we understand those words are hurtful and offensive, but it's important to read the book as it was written, for historical reasons, bad language and all.
She also let us know that using those words outside the context of discussing the story was unacceptable and would not be tolerated.
We usually read aloud from our reading material in class. I was called on to read the first passage that contained the word "nigger." I was very uncomfortable, and all eyes were on me. I read it as if it were any other word and kept going. There were a couple of titters from the class, but that was all, and after that, it wasn't an issue anymore.
20+ years later I know she chose me to read it specifically because she knew that was exactly what I would do, and the way the first usage of that word was handled would set the tone for the whole book.
We were 12. I know it's been a long time, but I really don't understand why this doesn't still work. She handled the situation with grace and care, and she made sure we understood what we were looking at and why, and no one was upset by it.
[–]KillerCronic 102 points103 points104 points  (3 children)
She chose you because you were the elite. Nobody could say nigger quiet as casually as you.
[–]SharMarali 16 points17 points18 points  (0 children)
Ha, no, I didn't mean it that way. I was a quiet kid who always did what the teacher said. I was so uncomfortable but ultimately decided to just power through it (although I didn't know that term back then). It was a struggle for me, and that's what I was trying to come across with in the narrative, not any kind of weird superiority for reading a word.
[–]Altair1371 30 points31 points32 points  (10 children)
I wouldn't say all high school teachers have got the right attitude about this like yours did. My sister's Year 11 teacher gave them an review from the 80s about a book written in the mid-1800s, attacking it for being racist and not giving the black characters a better role. When my sister offered the obvious counter that, you know, the culture was way off 200 years ago, she got called out for being a privileged white girl. The kicker? The teacher was also white.
[–]rightinthedome 14 points15 points16 points  (0 children)
Must be a teacher fresh out of college. An older teacher would definitely have a better perspective on the issue.
[–]XEV4NX 3 points4 points5 points  (0 children)
Same with my History class on the American civil rights movement. As soon as we walked in the teacher said something along these lines:
"I know there's a lot of political correctness. But we're studying History, a period of History that is extremely racist. Words like 'Nigger' and 'Coon' will be said and talked about in a mature way, we will discuss the way they were used and perceived. For the purpose of this course we will refer to black people of America as 'Blacks' for the sake of simplicity. If anyone has any problem with what I just said, I advise you to take another class that doesn't require you to face up to hard facts."
We were all 14/15 years old. Really set the tone for the next two years.
[–]moeburn 15 points16 points17 points  (1 child)
High school kids aren't at the age where they have an axe to grind yet. It's usually around university that kids start looking for a "cause to fight against".
[–]Outlulz3 9 points10 points11 points  (0 children)
High school kids aren't at the age where they have an axe to grind yet.
Eh, usually they do but it's just "mom and dad".
[–]TooLateToPush 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
In 8th grade I did a book report about Jackie Robinson and Negro League Baseball. A group of black kids in my class bitched throughout my whole report because of the word "Negro" and my teacher did nothing to calm them. After class they tried to fight me, but luckily, a different black kid came over and asked what was going on. They told him and he just starred at them, called them idiots, and explained it to them. They left me alone, but for the next few years I could tell they still had a problem with me
[–]DrEdPrivateRubbers 2 points3 points4 points  (1 child)
What was the demographic of the class? Not that I don't agree with what you're saying but I think it might have some bearing. Some might not be comfortable talking about it in a class with a mixed demographic.
[–]Mythiees 2446 points2447 points2448 points  (794 children)
Universities are turning into giant pussy factories (pun most definitely intended) where nobody's little feelings can get hurt anymore.
I don't understand why these people sign up for university if they haven't got the mental fortitude to hear a bad word anymore.
[–]over-my-head[S] 1461 points1462 points1463 points  (253 children)
The most absurd part was that he was teaching a course about Imperialism and Neo-Colonialism.
And people got upset when he made reference to racist language WHILE QUOTING FROM ORIGINAL SOURCES.
Relevant quote from article:
It was a week before the final essays were due in his second-year history course on imperialism and neo-colonialism after the Second World War when Mr. Mason found himself “banned” from the class he had been teaching all term — a class in which he was accused of making racist and sexist statements.
How dare he describe racist language in a course about imperialism and neo-colonialism???????
facepalm.jpg
[–]Mythiees 1051 points1052 points1053 points  (118 children)
This is the kind of willful ignorance I have no patience for.
When quoting sources from that time, about that topic, that kind of language is going to be used. That's the whole fucking point of teaching the course!
There was some backlash against a reprint of Mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn because he uses the word 'nigger' a lot in it. They wanted the word removed from the text. Which is precisely what you don't want to do. Specifically because it is so offensive.
Sanitizing history is just about the worst fucking idea ever :-(. To learn why that is, that's what you go to fucking school for!
Jesus christ!
[–]spunker88 276 points277 points278 points  (66 children)
This, there's good things that happened in history but there's also a ton of terrible things like the holocaust, slavery, racism, etc. Everybody should learn about this stuff so we don't repeat it. Censoring history or historical works like Mark Twain is a dangerous idea.
[–]clever_cuttlefish 110 points111 points112 points  (54 children)
This is exactly how I felt in high school, when all the copies of Huck Finn we got from the book depository had 'nigger' blacked out with sharpie.
[–]as1126 181 points182 points183 points  (23 children)
Book must've been 10 pages long after that.
[–]GetOffMyLawn_ 48 points49 points50 points  (22 children)
Twain used the N-word 219 times.
EDIT: For all you dingbats asking why the word "N-word" appears is because this statement is quoted verbatim from a news article. I thought that the formatting made it super obvious that this is a quote. Calm down.
[–]magickrat4 4 points5 points6 points  (2 children)
That is almost double the amount of times Leonardo De Caprio used it in Django - Unchained :3
[–]as1126 20 points21 points22 points  (13 children)
My son had to read it for school and I bought an Audible version. We cringed playing it in the car every time he said it.
[–]PHDTPHD 40 points41 points42 points  (8 children)
Perhaps the word should've been changed to Nigga instead. Then it would match up with a modern day sensibility.
[–]ERIFNOMI 19 points20 points21 points  (7 children)
Holy shit, Huckleberry Finn just got fucking hilarious. Can we get someone to narrate the whole book this way?
[–]Wild_Marker 23 points24 points25 points  (1 child)
When you got to the exam about it, did you answer with words blacked out with sharpie ?
[–]over-my-head[S] 109 points110 points111 points  (20 children)
[deleted]
EDIT: All jokes aside, I just want to post the following comment I made where it's visible, in case the thread gets deleted. The original is buried in a response somewhere:
I was exceedingly precise in following all the subreddit rules in making this post.
The "banned" part of the title is DIRECTLY from the article's headline, the National Post is a reputable source, the "quoting from books and articles on racism" segment is DIRECTLY pulled from the article, as is the information about the TA in Gender Studies making the complaint.
The line about the TA is also supported by other legitimate sources:
Posting rules
  • Submissions must be verifiable. Please link directly to a reliable source that supports every claim in your post title. Images alone do not count as valid references. Videos are fine so long as they come from reputable sources (e.g. BBC, Discovery, etc).
CHECK
  • No personal opinions, anecdotes or subjective statements (e.g "TIL xyz is a great movie").
CHECK
  • No news or recent sources. News and any sources (blog, article, press release, video, etc.) more recent than two months are not allowed.
CHECK: Source is not more recent than two months
  • Nothing related to recent politics.
CHECK: Source is not related to politics, recent, or otherwise
  • No misleading claims. Posts that omit essential information, or present unrelated facts in a way that suggest a connection will be removed.
CHECK: The title of the submission is derived directly from the title of the linked article, and from the article itself
If this TIL gets removed, then it is purely an example of Reddit censorship.
[–]modsrliars 44 points45 points46 points  (2 children)
All hail Chairman Pao.
[–]Rhamni 20 points21 points22 points  (1 child)
You have been made an administrator of reddit.
[–]Vikosus 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
If everyone know as much as there is to know about the major atrocities they can potentially improve upon those ideas. /s
[–]its_not_Christmas 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
Twain actually was very progressive on race issues and over saturated the book with nigger on purpose to try and make white people feel uncomfortable. He was satirizing the word by using it so much.
[–]OldDefault 19 points20 points21 points  (0 children)
Exactly. How can we ever hope to learn historical context when it's filtered for a modern ear?
[–]ColdPorridge 11 points12 points13 points  (4 children)
Funny thing is Huck Finn was either one of the most racist classics of all time or one of the most insightful commentaries on racism to come out of that time period. And nobody seems to be able to definitively figure out which.
[–]Mythiees 6 points7 points8 points  (0 children)
That's why it has to be discussed.
[–]over-my-head[S] 77 points78 points79 points  (24 children)
Jesus christ!
Please don't take the Lord's name in vain!!!
You've just triggered stigmata in me.
From now on I'd prefer if you use the name YHWH, or TETRAGRAMMATON when referring to our Lord and Saviour, and/or his Father (who art one in the same).
[–]cklester 88 points89 points90 points  (10 children)
I'm going to invent a drug called "The Lord's Name," that you have to take by intravenous injection. That way, you have to take The Lord's Name in vein.
[–]joshuazed 3 points4 points5 points  (2 children)
Tetragrammaton would be a much cooler name than god or yahweh.
[–]BioGenx2b 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
When quoting sources from that time, about that topic, that kind of language is going to be used. That's the whole fucking point of teaching the course!
Dude, it happened in my high school. We were watching Roots in History class and up came the part where "Casey Jones" has to assume the role of Slave Master to save his friends. Then came the part where he reluctantly called whatshisname "nigger," a clear part of the scene that was relevant and important, even noble. The reactions from some of my classmates...cringeworthy doesn't even begin to describe it.
tl;dr Ignorant fucks who want to be special snowflakes but can't be bothered to pay attention beyond buzzwords...they belong elsewhere.
[–]yogurtmeh 183 points184 points185 points  (79 children)
It sounds like the university received a complaint and requested to have a department chair listen to Professor Mason's lectures to confirm that he wasn't actually saying anything racist. That seems pretty fair. The professor refused this request though, and while he was never fired he eventually quit due to health issues. That's pretty different than being terminated due to false accusations.
From the article:
After the complaint was filed, the university said he could only continue teaching if the department chair sat in on lectures from time to time. He wouldn’t comply. Classes were cancelled and Mr. Mason was “banned,” as he puts it. He was never formally let go or asked to leave — health problems eventually had him sidelined.
and
And he admits to saying the teaching assistants (all women) should wash his car if he can’t find enough work for them to do.
[–]dinosaurs_quietly 90 points91 points92 points  (23 children)
Wait, what's wrong with the carwash statement? That's like the stereotypical "take advantage of your underlings" task. Loads of people joke about it. I don't see any sexism there.
[–]mynewaccount5 73 points74 points75 points  (8 children)
Haven't you heard the "all women wash cars" stereotype?
[–]doughboy011 29 points30 points31 points  (1 child)
No, not really.
edit: Or is this a thatsthejoke.jpg moment?
[–]mynewaccount5 7 points8 points9 points  (0 children)
yep.
thatsthepoint.jpg
[–]brownbubbi 5 points6 points7 points  (0 children)
I mean, what else are they gonna do in the kitchen?
[–]bettermann255 2 points3 points4 points  (1 child)
I think i missed that one. Men are usually the car enthusiasts, that take the time to car for their vehicles.
I thought they always just enjoyed it. Maybe these kids are a bit over sensitive?
[–]locopyro13 90 points91 points92 points  (36 children)
And he admits to saying the teaching assistants (all women) should wash his car if he can’t find enough work for them to do.
Not sexist, just talking about unimportant underlings doing busy work. We joke about our intern (male) making us all coffee if we don't have a job for him. Does it become sexist if our intern was female?
[–]MonsterBlash 48 points49 points50 points  (1 child)
It was a week before the final essays were due
If I can't pass this class, no one will.
[–]i_naked 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
I believe Warner Bros wrote something similar when releasing previously censored Merry Melodies cartoons citing that censoring the cartoons would be a disservice to history because to ignore it now would be to believe that these atrocities never occurred.
