The worst timeline...now with book burning.

[Bateshorn 9,898]

Whelp, if you had a book burning square on  America's Descent into Fascism bingo....Congratulations?

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/465386-students-burn-copies-of-professors-book-after-she-asked-them-to-think

[Homercles 10,205]

The buuuhk tellshhhs me that goosh-shtepping morons sssshh as yourself should try reading booohks inshtead of bahhhhning them!

[tantric superman 4,667]

Probably a shitty and overbearing book.

Individual groups of students burning an individual book (and perhaps risking ire of school or shitty grade) - not very big of a deal.  Seems like free speech.

The state involved in book burning - big deal. 

[elfenix 34,171]

your move, libs!

[Bateshorn 9,898]

Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

[tantric superman 4,667]

Just now, Bateshorn said:

Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

[tantric superman 4,667]

Burned this motherfucker after I got my C freshman year.

[Bateshorn 9,898]

3 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

[Brisketexan 104,597]

So, Lobo posted this query in the Trump thread yesterday.....

Quote

I keep thinking book burning is the next logical step in this character arc of Trump.  Then I realize, at least Hitler read and realized the power of books.....Trump proudly exclaims he doesn't read.  

 

[tantric superman 4,667]

I went back to read the article to make sure my thoughts that this is a great example of freedom of speech and a great teaching moment, and came upon this exchange:

“I noticed that you made a lot of generalizations about the majority of white people being privileged,” one respondent said into the microphone. “What makes you believe that it’s okay to come to a college campus, like this, when we are supposed to be promoting diversity on this campus, which is what we’re taught. I don’t understand what the purpose of this was.”

Crucet immediately responded to the student with audible reactions from the audience.

“I came here because I was invited and I talked about white privilege because it’s a real thing that you are actually benefiting from right now in even asking this question,” Crucet said.

Now that, to me, is a pretty insulting reply by Crucet.  She doesn't know these students.  She doesn't know whether some are poor or disadvantaged or even whether they are part black or brown.  She could have easily kept the conversation going by responding first that the book was based on her own experiences and then extending the argument as she saw fit.  Instead, she goes with a patronizing and accusatory response. 

[Admit that I am relying on the article - who knows how the conversation went.]

Book burning is a powerful symbolic act.  That's why this is a story.  But I don't think it needs to be conflated into some reflection of fasicm or government power.  This is a bunch of moron students feeling put upon.  Hail to diversity and morons on campus. 

Edited October 11, 2019 by tantric superman

[elfenix 34,171]

22 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

She doesn't know whether some are poor or disadvantaged

white privilege extends to poor and disadvantaged white people.  that's what makes it white privilege, instead of just privileged privilege.

[Bateshorn 9,898]

The people burning the book are white.  I mean,  you either get that burning a book because it hurts your fragile sensibilities is wrong......or you try to compare this to Dead Poets Society.  

[Huckleberry 32,699]

You're both correct. Crucet's response was extremely presumptuous but burning the book was dumb. Crucet has probably benefited from white privilege in her life because, like me, even though she's Latin she looks fairly white. This is a white-looking woman who went to an Ivy League school lecturing Georgia Southern students on privilege.

If you didn't know who she was ahead of time and you were told that woman's name was Emily Johnson you would believe it.

Edited October 11, 2019 by Huckleberry

[tantric superman 4,667]

50 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

That's why I try to avoid silly, overblown hyperbole.

 

3 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

You're both correct. Crucet's response was extremely presumptuous but burning the book was dumb.

Who is arguing that the book burning wasn't dumb?  Most free speech is kind of dumb.

Edited October 11, 2019 by tantric superman

[Huckleberry 32,699]

Just now, tantric superman said:

Who is arguing that the book burning wasn't dumb?  Most free speech is kind of dumb.

Did you just respond to my statement that both sides are right by asking me which side is wrong? Saying you're both making arguments that are correct in no way implies that one of you is making an argument that's incorrect. Take a step back and redirect your ire toward Oklahoma.

[tantric superman 4,667]

1 minute ago, Huckleberry said:

Did you just respond to my statement that both sides are right by asking me which side is wrong? Saying you're both making arguments that are correct in no way implies that one of you is making an argument that's incorrect.

I just responded, to the statement "but burning the book was dumb".  I was assuming that the statement reflected that someone didn't get that the book burning was dumb.

[tantric superman 4,667]

21 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

The people burning the book are white.  I mean,  you either get that burning a book because it hurts your fragile sensibilities is wrong......or you try to compare this to Dead Poets Society.  

I guess I have too much white privilege, even though to the observer, I look like Luis Guzman's ugly brother.

[Bateshorn 9,898]

15 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

I guess I have too much white privilege, even though to the observer, I look like Luis Guzman's ugly brother.

I make no assertions about you or your thoughts on/about white privilege.  That's not the point of my post.

However you are the one who responded to my "Just because you can, doesn't mean you should" by posting a gif of Robin Williams urging his students to rip a page out of a text book.

It's reasonable to surmise your intent as;

(A) Joking, understanding the difference between Williams character urging his charges to get outside their comfort zone and the strictures of their traditional schooling to experience art in new and potentially challenging ways

(B) You are using the gif to indicate destruction of literature is broadly acceptable, and thus totally miss the point of both the scene and the movie.

