Eric: I think that your reasoned responses to the Purdue NW speech incident were right on the money. I also though that your take dovetailed nicely with the NYT poll on what words to use in writing and speech. If Mr. Keon had spoken of people of Spanish descent as Hispanic rather than the "new" Latinx and someone in the audience or hearing about it later was offended would he be called upon to resign or be fired? I'm sure in my hypothetical case there would be plenty of people reacting in a way that would punish him into oblivion. If his complete apology isn't enough to satisfy the complainers, I believe that says more about the complainers than it does Mr. Keon. He says "I'm human, I made a mistake." Rather than try to erase the good that he has done (and will continue to do in response to his error) in his career, can we try a little forgiveness?
Eric, you need to understand the new rules. POC can speak for the universe of POC when criticizing or denouncing non-POC. No one can understand the 'lived experience' and historical context of a POC sub-group except one of its members, so other POC or non-POC cannot speak to how they should react to anything (let alone criticize) unless it is a general denunciation of non-POC. A POC forfeits their right to speak if they appear to have adopted/accepted non-POC thinking. Non-POC are expected to understand, endorse, and enforce the new thinking as a form of growth and atonement, but can never achieve forgiveness or escape their inherent nature as racist oppressors. There are no small racist oppressions.
I read that the term "Latinx" was thought up by a non-Hispanic man who felt that "Latino" was too male-oriented. When it first started circulating, quite a number of Hispanics were asked how they felt about it. A substantial majority found no valid reason to change from "Hispanic", thus another woke term appeared for no good reason.
The back and forth between you and Steve T. reminded me of reading constitutional law cases in law school. I would read the opinion and think it was persuasive, and then read the dissent, and damn if that wasn't persuasive, too. On the whole, though, I agree with you Eric, that this speech rose to the level of stupid, and not douchebaggery, which would merit dismissal. I do wonder about someone who is the head of a major public university who doesn't think before he opens his mouth at a graduation ceremony.
Let us take the basketball analogy to a logical conclusion. The player commits a foul - free throws are awarded and the game plays on. But one fan in the stands keeps screaming for the player to be ejected. He finds the foul so personally bad that he demands the player be ejected. The surrounding fans tells the fan to get a life and if every commonplace foul sends him into a tizzy he should stop watching basketball and let the rest of the fans enjoy the game.
Finding the best visual tweet is not possible in some cases, because it implies that some of the tweets are good. If none is good, then none can be better or best. It's like asking what is the best way to catch covid. Perhaps there should be a "none of the above" option.
Eric, kudos for your very thoughtful and well-reasoned response to Steve T in the debate over PNU Chancellor Keon's failed attempt at humor and totally inadvertent offensive remarks. Your unfortunate personal experience with cancel culture a few years ago I'm sure further informs your thoughts as to the danger this intellectual fascism represents as it continues to permeate our society, and particularly in academia today.
You and I disagree more often than not in our political worldview, but I have always respected your integrity with regard to employing reason instead of condemnatory censorship for those you disagree with. It is my fond hope for 2023 that as we move on from Trump (really, really hoping), American political discourse can return to a spirited but respectful debate of ideas and policies instead of attacks of personal destruction.
Wishing everyone a healthy and happy 2023 filled with God's blessings!
Regarding the alternative to "Third World." I do not get why a new alternative is needed, because the United Nations has been using an alternative for years, as well as most economists, scholars, and ordinary people. The word is "developing countries," which is superior to new one suggested.
"The idea that “master bedroom” has a painful link to slavery and thus must not be used strikes me as not persuasive enough to change general usage."
Of course, "master bedroom" has NO link to slavery. It wasn't used until the 1920s (a Sears catalogue in 1926, to be exact).
Eric: I think that your reasoned responses to the Purdue NW speech incident were right on the money. I also though that your take dovetailed nicely with the NYT poll on what words to use in writing and speech. If Mr. Keon had spoken of people of Spanish descent as Hispanic rather than the "new" Latinx and someone in the audience or hearing about it later was offended would he be called upon to resign or be fired? I'm sure in my hypothetical case there would be plenty of people reacting in a way that would punish him into oblivion. If his complete apology isn't enough to satisfy the complainers, I believe that says more about the complainers than it does Mr. Keon. He says "I'm human, I made a mistake." Rather than try to erase the good that he has done (and will continue to do in response to his error) in his career, can we try a little forgiveness?
Eric, you need to understand the new rules. POC can speak for the universe of POC when criticizing or denouncing non-POC. No one can understand the 'lived experience' and historical context of a POC sub-group except one of its members, so other POC or non-POC cannot speak to how they should react to anything (let alone criticize) unless it is a general denunciation of non-POC. A POC forfeits their right to speak if they appear to have adopted/accepted non-POC thinking. Non-POC are expected to understand, endorse, and enforce the new thinking as a form of growth and atonement, but can never achieve forgiveness or escape their inherent nature as racist oppressors. There are no small racist oppressions.
I read that the term "Latinx" was thought up by a non-Hispanic man who felt that "Latino" was too male-oriented. When it first started circulating, quite a number of Hispanics were asked how they felt about it. A substantial majority found no valid reason to change from "Hispanic", thus another woke term appeared for no good reason.
The back and forth between you and Steve T. reminded me of reading constitutional law cases in law school. I would read the opinion and think it was persuasive, and then read the dissent, and damn if that wasn't persuasive, too. On the whole, though, I agree with you Eric, that this speech rose to the level of stupid, and not douchebaggery, which would merit dismissal. I do wonder about someone who is the head of a major public university who doesn't think before he opens his mouth at a graduation ceremony.
Ever since the unfortunate broadcast of that song "Betty Davis Eyes", I 'm not surprised by the acceptability of the word "spaz".
Let us take the basketball analogy to a logical conclusion. The player commits a foul - free throws are awarded and the game plays on. But one fan in the stands keeps screaming for the player to be ejected. He finds the foul so personally bad that he demands the player be ejected. The surrounding fans tells the fan to get a life and if every commonplace foul sends him into a tizzy he should stop watching basketball and let the rest of the fans enjoy the game.
Finding the best visual tweet is not possible in some cases, because it implies that some of the tweets are good. If none is good, then none can be better or best. It's like asking what is the best way to catch covid. Perhaps there should be a "none of the above" option.
Eric, kudos for your very thoughtful and well-reasoned response to Steve T in the debate over PNU Chancellor Keon's failed attempt at humor and totally inadvertent offensive remarks. Your unfortunate personal experience with cancel culture a few years ago I'm sure further informs your thoughts as to the danger this intellectual fascism represents as it continues to permeate our society, and particularly in academia today.
You and I disagree more often than not in our political worldview, but I have always respected your integrity with regard to employing reason instead of condemnatory censorship for those you disagree with. It is my fond hope for 2023 that as we move on from Trump (really, really hoping), American political discourse can return to a spirited but respectful debate of ideas and policies instead of attacks of personal destruction.
Wishing everyone a healthy and happy 2023 filled with God's blessings!
Regarding the alternative to "Third World." I do not get why a new alternative is needed, because the United Nations has been using an alternative for years, as well as most economists, scholars, and ordinary people. The word is "developing countries," which is superior to new one suggested.