[–]Impune 202 points203 points204 points  (62 children)
Edward Schlosser just wrote an article about this for Vox titled "I'm a liberal professor, and my liberal students terrify me" that's worth a read. Here's a short excerpt:
The student-teacher dynamic has been reenvisioned along a line that's simultaneously consumerist and hyper-protective, giving each and every student the ability to claim Grievous Harm in nearly any circumstance, after any affront, and a teacher's formal ability to respond to these claims is limited at best.
[–]TouchDownBurrito 173 points174 points175 points  (42 children)
It's even happening at the nation's top law schools:
"Individual students often ask teachers not to include the law of rape on exams for fear that the material would cause them to perform less well," she writes. "One teacher I know was recently asked by a student not to use the word 'violate' in class—as in 'Does this conduct violate the law?'—because the word was triggering."
[–]AgentDaedalus 38 points39 points40 points  (14 children)
How the hell are they are going to be lawyers?
[–]GingeRedit 115 points116 points117 points  (2 children)
Those individuals students would be triggered to death by the Bar then.
[–]Theory5 69 points70 points71 points  (14 children)
Individual students often ask teachers not to include the law of rape on exams
In schools that made a name for themselves teaching people who became powerful and notable lawyers... And the students ask them NOT to use certain laws in their exams?
Shit, if I had asked my professor (I have a BS in network engineering) not to include specific RFC's in my mastery exam because it'll cause me to "perform less well", I'd have been laughed out of the school!
[–]camelCaseCoding 53 points54 points55 points  (12 children)
Sorry cisco, but subnetting causes me anxiety and triggers me. There cant be any of that on the CCNA exams. I was sexually assaulted by a broadcast address.
[–]ChipsHanden 26 points27 points28 points  (5 children)
255.255.255.0
And how does that make you feeeeel?
[–]The_Evil_Within 4 points5 points6 points  (2 children)
That last octet looks kinda sexy.
[–]hey_sergio 11 points12 points13 points  (1 child)
Real numbers have curves.
[–]Broviet 3 points4 points5 points  (0 children)
IMAGINARY NUMBERS ARE NUMBERS TOO breaks down and weeps
[–]thelunchbox29 6 points7 points8 points  (0 children)
As it is, the law of rape isn't touched much by criminal law classes beyond that it is a inherently dangerous felony for the purposes of felony murder. In a semester long class, it might get an hour of discussion? That's more though that its not as complicated as murder or conspiracy or inchoate offenses.
And law students would request that 90% of the class not be on the exam if they could get a way with it.
[–]jgtengineer68 12 points13 points14 points  (0 children)
The fuck?
[–]Mythiees 84 points85 points86 points  (6 children)
Wow... they don't need $500 dollar text books, they need a stack of Pampers and a pacifier.
Is this fucking college or what? Grievous Harm? From listening to a lecture? What are these people made of, warm lettuce?
[–]Confusion 21 points22 points23 points  (0 children)
That's offensive to warm lettuce!
[–]myalias1 8 points9 points10 points  (1 child)
That article needs to be SPREAD AROUND!
[–]Jodah 81 points82 points83 points  (26 children)
Had a professor who was forced to retire because she swore like a sailor. The vast (talking 99%) majority of her students were future police officers so she did it to get them over their "giggle reflex."
Can't be giggling when some crackhead is calling your mother a whore and telling you what you can shove and where. Still got forced to retire five years early.
[–]Mythiees 39 points40 points41 points  (22 children)
I've worked in a place where the language was so foul you could wash it off of the wall. If these precious students would spend 3 months in that place they would be catatonic with shock.
There were women there, they held up under the onslaught. But: they were free to give as good as they got.
[–]normalism 5 points6 points7 points  (2 children)
I miss the military.
Also known as the place where swear words replace certain common words, like "the".
[–]Mythiees 3 points4 points5 points  (1 child)
At least in that respect the military doesn't fuck around.
[–]normalism 4 points5 points6 points  (0 children)
Fuckin' a right!
[–]Ball-Blam-Burglerber 3 points4 points5 points  (1 child)
You don't mind a bit of manpower, do ya Doris?
[–]edvek 7 points8 points9 points  (0 children)
I took my criminal justice classes for my last semester (had to take upper division classes outside my major to graduate) and one of my professors was a cop, as in he still was. Told us from day 1 he swears because that's part of the job. The example he gave was you pull someone over and ask for their license and registration and they respond with "Fuck you." You have to get over it and grow some thick skin because everyone hates you. A cop he works with told us, "don't be a cop, be a firefighter, everyone loves them and everyone hates us."
[–]YouMad 12 points13 points14 points  (1 child)
The whole thing reminds me of the Life of Brian's Jehovah scene: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIaORknS1Dk
[–]dasamps 62 points63 points64 points  (26 children)
You don't even want to know the state of some high schools. It all starts there. My girlfriend is a teacher, and the things she tells me are ridiculous. You can't fail a student as long as they turn something in. Literally. Anything. Some high schools are pretty much ITT Tech at this point. That said, it varies district to district and school to school. Personally, I think it's all the shitty parents that won't put in the work with their kids, so they bitch at teachers and at the school board not to make their kids feel dumb.
[–]Na3s 25 points26 points27 points  (7 children)
Ahh yea the helicopter/ bubble wrap parent. I never understood how they think they can make it so there child has not bad feeling or never hears dirt words ever . It's sad to think that kids will be going out to the world thinking that mommy will hold their had as they cross the street. I have heard stories of parents going to job interviews with their college graduate kids to make sure everything goes well.
[–]Adjunctproblema 11 points12 points13 points  (4 children)
Hell hath no fury like the middle-class parent who son or daughter receives a detention or a C+ or gets reprimanded for being continually late.
[–]Na3s 5 points6 points7 points  (3 children)
Look you just don't understand my child deserves way better than a C this is bullshit he said he was working on it all week how could he have gotten such a low grade. I think you just have it out for my son because he's just to smart for your class. I will have you fired, you know my tax money payes your salary so you work for me!
[–]Mythiees 33 points34 points35 points  (12 children)
Well, in school you can get away with that, and because the student is the customer now they get to call the shots.
And you'll see them smirk at the dumbass teacher who couldn't find 'a real job' so they have to be with impudent children all day and the kids still walk out with a diploma.
Whereby they totally forget that a diploma is just words on a piece of paper. When they then go out into the world and find that they really don't know anything and they are not equipped to deal with life's challenges, guess what: it won't be their fault. That'll be the constant in their life: nothing will ever be their fault. They are never to blame. They'll just have to find a way to be happy and content living a life of mediocrity because they couldn't be bothered to pay attention when it mattered.
A lot of these kids are in for one hell of a rude awakening.
Your girlfriend is awesome for wanting to be a teacher in this era.
[–]kaenneth 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
Then they just join the Occupy movement.
[–]Nate67 25 points26 points27 points  (2 children)
It's because universities are moving away from being places where one acquires knowledge and wisdom, and becoming places where one simply acquires credentials.
You don't really go to school to have your mind expanded and re-shaped. You go to receive a nice piece of paper that qualifies you to enter the workforce.
And, no, this is not an anti-higher education rant. I'm all for people going to post-secondary if they are, in fact, going to gain knowledge and improve their ability to think critically. I just don't see that as the primary motivation anymore.
And, no, this isn't an anti-liberal arts thing, either. STEM is not the only reason to go to school. I believe in the merit of liberal arts for people genuinely motivated to pursue them with realistic expectations. I've often said about my liberal arts degree that it's not about what I learned so much as how I learned.
Anyway, the Sparks Notes version: If modern universities seem to have the same pathetic, craven, squishy sensitivity standards as your typical workplace, it's because universities have become nothing more than feeders for the workforce.
Going to school is no longer about growing your mind by being challenged with new ideas, but just "getting through it", completing the requisite coursework, to get that sweet diploma you can frame and put on resumes.
[–]Prof_Acorn 5 points6 points7 points  (1 child)
There was a time when people understood that the entire point of the liberal arts is to be challenged by alternative viewpoints and learn how to logically and maturely weigh them and articulate why you agree or disagree with them with appropriate levels of respect and ethic.
[–]bendovergramps 10 points11 points12 points  (1 child)
What universities? I'm serious.
[+][deleted]  (1 child)
[deleted]
    [–]malvoliosf 40 points41 points42 points  (16 children)
    pussy factories (pun most definitely intended)
    I don't get the pun. In addition to turning out fearful and weak-willed graduates, are they also manufacturing house-cats? Creating human vaginas? What is the another meaning?
    Edit opinion is divided about whether the pun refers to the numbers of females ("pussies" by metonymy) at college or the ease of having sex there ("pussy" by metaphor).
    [–]through_a_ways 17 points18 points19 points  (6 children)
    Female enrollment in college has been increasing, to the point where there are now more women then men.
    [–]realmadmonkey 4 points5 points6 points  (1 child)
    I don't think there is a pun, I don't think they know how puns work and as a result has sent the rest of us wondering. Do you think that might be the joke?
    [–]120018 8 points9 points10 points  (0 children)
    My guess is he's talkin' about the "Reverse Gender-Gap" in universities.
    [–]Jesus390 3 points4 points5 points  (0 children)
    Has nothing to do with that. People just want to avoid a media scandal because thats bad for business. If you wanna be mad about something be mad that it happened during a course of which racism is a huge subject. Because unless you specify that you are saying universities should allow hate speech in any context and it doesnt matter if people feel hurt by it.
    [–]Sorrymsjacksonwoowoo 29 points30 points31 points  (3 children)
    I have an advanced degree in participation and everything you just said offended me. You've been reported and just wait until you hear from my father about this!
    [–]Mythiees 3 points4 points5 points  (0 children)
    I'm already shaking in anticipation.
    [–]ShazzMichaels 10 points11 points12 points  (3 children)
    Our new national past time is being offended.
    [–]Kedali 109 points110 points111 points  (32 children)
    I remember reading To Kill a Mockingbird in 8th grade. We were reading it out loud in class and got to one of the sentences that had nigger in it, and the student reading it said 'the n-word'. Our teacher paused the student and encouraged everyone to read the book as it was written, and then he had us take a break from the book and asked the class to list every racial slur we knew and he wrote them all on the chalk board.
    He didn't want the main idea of the book lost in political correctness. Instead of hiding reality from us, he made us face it head on and think about it both in the context of the book as well as our own experiences with it.
    If an 8th grade class was mature enough to have a worthwhile discussion about racism without censorship, a college class sure as hell should be as well.
    Edit: This reminded me of something else the teacher did. When we got to the beginnings of mankind, he taught us both evolution and creationism. We did projects about both and treated each as a legitimate possibility. But during it, he refused to say one was right or wrong. Just said these are the two main theories, this is the evidence supporting each, it's up to you to decide what you think is right. It became an ongoing thing to try to get him to tell us his beliefs, but even over the course of the year, he never once even hinted what his personal beliefs were. I always have been and always will be an athiest, but I respected how he handled a tough issue. Edit2: Oh man, writing this out has me thinking about school days and I remember another similar event. In highschool freshman biology, when we got to the subject of evolution, this thundercunt raised her hand, said 'I'm a Christian and my mom said I don't have to listen to this' and left the room.
    [–]kyvampire 12 points13 points14 points  (3 children)
    You sound like you went to a good school. I remember kind of the opposite situation when it came to biology. I was discussing church with a few friends when my biology teacher overheard. She then took it upon herself to make snide remarks about my beliefs while teaching evolution. That was insulting but I passed the course at least.
    [–]redpandaeater 3 points4 points5 points  (6 children)
    There is no evidence supporting intelligent design and teaching a religious alternative to evolution is insulting to anyone's intelligence. If even the Catholic church can accept evolution, I don't know why ignorant individuals can't.
    [–]revenantxz 0 points1 point2 points  (2 children)
    I'm also curious what this teacher had as evidence for creationism that painted it as an "equally valid theory"
    [–]Kedali 1 point2 points3 points  (1 child)
    There wasn't a lot of hard evidence obviously. This was long enough ago that creationism hadn't gone super pseudo science yet. It was mostly presented as 'this is what the bible says happened, and many people consider the bible to be historically accurate'.
    [–]revenantxz 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
    Ah, well that seems reasonable enough. Thanks for replying.
    [–]fpoesc 0 points1 point2 points  (2 children)
    The bits I have heard about it (not a lot admittedly) seem like the entire theory is built trying not to prove their claims, but to make them unfalsifiable. Which is something the church has been doing for a longer time (span of centuries): Claim to have an answer, see that answer falsified (best example: the earth being round), fight it first, give in when their opinion becomes untenable and ridiculous, construct something more general out of a formerly more specific theory.
    This general theory (represented by ID for example) now is barely enough to be unfalsifiable and thus theoretically possible. Probably not though.
    Theoretically their could be an untangible, odorless, invisible, completely silent unicorn standing right behind me at the moment. Am I going to care? No.
    [–]redpandaeater 0 points1 point2 points  (1 child)
    Everyone knew Earth was round before Christianity was even a thing.
    [–]fpoesc 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
    Sure. But while earth was not known to its fullest extent (read: the claim of earth being flat was difficult to falsify, constructing a world model where earth was flat was still doable), the church told a different story.
    [–]cooldito 2 points3 points4 points  (4 children)
    What kind of 8th grade teacher teaches biology and english?
    [–]Kedali -1 points0 points1 point  (3 children)
    The elementary school I went to was K-8th with one teacher per year who covered the entire curriculum.
    [–]EverVigilant 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
    The same teacher who taught To Kill a Mockingbird also taught the theory of evolution?
    [–]gooserooster88 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
    I had something similar happen in high school. My science teacher taught bible study at his church and when asked about the creationism vs. evolution thing he said something along the lines of "I believe in both books (science text book and bible), but you can't use one to explain the other."
    I always though that was a great way to look at things.
    [–]MyNameIsSal-p 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
    If an 8th grade class was mature enough to have a worthwhile discussion about racism without censorship, a college class sure as hell should be as well.
    Wow thats fucking sad that that grown adults are offended by this bullshit yet kids are capable of handling it just fine says a lot about society.
    [–]Decolater 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
    Typical behavior of a thundercunt.
    [–]ksp_physics_guy 0 points1 point2 points  (1 child)
    I get that teaching both evolution and creationism seems like the right thing to do, but teaching creationism as a "theory" and comparing it to the "theory" of evolution is misleading. In science the term theory has a very different meaning than in standard conversational language.
    One is a scientific theory that was constructed to explain the origin and propagation of life. The other is a creation myth, one of thousands (at least) that our species has created.
    One belongs in science, one belongs in religion, culture, history, and literature.
    Teaching students both as plausible theories is disingenuous and misleading.
    I get that the teacher was probably more progressive by teaching and presenting the topics in that manner compared to others. However it doesn't take away from the fact that it furthers the misconception that the two "theories" are of equal value.
    "Science" used to support creationism is used in a, here's my hypothesis, now let's tailor some evidence to prove it.
    Evolution is a result of "how the fuck did life happen? Let's create a hypothesis and then allow it to be fluid enough to adapt to the evidence as we discover it"
    One of these things is not like the other.
    (Again, nothing against religion of those who follow it, but science classes are for science, and religion/literature/etc. classes are for those topics)
    [–]Kedali 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
    Honestly I don't disagree with you, but this happened in the late 90s and if there were any other atheists in the class, there weren't more than a few. Just teaching evolution and ignoring creationism would have left a lot of students confused and probably angered some parents.
    The way he did it, there was no favoritism displayed in class, and I like to think it actually made the case for evolution more compelling. It may have been the first time most of the class had been exposed to evolution, and teaching them side by side with evolution having a huge amount of supporting evidence and creationism only having 'this is what the bible says' supporting it may have made some of the students question their beliefs.
    But yes, I do agree that at this point in time we should be separating evolution into the science classes and creationism into religious studies.
    [–]rwv 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
    Upvoted because of the correct usage of the noun "thundercunt".
    [–]aedansblade36 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
    From the sound of it, he was likely agnostic.
    -"If I may ask, do you personally believe in evolution or creationism?" -"Maybe."
    [–]enkae7317 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
    Yeah, try this today and you'll face a shitstorm of complaints from the parents from every corner of the city.
    [–]Acmnin 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
    No teacher should be placing "creationism" a religious belief (not a theory by any science), on the same plate as evolution.. In fact science teachers have no reason to talk about religion or their beliefs at all.
    [–]Vhett 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
    Huh, interesting. We had the same type of classroom but this was in Grade 9, not middle school. Interestingly enough, we had our teacher also read aloud, and read as the book was written without censorship.
    [–]samwise141 100 points101 points102 points  (37 children)
    Why does my school keep showing up on reddit...
    [–]Staying_Anon 23 points24 points25 points  (1 child)
    R.I.P overheard, yo
    [–]ParadiseCity1995 15 points16 points17 points  (10 children)
    10 bucks to whoever posts up on overheard lmao
    [–]ParadiseCity1995 4 points5 points6 points  (1 child)
    paging /u/MethoxyEthane aka the trillest mod of life
    [–]MethoxyEthane 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
    Someone beat me to it.
    [–]canadianhousehippo 3 points4 points5 points  (3 children)
    Done. (Not by me). Shit-show imminent. Someone should re-post the "Gender-Studies Factory" thing just to make it extra cluster-fuckity.
    And yet, thanks to 2019, Overheard will only be the second most cringe-worthy Queen's group.
    [–]r0sebery 1 point2 points3 points  (1 child)
    What's up with 2019?
    [–]ifiasco 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
    the "class of 2019" page full of high school students coming to the school, where everyone takes turns circlejerking about how cool they are and bragging/introducing themselves to people they'll almost never meet. It's become a regular thing on facebook for just about all schools.
    Try googling "[your school] class of [four years from now] and you'll see how bad it is.
    [–]criddler 25 points26 points27 points  (8 children)
    always negative too. johnson and frontenac represent..
    [–]iAMADisposableAcc 14 points15 points16 points  (3 children)
    Aberdeen in the building tho
    [–]Banana_For_Brains 5 points6 points7 points  (1 child)
    North of Princess... Aw fuck
    [–]iAMADisposableAcc 3 points4 points5 points  (0 children)
    Really, the quality of a NOP house is dictated by it's Smokes Proximity Index.
    [–]criddler 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
    spent too many days at 36 and 34 in my time
    [–]alfonzo1955 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
    Alfred and Earl!
    [–]jpropaganda 0 points1 point2 points  (2 children)
    Back in the day I lived kinda far out on Victoria and Princess.
    [–]criddler 1 point2 points3 points  (1 child)
    ahahah no way, I'm there right now. crazy.
    [–]jpropaganda [score hidden]  (0 children)
    Nice! Good spot to live in, it's just so much farther than the ghetto houses
    [–]Helium-Isotope 6 points7 points8 points  (0 children)
    I mean it IS the home of the center of the universe... to be fair.
    [–]beersonthepier 2 points3 points4 points  (1 child)
    Sci '18 rep
    [–]UncleTrapspringer 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
    Lol cute frosh
    [–]Hell_Libertine 4 points5 points6 points  (1 child)
    Is it? First time I've seen it front page.
    [–]QuackWhatsup 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
    I've seen it thrice. Once where an old guy was watching porn in Stauffer, and another short video where a guy pretended to give birth in the ARC (It was a sketch sort of thing, grunting from weights became birth). Last one I saw was a poster in the ARC saying all posts needed a sign of approval or something like that, and it didn't have one (It said Gael on it so I knew it was Queen's).
    [–]atlantis145 3 points4 points5 points  (2 children)
    Fuck sakes I'm starting Law in there in September. Here's to hoping the whole school isn't like this...
    [–]samwise141 3 points4 points5 points  (1 child)
    Queen's as a whole is a great school, you'll love it. BUT I think because in the past it was so associated with oldschool waspy types the school is going out of its way to push social progressiveness. You'll see on occasion stupid shit like this get blown way out of proportion.
    [–]atlantis145 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
    Great to know, thanks! I'll prepare my bullshit filter, but I'm still super excited to go.
    [–]Jorlung 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
    Always Gender Studies too eh? The whole "Feminism is important to me" thing got on the reddit front page a while ago too.
    [–]zimfu 3 points4 points5 points  (0 children)
    Cha gheill
    [–]jpropaganda 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
    Cha geil!
    [–]lynnangel 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
    Uh, because you're not homeschooled? Its a major school. Expect it to be mentioned every now and then.
    [–][deleted]  (2 children)
    [deleted]
      [–]Arknell 379 points380 points381 points  (83 children)
      Porn, McDonalds, and boxing can be offensive to feminists, vegetarians, and pacifists, that doesn't mean all three things should be outlawed.
      [–]a_park_bench 74 points75 points76 points  (9 children)
      I'm not sure if you're thinking of someone else, but Stephen Fry said something similar
      [–]Theory5 15 points16 points17 points  (4 children)
      So did Voltaire! Some dude!
      I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
      [–]D4rthR3van 43 points44 points45 points  (0 children)
      I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to miss-attribute it to Voltaire!
      [–]ryanknapper 18 points19 points20 points  (2 children)
      So did Voltaire! Some dude!
      Some dude? It was Evelyn Beatrice Hall, you monster!
      [–]zazu2006 3 points4 points5 points  (0 children)
      triggered
      [–]epicLeoplurodon 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
      Monster? As a proud monster-kin, I am very offended.
      [–]openzeus 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
      It's also the way he says it which is pleasing to my earballs.
      [–]Arknell -1 points0 points1 point  (0 children)
      Perfect.
      [–]Blackborealis -1 points0 points1 point  (0 children)
      He looks so much younger in that photo. Almost like James May.
      [–]Cyhawk -1 points0 points1 point  (0 children)
      It's a common saying, George Carlin and others have said it for years.
      [–]yogurtmeh 203 points204 points205 points  (43 children)
      He wasn't silenced. He wasn't even fired. The university requested that a department chair listen to his lectures to confirm that he wasn't saying anything racist. Professor Mason refused this request then, later, health issues caused him to quit.
      To me it sounds like the university was probably on his side but due to the severity of the accusation they had to at least take some sort of action as far as investigating the claims of racist language. But instead of agreeing to let someone sit in on his lecture and prove that he wasn't saying anything racist, he got pissy and pitched a fit.
      [–]CCwind 10 points11 points12 points  (2 children)
      The university requested that a department chair
      It wasn't a request. He was told that he had to change the grading scheme (since he had failed to make a safe space) and the chair might be sitting in on future classes.
      To me it sounds like the university was probably on his side
      He was told he was guilty at the same meeting he was told about the complaints. He didn't get a chance to defend his actions because he followed his doctor's advise to leave before it affected his health.
      But that is just from the coverage I've seen. What is your source?
      [–]yogurtmeh 1 point2 points3 points  (1 child)
      My source is the article that the post links to.
      I reread it, and it doesn't include any of the information you provided.
      [–]CCwind 3 points4 points5 points  (0 children)
      Yeah, my bad. I thought I had read the linked article, but it was a different one. The other information came from the globe and mail and a blog referencing the union report.
      The OP linked article includes more information about the accusations, but makes the resolution and the school's actions much more benign than the other sources.
      Globe and mail source
      [–]thansal 41 points42 points43 points  (3 children)
      Thank you for actually reading the article and attempting to be a voice of reason.
      [–]Naggins 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
      but muh sjw censorship conspiracy
      [–]cantletthatstand 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
      Except that didn't happen at all, he left because in the midst of all of this a pre-existing heart condition of his flared up, and he stepped down at his physician's recommendation. Interesting that he left out that little detail in his expose of The Truth™.
      [–]blahblahblah2314 -1 points0 points1 point  (0 children)
      How is a complete and total lie being "a voice of reason"?
      [–]yogurtmeh 329 points330 points331 points  (107 children)
      Sounds like the university received complaints and requested that a department chair listen to some of the lectures to confirm that he wasn't saying anything offensive. The professor refused this request then later quit due to health issues. He also made some dick-ish jokes about his female TAs washing his car.
      From the article:
      After the complaint was filed, the university said he could only continue teaching if the department chair sat in on lectures from time to time. He wouldn’t comply. Classes were cancelled and Mr. Mason was “banned,” as he puts it. He was never formally let go or asked to leave — health problems eventually had him sidelined.
      and
      And he admits to saying the teaching assistants (all women) should wash his car if he can’t find enough work for them to do.
      [–]robexistsrvb2 25 points26 points27 points  (6 children)
      I was a Queen's student at the time of the incident. While I personally wasn't there, I had friends in the class who weren't surprised someone complained, saying he didn't use the terms and phrases maliciously, but did use them outside of direct quotation/readings excessively enough that some students were noticeably uncomfortable. The National Post article OP links seems to take Mason at his word that he was only quoting readings. But those friends I asked also didn't think he deserved to be fired.
      Some background worth noting is that the entire time I was there, the Queen's administration (both the student-run government and the traditional board) was in a constant state of responding to controversies in questionable ways - but on the other other hand, minor controversies often seemed magnified by a number of very passionate students from across a wide spectrum of politics. There was always someone upset about something and kicking up dirt.
      The end result is pretty much any time any controversy happened, there were always rumors and spin from various groups until no one knew what really happened.
      [–]Aqquila89 1 point2 points3 points  (4 children)
      Sounds like to me then what you need the least is the media reporting on the story in a one-sided way and a bunch of people who don't know the details getting angry about it.
      [–]robexistsrvb2 3 points4 points5 points  (3 children)
      I was shocked to see this on the front page of Reddit, only because I and a large chunk of the student body shrugged off the story at the time, I guess having become exhausted of controversies and unable to tell real ones from manufactured ones. That included the stories like this one that got to the national level but would inevitably quote one side of the story or one of many "student activists" infamous on campus for their agenda.
      But congrats to /u/over-my-head for getting some precious karma out of it, I guess.
      [–]over-my-head[S] -2 points-1 points0 points  (2 children)
      Meh, karma is irrelevant.
      I just wanted people to talk about the issue.
      [–]robexistsrvb2 -1 points0 points1 point  (1 child)
      Yes, while making sure in the headline and your comments to frame "the issue" for maximum outrage, as PC culture gone wrong. Further context - that his health pushed him out, that he refused an olive branch/compromise, or any research on your part into the complaints and not just what the accused said - be damned. But I guess getting the Gender Studies mention into the title was much more important.
      [–]over-my-head[S] 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
      You try fitting all of that extra detail into a post concise enough to meet TIL standards without getting deleted.
      [–]mrbooze 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
      But those friends I asked also didn't think he deserved to be fired.
      According to the article, he wasn't?
      [–]mattatmac 168 points169 points170 points  (23 children)
      This sounds a lot more realistic than "Tenured Professor barred from classroom with no justification".
      It sounds as though they gave the professor the opportunity to perform the due diligence to protect himself and his institution from harm, and he chose to be stubborn.
      Do redditors know how difficult it is to terminate a tenured professor? You cannot simply coerce them to leave, that's constructive dismissal - and it's illegal here in Canada.
      [–]scalemodlgiant 87 points88 points89 points  (4 children)
      But, but, the evil SJWs! GENDER STUDIES!!!
      [–]WTFwhatthehell 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
      profile->ctrl-f->"SRS"
      No surprise.
      [–]faded_jester -10 points-9 points-8 points  (2 children)
      Yeah this definitely makes all their massive ignorance disappear. There aren't daily examples of their moronic "emotion based" logic. There also is not a sub dedicated to showing just how far off the deep end they go.....nope they are all great now...thanks for informing us.
      [–]academician 14 points15 points16 points  (0 children)
      Because a bunch of screenshots of 16-year-old tumblr weirdos must be completely representative of actual gender studies academics, right?
      [–]scalemodlgiant 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
      no prob bob *thumbs up*
      [–]WTFwhatthehell 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
      " The department chair and other administrators sprang into action. Mason was summoned to meetings, threatened with suspension, informed that the chair might henceforth be sitting in on his class from time to time, and told that the grading scheme would need to be changed. The administrators judged that Mason had "failed to create a safe space" for students and thereby violated the university's "Educational Equity Policy." On his doctor's advice, Mason went on medical leave. In effect, he was forced out as instructor for the course, and that ended his teaching career at Queen's."
      Senior professor objects to being monitored for the rest of his career on the basis of a really really moronic complaint, as a result he is stripped of his teaching duties.
      To me it sounds like someone didn't grovel enough in the face of politics and got mowed down. Nothing to do with "due diligence" but you can call it that if you want to make it sounds like it's all his fault.
      [–]AnotherParaclete 3 points4 points5 points  (0 children)
      Do redditors know how difficult it is to terminate a tenured professor?
      I'm not sure you understand how difficult it is to terminate a tenured professor's job. This:
      And he admits to saying the teaching assistants (all women) should wash his car if he can’t find enough work for them to do.
      Would not cause a professor to lose his tenure. Tenured professors can make some really crazy racist and sexist comments and not be in any jeopardy of losing their job.
      [–]Decolater 4 points5 points6 points  (0 children)
      Yeah, this guy was probably way over the top on this. But, you know, blame gender studies and PC.
      [–]DavidRoyman -2 points-1 points0 points  (0 children)
      The offer they made was humiliating, it's a form of censorship and would have meant acknowledging the accusation.
      You would have found acceptable to compromise on those terms?
      That's what his daughter suggested, and he said no.
      [–]over-my-head[S] -15 points-14 points-13 points  (13 children)
      As mentioned in this comment
      Professor Mason was actually requested to specifically come out of retirement to teach this class.
      And then he was run back out again because of the overly sensitive PC brigaders competing for the Oppression Olympics.
      It wasn't as if he had built up a bad reputation for a "history of racist and sexist comments," but couldn't be pushed out because of his tenured position.
      He was already out of the game.
      And then they asked him to come back in. Then ran him out and left a black mark on his career.
      Give me a few minutes and I'll find sources on this.
      EDIT: Here you go:
      [–]cooldito 13 points14 points15 points  (3 children)
      None of that addresses the concerns with his supposed conduct and his refusal to allow someone to sit in on his class. Just because he invented the class and they wanted him to come teach it doesn't mean he wasn't acting inappropriately. But continue to fight against those evil feminist strawmen and tilting at windmills.
      [–]over-my-head[S] comment score below threshold-15 points-14 points-13 points  (2 children)
      But continue to fight against those evil feminist strawmen and tilting at windmills.
      ...yeah, I'm not anti-feminist. I'm just against a certain new breed of feminist that has to censor everything that might be deemed "offensive," or because it contradicts their view of feminist ideology.
      [–]cooldito 9 points10 points11 points  (1 child)
      But none of that applies here, you are literally fighting your feminism strawman (sorry strawperson /s )
      [–]over-my-head[S] -1 points0 points1 point  (0 children)
      Yeah, those types of censorious feminists I refered to (like the Gender Studies TA in question) clearly don't exist at all, and are therefore strawmen.
      [–]UmarAlKhattab 11 points12 points13 points  (8 children)
      overly sensitive PC brigaders
      You are throwing way too many terminologies to badmouth other people. There is a clear bias in your comments regardless if those people where trying to get rid of him or where at fault just saying.
      [–]over-my-head[S] comment score below threshold-11 points-10 points-9 points  (7 children)
      Please identify a single person who has ever existed on this planet who did not possess bias.
      [–]UmarAlKhattab 5 points6 points7 points  (0 children)
      That is not a defense to be biased just saying, also hypothetical speaking if everyone did A, why should you do A just because it is popular, also known as Argumentum ad populum.
      [–]Lord_Derp_The_2nd -1 points0 points1 point  (1 child)
      Chuck Norris.
      [–]academician -1 points0 points1 point  (2 children)
      Of course you have a bias. That doesn't mean you can't try to be objective about it. You're clearly not even trying.
      [–]over-my-head[S] -3 points-2 points-1 points  (1 child)
      This is a major problem with media reporting.
      Chomsky, Hermann, Hedges, Parenti and other media analysts get into this really deeply.
      The problem with media today, and their focus on avoiding "bias" simply results in a mediascape where journalists are unable to actually write about real issues or call out actual bullshit, because they must attempt to remain "unbiased."
      This actually tends to lead to a slide to the right, as corporate-owned media tends to dominate the news spectrum.
      Though we're seeing this in a different way with politically correct leftist bias taking over as the new norm in modern media coverage, but most especially in higher education.
      Objectivity is a myth, and a dangerous one at that.
      [–]academician 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
      This is silly. I agree that pure objectivity is not possible - the types of stories one deems important enough to comment on is alone enough to display bias. But you absolutely can attempt to be as objective as possible about a particular story. What that means is presenting all relevant facts, regardless of your feelings about them, in a dispassionate way. This at least makes it easier for the viewer to make their own judgments about a story rather than be led by the nose toward a conclusion.
      No one is 100% objective, but it's a sliding scale. By failing to present or consider all pertinent facts relating to the story, you lack sufficient objectivity for your opinion to be trustworthy. Please feel free to report on whatever you like, but understand that if you leave out relevant details your opinion is worth less. That is the traditional goal of journalistic "objectivity" - not to avoid offending anyone, but to be certain that we are sufficiently informed before passing judgment.
      [–]HarryBlessKnapp 46 points47 points48 points  (2 children)
      Yeah this was quite obviously bullshit. Why do people spread this shit?
      [–]Jumbso 27 points28 points29 points  (0 children)
      Reddit would rather make "omg feminists are bad, sexism doesn't exist since over never experienced it as a male!"
      [–]ngwoo 95 points96 points97 points  (13 children)
      It's positively shocking that reddit would fail to actually read the article about an issue related to racism and sexism.
      [–]SyndicateSamantharoo 29 points30 points31 points  (5 children)
      Just from reading the title it was obvious the story wasn't so one-sided. Sure there are a lot of stupid people out there, but there is no fucking way that multiple complaints from both students and assistants alike were filed over merely quoting sources.
      [–]DavidRoyman 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
      Do you know how collecting signatures works in college?
      [–]rillip 3 points4 points5 points  (2 children)
      Did you read the article? It doesn't sound like there were multiple complaints. There was one confirmed complaint and several unconfirmed ones. I think the truth here is that everyone overreacted. The TA who lodged the complaint by lodging it in the first place. The administration by taking it seriously. The professor by not just letting someone sit in on his class. Bunch of bumbling asshats letting their sensibilities get in the way of education, which is what they're all actually supposed to be doing with their time and energy.
      [–]Ekorn 0 points1 point2 points  (1 child)
      Wasn't the professor saying shit about women should wash his car?
      Maybe this was just the straw that broke the camels back? Point is, we don't know and so we're just in this thread, jerking each other off, moaning about feminists and GS tumblerinas oppressing the white male.
      [–]rillip 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
      Well that's not what this particular thread is doing lol.
      But that's basically my point. The article actually is pretty balanced in that it covers the opinions and claims made by all parties involved, but it lacks pretty much any solid facts one way or the other. So people can look at it and see it as supporting whatever their most treasured stand point is.
      I for one still see a clusterfuck of whiners who are all overreacting and need to grow their skins a little thicker.
      [–]cantletthatstand 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
      Since it's obvious you read titles and glean all relevant information from them, I'll spare linking you the report that essentially verifies that that is, essentially, what did take place. The title isn't very illuminating.
      [–]Show-Me-Your-Moves 45 points46 points47 points  (1 child)
      TIL always takes a serious and nuanced view of racism and sexism...as long as the purported victim is a white male.
      [–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points  (1 child)
      Well I can't speak for the rest of reddit, but I just upvoted the article because it sounded like it was maligning anyone studying anything not related to engineering. That's what we're supposed to do, right?
      [–]ngwoo 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
      Personally I can't understand any situation that I can't adequately draw a free body diagram of.
      [–]Noneerror 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
      Well in this case it is understandable. It is asking people to read the National Post. It is asking a lot.
      [–]JohnCoffee23 -1 points0 points1 point  (0 children)
      Except that if YOU actually read the article you would realize that the "racist" comments were quoted from books and articles on racism from that era, it's completely unfair to say this was racism and sexism related because now you're attempting to label him.
      It's obvious the real issue was his inability to comply with the school, also you should note that the CAUT investigation, ordered by the Queen’s University Faculty Association union, was inaccurate and incomplete because it didn’t interview the complainants, students or the university, which declined to participate.
      It was one TA student from the faculty of gender studies that made the complaint, he was investigated and they didn't even bother to pursue the other students who complained, he got the shit end of the stick and the people who investigated this did an awful job.
      [–]MrFroho -3 points-2 points-1 points  (0 children)
      I'm not at all shocked that you didn't read the article either. Context matters, read the line right after the one quoted here: The self-described product of a different era said he made an exasperated joke after being appointed assistants he felt didn’t know the course content.
      [–]WTFwhatthehell 4 points5 points6 points  (0 children)
      Lets add some context to the car item.
      "The charges of sexism against Mason were similarly tenuous. It was claimed that he had said female students should be mistresses. What he had said was that he wanted his students to become "masters and mistresses" of the course material. He had told the TAs that in his organization of the course, he would not actually have much work to assign them, joking that maybe he would have to ask them to wash his car."
      There's also more to the other item.
      The department chair and other administrators sprang into action. Mason was summoned to meetings, threatened with suspension, informed that the chair might henceforth be sitting in on his class from time to time, and told that the grading scheme would need to be changed. The administrators judged that Mason had "failed to create a safe space" for students and thereby violated the university's "Educational Equity Policy." On his doctor's advice, Mason went on medical leave. In effect, he was forced out as instructor for the course, and that ended his teaching career at Queen's.
      [–]avatar_of_internet 29 points30 points31 points  (0 children)
      It gets worse.
      You also acknowledged making remarks about having the female TAs wash your car, use their TA pay to go shopping, that male students in the class ought to marry female doctors to get both money and babies, that the female TAs were the “mistresses” of the class and so forth. Because you have acknowledged using these terms and making these remarks, we do not have to discuss any further what was actually said. What was said is not in dispute and nor is your intent in making such remarks in dispute.
      [–]deserterkalak 37 points38 points39 points  (0 children)
      This should be the top comment, but I guess ranting about evil SJW's and their plot to destroy free speech is sexier.
      [–]DogIsGood 52 points53 points54 points  (1 child)
      Hey hey buddy stop injecting nuance into the circlejerk
      [–]mEsjycCxNe8y7x 22 points23 points24 points  (0 children)
      Wow, this time I had to scroll down way more comments to find (something closer to) the truth than I usually do. I doubt if this was about video games or some other nerd shit it would have taken so long, but this title hits a few very important checkmarks for Reddit bullshit:
      • Some guy being "punished unjustly" for saying racial slurs
      • A cheap shot at Gender Studies classes (and general antintellectualism)
      • A dude being unjustly prosecuted
      [–]i_hate_memes123 16 points17 points18 points  (0 children)
      Yeah, but how can we circlejerk about that?
      [–]khazhyk 22 points23 points24 points  (10 children)
      What difference does it make that his TAs were female regarding the car washing thing? That's an age old trope that is "boss making peons do pointless things", and seems like anyone in their right might would take it as a joke.
      [–]labiaflutteringby 3 points4 points5 points  (0 children)
      Yeah that's just some Mr Miyagi shit.
      [–]yogurtmeh 29 points30 points31 points  (8 children)
      If I were working my ass off getting a PhD I would sort of prefer it if my boss didn't joke that I should be washing their car.
      That said, it sounds like numerous students and TAs made complaints, not just one TA. This still doesn't mean the professor was guilty, but it does at least warrant a cursory investigation considering the severity of the accusations.
      [–]bobosuda 3 points4 points5 points  (1 child)
      You'd prefer your boss not to have sense of humour? There's a world of difference between suggesting they should wash his car as an off-hand comment and actually demanding that they wash his car or something like that. Sound like nothing but a joke - and even if it fell a little flat I hardly think the appropriate response is to ban the guy from his own classes.
      [–]FountainsOfFluids 3 points4 points5 points  (0 children)
      I mostly agree with you. But as part of a pattern of behavior, it might be worth mentioning in a complaint. But the real core of the issue here is not the car washing comment, it's the claim that there were multiple complaints about different issues, and the professor refused to allow the department chair to sit in. Even if the issues raised were all complete bullshit nonsense, the department chair would rightly think "what's going on in that class?" and want to observe. And a decent professor should have zero problem with that.
      [–]RatherDashing 1 point2 points3 points  (1 child)
      the ceo of my old company used to walk around saying hi to people and randomly throw the keys to his mercedes to someone and tell him to go get it washed. we always were envious of that dude. half hour break and gets to drive a benz around.
      now obviously i wasn't there when he suggested that the TAs wash his car for some cash but my guess is he would have done the same thing to a group of guys, and they wouldn't have cared
      [–]yogurtmeh -1 points0 points1 point  (0 children)
      Who knows, it may have been innocuous it may have been gross. Seems like the investigation was botched.
      [–]TheLobotomizer comment score below threshold-11 points-10 points-9 points  (2 children)
      The world is a big scary place. Hearing a joke about washing your boss's car is the least of anyone's worries. If that's enough to file a complaint, then people will just prefer not to hire "sensitive" people due to their inherent risk.
      [–]DevFRus 12 points13 points14 points  (1 child)
      There is a difference between hearing one joke or the occasional joke, and a constant hostile atmosphere towards employees. The number of accusations suggest that it might have been bordering on the latter, and the prof was given an opportunity to show that this is not the case by letting the department chair sit in on the class. He refused.
      [–]fuckingkike -7 points-6 points-5 points  (0 children)
      The choice to remain silent is not an admission of guilt.
      [–]TheReadMenace 4 points5 points6 points  (0 children)
      Don't interrupt the 'DAE GENDAR STUDIES IS A JOAK' circlejerk
      [–]Chronic_Apathy1 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
      And he admits to saying the teaching assistants (all women) should wash his car if he can’t find enough work for them to do.
      That doesn't sound like he made a joke about women washing his car. It sounds like he made a joke about the TAs washing his car, and the TAs happened to be all women.
      [–]kabukistar 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
      That car-washing comment could be pretty innocuous or really sleazy, depending no how you read it.
      [–]redpandaeater 0 points1 point2 points  (3 children)
      Except that having a chair sit in on some lectures is completely pointless. At worst, a completely racist asshat of a professor could still easily just censor himself when the chair is present. At best it still does absolutely nothing to actually investigate the complaint since you can only complain about things that happened in the past. I think some of his jokes were probably misunderstood and were awkward to begin with, but that could easily have been dealt with.
      [–]Mo0man 5 points6 points7 points  (2 children)
      Exactly. But the dude decided to throw a hissy fit instead of conceding to a completely reasonable demand.
      [–]redpandaeater -2 points-1 points0 points  (1 child)
      I don't see that as a reasonable demand at all. My entire comment was how it was stupid and pointless, therefore not reasonable. Just by having the chair there he might subconsciously even alter his teaching, and he had been teaching for fifty years so I can see why he wouldn't want a babysitter. Heck, perhaps he and the department chair just don't get along anyway. I don't see how anything good could have come from giving in to the demand.
      [–]Mo0man 4 points5 points6 points  (0 children)
      Well, if he just conceded to the demand, the university would be able to back him on that he was just saying quotes. As of now, it's his word against apparently multiple people (incl his own TAs) accusing him of racial slurs.
      Note: he's the one saying that all the slurs are quotations from historical documents. We have no quotes for the complaints, and the one article we have reads like an Op-Ed.
      I also don't think there's anything weird at all about auditors coming into classes, regardless of... well... anything. It seems like perfectly reasonable employee oversight. I'm honestly a bit shocked that it's not common practise already.
      [–]theross -1 points0 points1 point  (1 child)
      Mind if I summarize a bit more for you?
      Old jerk is a jerk. People call him out on being a jerk. Get's butthurt, leaves job, convinces people to be butthurt on his account.
      [–]yogurtmeh -2 points-1 points0 points  (0 children)
      Right but old jerk might not be a racist or sexist jerk. Maybe he's just a jerk-jerk. We will never know because he was too butthurt to let a department chair sit in on his lectures and determine if he was acting appropriately. That's a pretty minor request. It's not unusual for a college class to be audited by other professors or administrators.
      [–]LordOfTurtles18 -1 points0 points1 point  (1 child)
      Why is the car wash remark offensive? Just because they happen to be women? If they had been men I bet you wouldn't find the slightest issue with it
      [–]fabio-mc 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
      Yeah, because there is no trope of sexy men washing cars in white clothes and small shorts. If there was, the problem would be there all the same.
      [–]MeddlingMike 24 points25 points26 points  (0 children)
      Just a white guy's opinion, but I think using alternate words would actually be the more offensive thing to do. I think Warner Brothers got it right.
      [–]TotesMessenger 6 points7 points8 points  (0 children)
      I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:
      If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)
      [–]Outlulz3 66 points67 points68 points  (5 children)
      After the complaint was filed, the university said he could only continue teaching if the department chair sat in on lectures from time to time. He wouldn’t comply. Classes were cancelled and Mr. Mason was “banned,” as he puts it. He was never formally let go or asked to leave — health problems eventually had him sidelined.
      Slightly misleading title. Him being "banned" is his opinion but it's not true. In response to the complaints the University said someone had to sit in. He refused to teach so his classes were canceled and he quit because of health reasons.
      University classes are audited by staff all the time. He took this poorly.
      [–]mEsjycCxNe8y7x 8 points9 points10 points  (0 children)
      Extremely misleading title.
      [–]over-my-head[S] -11 points-10 points-9 points  (3 children)
      "Banned" was put in quotation marks within quotation marks in the TIL title submission, as it was derived directly from the article headline - and was written as such.
      [–]Outlulz3 13 points14 points15 points  (0 children)
      Yeah but unfortunately a lot of people wont read the article, just the headline, and assume the university locked him out of his classroom and fired him :\
      [–]Freddy_Chopin 4 points5 points6 points  (1 child)
      He also wasn't pushed to an early retirement, he quit due to health reasons. Also one student complained about him using slurs, the other complaints were about him asking female students to wash his car. So almost every part of the title is either heavy slanted or wrong.
      [–]over-my-head[S] 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
      Take it up with the National Post, then.
      I was following SPECIFIC /r/TodayILearned guidelines to craft a concise title drawn directly from the source.
      [–]Karfedix_of_Pain 108 points109 points110 points  (25 children)
      Honest Question: What the hell ever happened to acting like adults?
      I can certainly understand that the language is a bit shocking, even taken in-context. But who cares?
      What's with all these people being "triggered" and offended and whatnot... And then running to get somebody banned from their class, or silenced, or whatever.
      Have we just completely forgotten how to deal with discomfort? Can nobody tolerate negative emotions? Dissenting opinions?
      [–]Doobie-Keebler 58 points59 points60 points  (11 children)
      Honest Question: What the hell ever happened to acting like adults?
      Everyone decided that everybody's opinions were equally valid, and people have stopped respecting education. Consequently, a published scholar with a Ph.D leading a class says, "The author CS Lewis declares, 'With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination...' This is an outdated notion, obviously--"
      Then some first-year part-time community college student stands up and screams, "You just said 'savages!' We ain't savages! You racist! RACIST! RAYYYYY-CISSSST!!!!"
      And then everyone jumps on the racist-old-college-professor bandwagon and the whole thing is taken out of context because part-time community college girl's opinion is just as valid as Ph.D college professor guy's is. And the next thing you know, professor guy is out of a job, because the university president doesn't want the bad press to cost him his job. And everyone in academia takes notice, and so certain things just don't get talked about anymore.
      And so we've become an emotional and immature nation, shocked to find ourselves being outpaced by the rest of the world.
      [–]20PNP20 13 points14 points15 points  (4 children)
      Then some first-year part-time community college student stands up and screams, "You just said 'savages!' We ain't savages! You racist! RACIST! RAYYYYY-CISSSST!!!!"
      Jerry Seinfeld was on the Colin Cowherd Show (ESPN Radio) this week and he talked about how comedians are avoiding college campuses more and more because of the extreme PC mentality that has emerged in the last decade or so.
      He, and other comedians in recent years (Bill Maher especially), have talked about how the entire vibe on college is different these days. The jokes that used to be a huge hit with younger crowds are often now met with gasps, silence, or boos on college campuses.
      Seinfeld gave an anecdote about his daughter wanting to spend more time this summer in the city, and he made the comment to her "oh, you just want to hang out with all the boys in the city." His daughter responded by calling him sexist. He went on to talk about how he believes that the recent surge in teaching tolerance and acceptance in schools has caused an extreme over-correction. Children are convinced that having negative feelings or opinions towards any group of people is viewed as bad and wrong(not arguing there). However, they have caused children to become petrified of being mistaken for being racist, sexist, bigoted, whatever. So, to be "right" about things, they often accuse others of being "wrong" by calling them sexist, racist (etc.) without even attempting to understand the intent of the person.
      You see the same thing in political discourse. People want to establish the moral high ground immediately, and look for opportunities to call the opposition a bigot. When you have established that they are a bigot, you believe that they are wrong, and, thus, you are correct.
      [–]Doobie-Keebler 8 points9 points10 points  (0 children)
      You see the same thing in political discourse. People want to establish the moral high ground immediately, and look for opportunities to call the opposition a bigot.
      It's a very effective deflection technique.
      [–]HamsterBoo 5 points6 points7 points  (0 children)
      I see a similar thing happen on reddit all the time. Write some ambiguous post and see whether people assume it is moderate or extremist. They will almost always assume it is extremist in order to argue with you and feel superior.
      One I saw recently was someone saying "These words are untranslatable". People said they were Anglocentric because the words were translatable to languages other than English, when they could just have easily assumed that the person meant untranslatable to English by the very fact that the original sentence was written in English.
      [–]iketelic 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
      A white person being labelled a racist is a social death sentence. You will be fired and lose all your friends and thanks to the Internet, that reputation will follow you around forever. For a while, Donald Sterling was probably the most hated man in America. All because he said "black people" during what he thought was a private conversation. But that's not just semi-famous people like sports team owners, no matter where he works somebody will find it out and contact his boss and threaten boycotts on the Internet until that person is fired.
      It is therefore quite understandable that most people will avoid that for any cost, so they need to loudly proclaim their disagreement at everything that could be even remotely offensive to anyone.
      [–]SimpleSimulation 1 point2 points3 points  (2 children)
      I'm broke. gold
      [–]Doobie-Keebler 1 point2 points3 points  (1 child)
      Ah, virtual Reddit gold.
      Well, a virtual thanks to you then, my virtual benefactor!
      See you in the virtual lounge!
      [–]SimpleSimulation 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
      When I am no longer broke, I will come back and guild your humble ass.
      [–]International_KB 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
      Did this actually happen or are you constructing an absurd strawman in order demonstrate how 'immature' others supposedly are?
      Honest question.
      [–]rwildhorseranch 0 points1 point2 points  (1 child)
      Can I buy you a beer? Well said.
      [–]Doobie-Keebler 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
      You can buy me anything you like, I'm practically a whore.
      :-D
      [–]EggheadDash 3 points4 points5 points  (0 children)
      The honest adults all went to degrees that are not gender studies.
      [–]UncleMeat 1 point2 points3 points  (1 child)
      Most people behave like adults. This sort of story is rare enough that articles get written about it. There isn't some unstoppable wave of people trying to fire college professors.
      I only hope that people can understand this well enough to not completely throw out the idea of trigger warnings and safe spaces because of stories like this.
      [–]Karfedix_of_Pain 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
      I only hope that people can understand this well enough to not completely throw out the idea of trigger warnings and safe spaces because of stories like this.
      My wife is a survivor of some seriously fucked-up trauma, and now works in the mental health field. I say this so that you know I am sympathetic to folks actually getting genuinely triggered and needing a safe space.
      But... Trigger warnings border on the useless. I mean, yeah, you can throw some standard stuff out there. Warn about violence or sexual imagery or certain words or whatnot... But what do you do if somebody is triggered by something commonplace like raised male voices of religious iconography? You can't possibly warn against every possible trigger out there. And you can't possibly expect people to censor themselves that severely just for your benefit.
      The world is not going to sanitize itself for your safety. You need to develop the tools necessary to deal with your issues.
      Avoidance isn't a solution.
      [–]grosslittlestage 6 points7 points8 points  (0 children)
      Several reasons:
      • Today's students are bored. They don't have anything real to worry or care about, so they manufacture controversies to give their lives meaning. Notice how the most outspoken social justice warriors are usually extremely privileged rich kids at fancy colleges. The creation of fake conflicts to alleviate ennui explains this paradox.
      • As another commenter said, the cultural relativism that has been preached by humanities professors for the last half century is finally bringing us to the brink of nihilism. It gives these students a theoretical framework for ignoring facts and constructing their own little crazy worlds (example: Tumblr).
      • Millennial students are for the most part coddled and narcissistic. They've been taught that their feelings are important, which is where that "triggering" bullshit came from. If you can present facts that they disagree with, that means that they aren't the center of the universe and always right... therefore, you and your facts must be censored, because obviously they're all special snowflakes. (Note: I'm a millennial college student too, I'm just not a nutcase.)
      [–]calf 1 point2 points3 points  (2 children)
      My dissenting opinion: This article also mentions that:
      And he admits to saying the teaching assistants (all women) should wash his car if he can’t find enough work for them to do, and that they should become “masters and mistresses” of the materials taught in his class.
      I can totally see the TAs filing a complaint about this—there could be a case to be made for workplace harassment, although without details we simply don't know . But to my knowledge all the top universities do treat this issue with some degree of seriousness.
      [–]Karfedix_of_Pain 1 point2 points3 points  (1 child)
      Really?
      And he admits to saying the teaching assistants (all women) should wash his car if he can’t find enough work for them to do
      We routinely make jokes about sending our interns (both male and female) to wash our cars or get coffee or whatever if there isn't enough work to do.
      that they should become “masters and mistresses” of the materials taught in his class.
      What's the problem with this? Is "mistress" just too gender-specific? Did somebody read sexual connotations into it? Because, yeah, I'd expect a TA to master the material being taught in the class.
      [–]calf 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
      Well there's multiple potential issues that, again, we don't know the details of, but I'd add that your comment seems to omit. One example is if the boss repeatedly makes jokes of this nature, and then the TAs have a problem with it. In an academic setting, this would be entirely appropriate for the TAs to seek a 3rd party to resolve this type of conflict.
      Academia is a very different environment than other workplaces. At the elite American university where I received my graduate training, we were basically (in a sense) treated like junior colleagues as opposed to interns. It really is a different culture. Viewed from the outside means you're applying outside standards and values to what's actually happening.
      [–]wifispotter 0 points1 point2 points  (1 child)
      Can you run for president?
      [–]Karfedix_of_Pain 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
      Technically? I suppose I could... I meet the qualifications, at least.
      But I don't think you want me for president.
      [–]food9199 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
      Honest Question: What the hell ever happened to acting like adults?
      People stopped being skeptical. Nobody asks questions, they just hear "university teacher fired for racist remarks" and say, "oh yes, I'm against racism, good he's fired."
      A large amount of people have to agree with these events for them to happen.
      [–]Captain_of_the_Gate 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
      I attend Queens and honestly, the school has a well deserved reputation for being full of pussified rich kids who cant handle their own issues. I recently got in trouble when I shouldered my way through one of their stupid protest baricades because I needed to get to class. University lets children pretend like theyre smart and mature, but its mostly just a plug so that they can feel like their gender studies courses are worth something.
      Our engineering, science, med, law, and business schools are all first rate though. If only they would cut arts funding...
      [–]Orestes910 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
      A friend just posted this article to facebook which seems to sum it up nicely - https://www.vox.com/2015/6/3/8706323/college-professor-afraid
      [–]PotentHalitosis 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
      This "rushing to protect minorities from offense" is the fashionable new form of white bigotry.
      We look at minorities as weak and stupid and immature... so we imagine that they take offense at any stupid thing. And then we virtuously rush to their defense, the way you'd rush to the defense of a child.
      For this, I am not proud of my fellow white people.
      [–]MayaMcHunt 252 points253 points254 points  (50 children)
      Ever met a student of Gender Studies? My girlfriend took classes in one. She never identified with them and decided it was a class full of people on the edge of hatred.
      She's pro-equal. She didn't find that there. 😟
      [–]WrecksMundi 60 points61 points62 points  (4 children)
      Ever met a student of Gender Studies? My girlfriend took classes in one.
      Well, I'm pretty sure that having people crawl inside you for class isn't what xyr signed up for when xyr chose womyn's studies as xyr's major.
      [–]MayaMcHunt 5 points6 points7 points  (3 children)
      We're no together. Plus I hate her. But I don't hate her opinions.
      [–]Imiod 41 points42 points43 points  (0 children)
      Not her. Xyr. Fucking triggering shitlord.
      [–]Herdo -1 points0 points1 point  (0 children)
      her
      how fucking dare you I can't even you're triggering me...
      [–]MemoryLapse 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
      Ah, just like Voltaire said:
      "I hate that bitch, but I will defend to the death her right to be bitchy."
      [–]over-my-head[S] 27 points28 points29 points  (37 children)
      Interestingly enough, they are not all bad.
      Example, my most recent gf (now ex) has a Ph.D in Criminology, and while teaching courses and publishing articles in that field, also teaches Gender Studies courses.
      And she is not like some of the more extreme SJW-type feminists I've encountered on Reddit and the internet in general. Though these progressive extremists do exist, online and IRL.
      Below is a relevant comment I made elsewhere. It's exceedingly long, but I think it's worth a read:
      I do still think it is crucial to at least attempt to differentiate between the types of feminists out there who are Stalinist in their tactics - actively seeking to censor and ban ANY discussion of anything which questions their strict interpretation of feminist ideology (often the kind you find on the internet, and some of the most vocal ones at schools), and from the types of feminists who are serious, yet rational and open to discussion.
      However, those who are open to discussion are seemingly a minority now - or at least aren't as vocal.
      It is 100% true that a large number of feminists do attempt to shut down critical debate, citing justifications like "oppression" and "hate speech" and "safe spaces" in order to stamp out any discussion of views they do not agree with.
      Quite literally, the ONLY subreddit I've ever been banned from - and for which I was not given any explanation afterwards, was /r/Askfeminists.
      I was visiting the sub frequently, and often making comments, questioning things like "enthusiastic consent," and the bizarre new feminists requirements to ask for verbal permission for every single escalation during a sexual encounter. (E.g. "may I kiss you? may I touch your hair? may I undo your shirt? may I take off your bra? could you touch my penis? may I lick your vulva?").
      For an amazing example of how absolutely ridiculous and unsexy this would be, please watch this video from a Montreal University feminist group - which is actually 100% serious and not a joke (incredibly). https://www.youtube.com/v/bVHYvUpeqKI&feature=youtu.be&list=UU8h-zImKfDO1ssJ7ocOuFMw
      At /r/Askfeminists I also would question the censorious nature of certain feminists in ways that I had experienced first hand at University. For example, a Men's Rights group at my school attempted to bring in a female English professor who was a former feminist, but who now critiqued the ideology because she disagreed with the notion that it equally supported men, and who was upset with feminist censoring of discussion.
      A vocal group of feminists at the school actively attempted to ban her from speaking, on the pretense that since she was invited by a men's rights group, she MUST therefore be propagating hate speech against women. Even though they had not even heard her speak.
      When this particular feminist group was unable to ban her from speaking through the normal channels, they actually then attempted to have the Men's Rights group at university deratified, attempting to dissolve the entire organization, so their guest speaker wouldn't be to speak at their event, as the group would no longer exist.
      Luckily they failed in this attempt, and the discussion went on, though feminists heavily protested it. I attended it, and despite the frequent jeering and interruptions from the crowd, the Prof was able to deliver her speech.
      Unfortunately, at another Ontario school (University of Ottawa), when the same Prof attempted to speak, a group of feminists were successful in literally drowning out her speech as soon as she started speaking (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOnuZsXRwTA&t=29m25s)
      But even worse was the experience of Warren Farrell when he attempted to give a similar speech at the University of Ottawa. Feminist protestors literally blocked the doors to the event, and abusively harassed those who sought to attend. PLEASE watch this entire 4 minute video of the protests. It is absolutely disgusting. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iARHCxAMAO0
      Even still, there are feminists who are not this extreme in their totalitarian tactics. My ex-gf, for instance, actually has a Ph.D in Criminology, and teaches criminology and gender studies courses. I've talked to her about MANY of these issues, and she does not agree with these censorious tactics. She is brilliant and rational, and open to discussion. I've even attended feminist talks with her.
      Her take on the situation is that these "Internet Feminists," and those that seek to ban speech at schools, are actually a highly vocal, yet more extremist group which does not necessarily represent all feminists. And that if I want to learn more about feminism, that I should talk to people like her, and read scholarly works on the subject - and not get my info from radical internet activists.
      So I hold out hope that there are still a large number of feminists out there who are anti-totalitarian regarding discussion and free speech.
      Though it is hard to maintain this open-minded view sometimes.
      [–]rick2882 1 point2 points3 points  (1 child)
      Here's a relevant article that I feel addresses your issue. It was posted in /r/politics, but got downvoted, and most comments criticized it, I believe because they felt the need to be defensive over the author's criticism of "liberals". Most commenters there missed the entire point of the article.
      [–]over-my-head[S] 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
      Great one, read it recently.
      Been posted many times in this thread, but it's worth spreading around.
      [–]enkae7317 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
      Hey dude I read this entire comment. Really mind-opening. Thanks for sharing this wealth of information for us. I never saw it this way before.
      [–]breawycker 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
      And she is not like some of the more extreme SJW-type feminists I've encountered on Reddit and the internet in general
      This the problem with the internet. It is taken over by a vocal minority of people (feminist, MRA, etc.) who claim to represent their groups, but really most people in the groups hate them. This leads to misconceptions about these groups that ruin it for everyone.
      [–]Imiod comment score below threshold-9 points-8 points-7 points  (32 children)
      If you feel anything other than profound contempt for feminism and "social justice" at this point, I invite you to take a look at places like /r/GamerGhazi and /r/ShitRedditSays
      [–]over-my-head[S] 17 points18 points19 points  (5 children)
      I've lurked at /r/ShitRedditSays for a long time, bud.
      SRSers are largely an example of the type of internet radical extremists that I referred to in my above post as being unreliable, and not necessarily representative of scholarly feminists in the field.
      And they are likely the same breed of feminists that ran this professor out of his teaching job.
      But like I said, I'm not going to disregard the entire ideology because of a vocal group of extremists.
      Should I have "profound contempt" for all leftist politics, economic ideology, and social issues, because the Stalinist PC brigade that I am arguing against in this entire thread ALSO derives from the left?
      [–]cantletthatstand -1 points0 points1 point  (0 children)
      And they are likely the same breed of feminists that ran this professor out of his teaching job.
      The terrifying thing is that they probably aren't, they've just been so effective at cultivating fear of their backlash that normal people who work in administration at a regular university just don't want to deal with them. They're the most abrasive, impossible to please, difficult people to deal with...
      ...so rather than doing so, these folks just immediately shut down any potential source of conflict with them.
      [–]wje100 -10 points-9 points-8 points  (2 children)
      Who you are in the inside doesn't matter Bruce, it's your actions that define you
      Think about that for a second.
      If you're saying that what happens to be the vocal minority is just unreliable and we shouldn't pay attention to them that's cool I get it.
      But you are letting their actions speak for you.
      Until the silent majority does something to make me view them as the actions of the group, then I will continue viewing the entire group as unreliable. Until you start doing something to change how the group looks then there's no use argueing what the group really stands for.
      That is all. Not trying to be offensive.
      [–]sementery 11 points12 points13 points  (1 child)
      But the silent majority is already implicitly stating that they don't adhere to that ideology by, well, not adhering to it.
      You are being victim of your prejudice. That same logic (which doesn't make much sense, but that's another argument) is what racists and xenophobics base their thoughts on.
      Feminism is a very board broad concept. It is not an organization. You are tying two groups of people together that have little to nothing to do with each other. This speaks more about your ignorance about the subject (and unhealthy amounts of prejudice) that it does about actual feminism dynamics.
      [–]not_anyone 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
      Feminism is a very board concept. It is not an organization. You are tying two groups of people together that have little to nothing to do with each other.
      And this hits the problem on its head. It is hard for the lay person to differentiate between someone with rational, moderate views as a feminist and a radical. Furthermore, when people try to stand up against the radical ones, those people will immediately try to twist any criticism against them as a criticism against feminism as a whole. Even if you are a woman at this point it is hard to win any argument in the eyes of a passerby and for a man its impossible.
      I think this problem is exacerbated by popular websites like Jezebel, Gawker, Buzzfeed, Cracked, etc that support some of the more extremist and radical branches of feminism. What place are we supposed to use as support for a more moderate feminism?
      [–]Imiod -7 points-6 points-5 points  (0 children)
      Should I have "profound contempt" for all leftist politics, economic ideology, and social issues, because the Stalinist PC brigade that I am arguing against in this entire thread ALSO derives from the left?
      Yes. The whole concept of "left" or "right" in politics should appall you. If your stances on issues are so elementary that you can be defined by the term "left-wing" or "right-wing", you're a piece of shit. You got nuthin'. You're just a fucking lemming at this point.
      [–]DoxedMcBox 6 points7 points8 points  (23 children)
      The problem here isn't "social justice" itself. The ideas behind social justice are valid and should be encouraged. I identify as a feminist. Anyone who doesn't have their head up their ass should be able to grasp the fact that white people do have massive social privilege over people of color. Men do have social privilege over women. A lot of the points are valid.
      The problem has to do with the online "SJWs". I used to be very active in SRS but SRSPrime became too toxic of a place for me to continue posting. Admittedly, it was a combination of shitty posts linked to in the subreddit, but also comments of the members there. I ended up stopping all posts in SRSPrime and strictly stayed in SRSDiscussion for a while. It's a result of marginalized individuals (rightfully) voicing their anger and then privileged allies attempting to voice their anger on behalf of, or in spite of, the actual individuals. See: Straight white men telling a black woman or a gay man how offensive something is if they're not offended. Bonus points are the cases where the person is then accused of not really being black, not really being gay, not really being a feminist, etc. The environment has become toxic to the point where marginalized individuals are denied their identity if their threshold for offense is not in line with the privileged white boy who says they should be offended.
      I've seen deleted my main account and lurk. I occasionally create throwaways for posts like this. My reason has to do with an immense fear of being doxed by both "SJWs" who could view an innocent comment or misunderstanding as "problematic" and, instead of addressing me directly to understand the context or correct me, take to social media or my employer. I fear the likes of SRSSucks, TRP, and the "anti-SJW" crowd just as well.
      I've been wanting to do a longer write up on this with specific examples but don't see how the post would survive. Anti-SJWs would use it as their "aha!! This guy can't stand SJWs and he was one!!". Large online social justice communities would dismiss a majority of the post as me not really holding "social justice" views and derailing rather than taking an inward look at the toxicity within the community. I could link to a few discussion topics where this has already happened but I'd rather not bring a brigade of shitty comments and downvotes that always happens with such links.
      tl;dr Feminism and "social justice" are not the problem. It's online feminist and social justice echo chambers that are the problem.
      [–]foldingcouch 5 points6 points7 points  (0 children)
      That's what happens when you let you build a social network around your issues - your issues become your identity, and your continued participation in the social network is based on what you're offended by. At the point that you feel society is okay, you lose your identity and lose all your friends.
      [–]Imiod -3 points-2 points-1 points  (21 children)
      Men do have social privilege over women.
      Prove it. Women have lower rates of incarceration for the same offenses, they almost always keep the kids and house in case of a divorce, and the are paid the same as men for the same work.
      You got nothin'. Or are you justifying your first-world feminism with third-world problems? Because that's even more pathetic.
      [–]slabby 5 points6 points7 points  (9 children)
      Really? Of all the fights to pick?
      [–]Imiod -4 points-3 points-2 points  (8 children)
      That's the answer of someone who has nothing. Your pathetic excuse for rhetoric may impress millenial freshmen, but not me.
      [–]slabby 0 points1 point2 points  (7 children)
      It's sort of the opposite; I have everything, and don't know where to start.
      Google 'oppression of women' and you'll be right on your way.
      [–]Imiod -4 points-3 points-2 points  (6 children)
      Hah, the standard SJW reply when evidence is demanded: "google it yourself, shitlord!"
      Absolutely fucking pathetic. You have nothing. Nothing.
      [–]slabby -1 points0 points1 point  (5 children)
      I'm not a SJW. That's how you should know your claim was extreme: anybody with any sense would disagree. You're tilting at windmills like Don Quixote.
      [–]darkphenox -2 points-1 points0 points  (9 children)
      There are certain sociological reasons for many of those things that Feminists fight back against, men being thought as tougher, brutish and uncaring vs women expected to be motherly, caring and ultimately partly the victim.
      Women are still paid less on average, leading to situations where even when partially paid Parental leave can be shared Women are much more likely to be the one to take it, or take more of it, because the family is better off.
      There is still a pay gap, which effects younger women less (about a 93% gap for younger women )then their older peers of the same gender (Which seems to be as low as 81%). Now is this a hold over from other times? Maybe. It could be that since women are still the lower earner they are the ones to take time off of work and effect their overall wages more. I think its probably in the middle.
      [–]Imiod -2 points-1 points0 points  (8 children)
      There are certain sociological reasons for many of those things that Feminists fight back against, men being thought as tougher, brutish and uncaring vs women expected to be motherly, caring and ultimately partly the victim.
      Buzzwords and bullshit. "Certain sociological reasons"? "Many of those things"? You are an actual gender studies freshman, aren't you? Specify or get the fuck out.
      Women are much more likely to be the one to take [parental leave], or take more of it, because the family is better off.
      I see you conform to the SJW standard of ignoring sexual dimorphism and pretending it's a social construct. FATHERS CAN'T BREASTFEED, YOU IMBECILE!
      Women are still paid less on average
      There is still a pay gap, which effects younger women less
      First of all, effects? Learn to write.
      Second, fuck you and your piece of shit statistics, here's a study from the actual department of labor that disproves you.
      I don't have any more patience for this, so I'll concede the point about the family court. It still doesn't trump lower incarceration rates for the same crimes.
      Your retard-grade technique of saying two half-truths and a lie and expecting the lie to go unnoticed is hilarious. Your memorization of your feminist professor's powerpoint slides is evident.
      You have nothing. Now go. Shrieking off into the sunset, secure in the knowledge that you ARE special, and you ARE oppressed, and you TOTALLY showed that shitlord what's what.
      Pathetic.
      [–]darkphenox -1 points0 points1 point  (7 children)
      I quoted 2 studies showing that women on average get paid less (one from a conservative government), you quote a study that has be shown to be skewed. I'm the one with the facts, you have self reenforced bigotry.
      [–]Imiod 0 points1 point2 points  (6 children)
      self reenforced bigotry.
      Nice buzzwords there.
      Wow, a blog? Damn, that blog really carries weight! It PROVES that the study is skewed! A blog on a cartoon website!
      You are running dangerously low on your moral authority, and it is beginning to be apparent that you are incapable of reasoning, since you cited studies that fail to take into account hours worked and types of job.
      Show me evidence that, for the same hours worked doing the same job, women get paid less than men. You can't. Read your sources.
      Get me some proof or get the fuck out
      [–]darkphenox -3 points-2 points-1 points  (5 children)
      You couldn't counter even a single point. You keep asking for proof after being given it. This has moved beyond sad to you being hilariously pathetic, and before you try to turn that on to me, I'm the one who supplied evidence, and countered the skewed evidence you posted, all you did was insult.
      [–]sementery 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
      In my experience that perception is thanks to very vocal minorities. In the world there are severe gender inequalities, that's a fact. I applaud any effort to shift the weight into equality, and it's natural that there are countless movements out there seeking it.
      Most feminists (the vast majority) ask for equality, nothing more and nothing less. It's just that you hear more about the extreme ones because they tend to do things that put the spotlight on them.
      [–]magmasafe -3 points-2 points-1 points  (0 children)
      I disagree with you on the point of feminism. It's been taken in a weird direction for sure but if people just abandon it it'll end up like the Men's Right Movement, filled by fucking sexist nutjobs. We gotta hold the line and try to keep feminism on its original course of working towards gender equality. I feel it's too early to abandon ship.
      [–]SaltySpitoonami 4 points5 points6 points  (0 children)
      I took a Sex in Global Society glass, which fell under Political Science, but still used a lot of Gender Studies material. Professor was cool and the class really showed how much of a divide between men and woman there still is in a large percent of the world. Out of a class of around 30 there was maybe one girl who could have been a "SJW." Everyone else was pretty chill.
      [–]flashbackmemory 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
      Makes me really want to take it for laughs. I may fail or barely pass but the experience alone will make up for it.
      [–]telmyn 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
      My gender studies teacher was famous for starting the lesbian leather movement.
      There are many breeds of students (and professors) of gender studies, plenty of them are pro-free speech (and pro-sex).
      [–]meatchariot 56 points57 points58 points  (5 children)
      All teachers should have hand puppets that speak whenever the 'naughty' words are spoken. Then teachers can just blame those bigoted puppets!
      [–]eshemuta 48 points49 points50 points  (2 children)
      Stahp that Mr. Hat!
      [–]OldDogu 11 points12 points13 points  (1 child)
      It was Mr. Twig!
      [–]Rhamni 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
      You take that back.
      [–]DevFRus 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
      That is why Little Homie exists.
      [–]dragonlandman -1 points0 points1 point  (0 children)
      Great idea, the kind of people who make these complaints are at the right mental age to be taught with hand puppets.
      [–]DepressionQuest 346 points347 points348 points  (71 children)
      This just shows even more of how big of a joke Gender Studies is.
      [–]over-my-head[S] 169 points170 points171 points  (20 children)
      Just to point out, this was a history class, and the professor who was banned was a history professor, but the TA who did lodge the complaint that the professor was made aware of WAS from the faculty of Gender Studies.
      Relevant quote from the article:
      [–]DepressionQuest 7 points8 points9 points  (1 child)
      Thanks for the clarification. I was confused on how the assistant even became aware of the situation.
      [–]over-my-head[S] 11 points12 points13 points  (0 children)
      Lots of people from one faculty might pick up electives in another field of study.
      [–]TotesMessenger 40 points41 points42 points  (22 children)
      I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:
      If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)
      [–]r3ll1sh2 52 points53 points54 points  (7 children)
      using racial slurs
      At least get the context right. It's like they want to be offended.
      [–]universal_straw 41 points42 points43 points  (0 children)
      That's because they do.
      [–]relax343 95 points96 points97 points  (6 children)
      Excellent, the pack of dribbling retards has been offended :)
      [–]secretchimp 63 points64 points65 points  (5 children)
      Oh no, annoying community college girls are assbothered now
      [–]VelocitySteve -26 points-25 points-24 points  (4 children)
      yes how dare they not only be girls but go to affordable community college
      truly, they are scum
      [–]secretchimp 12 points13 points14 points  (1 child)
      Oh no you got me
      White knighting doesn't get you favors, wiener
      [–]audible_dog_fart 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
      Tell that to the dude in mattress girls video
      [–]Reddits_penis 17 points18 points19 points  (0 children)
      Found the fatty
      [–]audible_dog_fart 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
      Now you get it!
      [–]arvtovi 3 points4 points5 points  (3 children)
      I go to Queen's, and there are too many stories like this one. For example, a teacher got in hot water for teaching Anti-vaccination theory, but I've heard that it was merely playing devil's advocate
      [–]coldequation 4 points5 points6 points  (0 children)
      A college professor, who I have no reason to doubt held tenure at his university, was "banned" from teaching and pushed to retire on the words of a TA who is not identified in the article for reading aloud some lines from a text written in a different era. Somehow, I feel like I'm missing something here. This is hardly the whole story.
      [–]SonnyBlack90 2 points3 points4 points  (1 child)
      This cat gets pushed out but that crazy lady from Boston University still has a job? Someone get a Rod Sterling monologue going cause this is some Twilight Zone stuff.
      [–]jpropaganda 11 points12 points13 points  (2 children)
      I went to Queen's. This is the same school where a girl dressed in black face as Miss Ethiopia for Halloween and she got a slap on the wrist. She certainly wasn't banned from her classes.
      [–]Captain_of_the_Gate 1 point2 points3 points  (1 child)
      When was this
      [–]jpropaganda 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
      Either 2004 or 2005.
      [–]Hondoh 18 points19 points20 points  (1 child)
      I feel like the only justification for this is if he was like The Count, off sesame Street, & laughed like a weirdo every time a slur came up...
      [–]blackProctologist 18 points19 points20 points  (0 children)
      Not saying the words would have been tantamount to refusing to acknowledge that it ever happened, which in my opinion is far worse. If you're not willing to stare into the deep dark pit of suffering and backstabbing that is human history, then this world has no use for you or your opinions
      [–]notinsanescientist 3 points4 points5 points  (4 children)
      Tabooing words won't change a mentality.
      [–]Purrplecat 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
      Beginning to understand why history repeats itself. If we go and censor teaching about past wrongs, how do we expect it not to happen again?
      [–]Wetzilla 3 points4 points5 points  (0 children)
      ITT: Anecdotes being used to make sweeping generalizations about an entire generation.
      [–]-DeoxyRNA- 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
      The only solution to this is more administrators. Clearly we don't have enough... /s
      [–]bradfo83 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
      The continuation of people being offended to death. What a waste of fucking time.
      [–]d3phext 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
      This is so infuriating. The whole point of teaching uncomfortable history is so you learn something from it. These snowflakes are more interested in feeling good about themselves for pillorying the "nasty, bad" teacher for the words he used - WORDS FROM THE CURRICULUM - than learning from him. Buncha dipshits (it's not sexist to call a stupid woman a dipshit, is it?).
      [–]ProjectDirectory 3 points4 points5 points  (0 children)
      I would never call someone a nigger, but that doesn't mean I won't say the word.
      [–]Dzmagoon 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
      Here's the CAUT Ad Hoc Investigatory Committee Report, full of details that the article leaves out.
      [–]Succubic_Unicorn 14 points15 points16 points  (2 children)
      Mr. Mason never disputed what was said, but the complaint didn’t divulge the context, he said.
      The words “f—ing rag head,” “towel head,” “japs” and “little yellow sons of bitches,” did indeed cross his lips, he said, but he was quoting from books and articles on racism in that era.
      And he admits to saying the teaching assistants (all women) should wash his car if he can’t find enough work for them to do, and that they should become “masters and mistresses” of the materials taught in his class.
      While it's possible that the complaints were flimsy, this guy could have also just been a dickhead, and this was the last straw for the department after a career full of complaints.
      [–]nenyim 18 points19 points20 points  (3 children)
      He maintains that only one teaching assistant from the faculty of gender studies made the complaint, but the university and the Public Service Alliance of Canada, Local 901, which represents the TAs, say there were complaints from TAs and students.
      So we have multiple incidents (at least 2 given that I doubt the TAs complain about racism in a class they weren't and the "joke" was definitely part of a complaint) from multiple students and TAs which in my mind make some for of inquiry necessary. Once the inquiry is perfectly justified having someone in the class making sure that indeed the declaration were taken out of their context make sense.
      “If I were to continue teaching I would feel that there was somebody up on the stage with me making shorthand notes — a phantom censor,” he said. After the complaint was filed, the university said he could only continue teaching if the department chair sat in on lectures from time to time. He wouldn’t comply. Classes were cancelled and Mr. Mason was “banned,” as he puts it. He was never formally let go or asked to leave — health problems eventually had him sidelined.
      I know there are quotation marks on "banned" but it's still taking it pretty far when it seem, from his own declarations, that he simply refused to teach a class because he refused the said inquiry.
      And he admits to saying the teaching assistants (all women) should wash his car if he can’t find enough work for them to do, and that they should become “masters and mistresses” of the materials taught in his class. The self-described product of a different era said he made an exasperated joke after being appointed assistants he felt didn’t know the course content.
      Maybe the sexism wasn't taken out of it context after all. He implicitly acknowledge the sexism claims and put it on exasperation, which I believe can be a valid defense as we all say stupid things from time to time however there seem to be a pattern here.
      Do you know what I believe? That the statement themselves were most likely perfectly justified in the context (racism in literature) of the class but that there is a lot more context around it that make them entirely unacceptable and that's why he refused to have anyone sitting in his classroom despite having multiple people uncomfortable with his teaching.
      [–]a_random_hobo 8 points9 points10 points  (1 child)
      I think that if his remarks really were taken out of context, he would've had a lot more to gain by allowing the auditing and proving that the gender studies student was being a moron. Instead, he remained stubborn for the sake of being stubborn and faced the obvious consequences.
      [–]CapitalistMarxist 5 points6 points7 points  (0 children)
      Contrary to what most people say, the reddit hivemind works pretty well. If somebody posts a misleading TIL, somebody will point out the mistakes, and usually the post will be the top comment.
      Unfortunately, reddit obviously has such a negative bias towards so-called SJW, that the majority just does not care about facts anymore.
      Thanks for pointing this out, you need more upvotes.
      [–]Media_Blitz 7 points8 points9 points  (1 child)
      "Ok class, today's lesson is racism. But I can't talk about it because that would be racist. Which brings us to our next lesson, sexism... but we'll move past that, since I am a man, and that would be sexist. Any questions?"
      I'm all for stamping out ignorance and hate... but what the hell happened to the logic in this country?!?
      Edit.. dyslexia strikes again
      [–]Vhett 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
      Canada is usually pretty chill on each of these subjects, until you get a TA from Gender Studies.
      [–]orlanthrex 8 points9 points10 points  (0 children)
      here is one article from the other day
      [–]fencerman 10 points11 points12 points  (4 children)
      It appears that it didn't actually have to do with the incidents being discussed, but rather there were a series of complaints about him harassing his TAs, and the University seized on that excuse to get rid of a prof who was causing them headaches.
      The report that claims to "vindicate" him never actually talked to anyone who complained, so it was entirely based on his own personal version of events. It doesn't really mean anything at all.
      There was a process for resolving those kind of complaints, but the University decided to skip over the whole thing to get rid of him (and they weren't even the ones to get rid of him: he took a leave of absence himself and refused to cooperate in any investigation aside from the one conducted by CAUT, which by default represents him and other professors). Blame the university for wanting to get rid of overpriced teachers who can't manage staff, but this isn't really about "PC-ness" at all.
      It's pretty notable the only people peddling the "PC boogieman" view of events are the usual echo chambers on the right-wing, at the National Post and Margaret Wente; digging up fake boogiemen is their stock and trade.
      [–]Outlulz3 5 points6 points7 points  (3 children)
      University seized on that excuse to get rid of a prof who was causing them headaches.
      You know this sentence goes directly opposite what was written in the linked article, right? He quit for health reasons. He was never asked to resign and was not fired. The university just wanted a department chair to attend lectures from time to time to check the content and he refused to let them.
      [–]fencerman 4 points5 points6 points  (2 children)
      Yeah, it seems on further investigation the "mishandling" was even more minor than I initially suspected. The idea that he was being bullied or forced out is even less likely.
      [–]OSHA_certified 4 points5 points6 points  (0 children)
      I remember being in SIXTH GRADE and having a substitute teacher one day that came into our class (normal teacher was a female and sub was male) who looked over the syllabus and was outright confused that we didn't have the normal reading plan. He then went into history and use of racial slurs and inequality in the sexes and stuff and we need to learn about it to not repeat it instead of having it hidden away from us.
      Two days later our normal teacher was back and when we asked her about all of this her face turned PAPER WHITE and she RAN OUT OF THE CLASS.
      Next day we had the sub for the rest of the school year. Apparently she was fired for knowingly keeping vital information FROM us because she was too sensitive to racial and gender slurs.
      We we're in sixth grade and handled that material perfectly and with no problem. I am sick of this coddling society where so many people take things out of context and can't stand it if someone has a different opinion than them.
      [–]IceFire2050 4 points5 points6 points  (0 children)
      Thanks N-Word Jim.
      [–]greetingsfromcanada 18 points19 points20 points  (12 children)
      How the fuck is gender studies even a thing?
      [–]MrCaul 16 points17 points18 points  (3 children)
      Gender Studies. What a surprise...
      Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy {Genitive}. © 2015 reddit inc. All rights reserved.
      REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.
      π Rendered by PID 22078 on app-03 at 2015-06-06 00:56:48.907479+00:00 running 3e6d56b country code: DE.
      0%
       
      10%
       
      20%
       
      30%
       
      40%
       
      50%
       
      60%
       
      70%
       
      80%
       
      90%
       
      100%