Destroying a book is an act that attempts to erase the work of the author.  It can be done jokingly (I destroyed my copy of the Leviathan at the end of Foundations of Modern Political Theory, just like you did with your Orgo text).  I find nothing offensive about Hobbes, he's brilliant.  He's also a brutal slog to read.

In this case it is not.  The students are burning the book because it upsets and offends them.  They are burning it in an attempt to erase it's ideas and impact.  It's a more severe form of asking the tour guide at a plantation to stop talking about Slavery because you are white and find it upsetting.

I do agree with Huck that the author is not the best person to be discussing white privilege.

Edited October 11, 2019 by Bateshorn

[tantric superman 4,667]

They are burning the book because the author's attitude at the speech offended them.

Robin Williams told his pupils to rip out the page in the book because the author's introduction offended him.

Williams, as a representative of the school, was engaged in a much more directed and damaging attack on ideas (whatever their validity) than the six or seven students who burned a particular, secular book because the author's attitude pissed them off.

 

American universities clearly have a bad reputation when it comes to stifling conservative thought.  Liberals, at least when it comes to their behavior at universities, have to be on their guard by not playing into this reputation.  In other words, when some kind of "conservative idea" is exhibited at a campus, liberals have to be doubly careful of not attempting to either stifle it or have any kind of overreaction to it.

It seems to me like your are overreacting to this small incident as well as my attempts to try to put it into perspective. 

[Zombie 284]

1 hour ago, tantric superman said:

Probably a shitty and overbearing book.

Individual groups of students burning an individual book (and perhaps risking ire of school or shitty grade) - not very big of a deal.  Seems like free speech.

The state involved in book burning - big deal. 

[tantric superman 4,667]

 

23 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

It can be done jokingly (I destroyed my copy of the Leviathan at the end of Foundations of Modern Political Theory, just like you did with your Orgo text).

In this case it is not.  The students are burning the book because it upsets and offends them.  They are burning it in an attempt to erase it's ideas and impact. 

I don't think there is any validity to your argument that your act or mine was a joke and that theirs wasn't.

The only difference is that you are adding your own subjective judgment to the potential harm of their political stance.  In other words, you are engaging in somewhat the same bias that they accused the professor of engaging in.  You're assuming some deeper motivation and evil behind their actions (and their whiteness).  I'm assuming they read a paperback book, felt insulted by the author, and then burned a relatively cheap paperback book in a fit of undergradness.

Edited October 11, 2019 by tantric superman

[Bateshorn 9,898]

You really need to rewatch Dead Poet's Society (although, it has not aged particularly well as entertainment).  Also, there is a difference in my destroying a dog eared copy of Leviathan after completion of a essay which took 400 level honors on Hobbes significance in establishing the prerogatives of the executive in modern democracies and a group of white students burning a book about white privilege  they found offensive to their world view.  I burned mine because it was virtually unusuable and as an act of catharsis.  I have a fresh copy I've moved 6 times in my basement as we type.

Again,  a group of students are burning books on campus because the ideas offend them. Political book burning has been considered for millennia a precursor to major cultural change.  It's not a small incident.  It's generally considered a social more in western society since the end of WW2.

If you want to minimize it, that is your right as a free person.  I'd appreciate you not impugn my concerns for the continuing devolution of political thought or discourse.

[FondrenRoad 4,378]

1 hour ago, Huckleberry said:

You're both correct. Crucet's response was extremely presumptuous but burning the book was dumb. Crucet has probably benefited from white privilege in her life because, like me, even though she's Latin she looks fairly white. This is a white-looking woman who went to an Ivy League school lecturing Georgia Southern students on privilege.

If you didn't know who she was ahead of time and you were told that woman's name was Emily Johnson you would believe it.

If she had handled the material properly, she could have been a good messenger.  I read a few interviews with her, and she doesn't seem to get that she also benefits from white privilege even though she doesn't consider herself to be white.  She is also confusing culture with race.  Latin countries, including Cuba, also have white privilege problems.   Her family appears to have done very little race mixing themselves in a country with large black, mestizo, and mulatto populations.  She faced none of the burdens that black Cubans from her very same Florida neighborhood faced.

She isn't a stranger in a strange land in Nebraska.  She is a Florida raised white hispanic person.  Sure, most Americans hate Floridians of all types, and Nebraska has very little latin culture and that could come as a shock to her, but she wouldn't face open racism like a black person or a darker skinned latino person would.

At a Lincoln 7-11:
A white woman with blonde hair buys chips, the clerk smiles and happily sells them.
Crucet buys chips, the clerk smiles and happily sells them.
A black woman buys chips, the clerk watches her like a hawk to see if she steals anything and then sells her the chips.
A black man buys chips, the clerk has his hand on the shotgun under the counter while selling him the chips.
A latino man with mestizo features buys chips, the clerk tells him to go back to his country, and the man leaves without buying chips.

She is right, but she is putting herself on the wrong side of the equation, and that damages her message.  She needs to come at it from the perspective of someone that has been considered both white and non-white because that is what she is.

Also, would.  With reckless abandon.

Edited October 11, 2019 by FondrenRoad

[tantric superman 4,667]

Bates, I'm only impugning your overwrought response to this incident and extremely limited ability to see the similarities between the destruction of books, whether by fire or otherwise, and the dissimilarity between mass political movements designed to stifle ideas and an overdone college prank.

The overreaction by groups to free speech is itself creating a devolution of political thought and discourse.  Since I tend to come a bit more from the left than the right in my old age, I view policing that sort of thing as very important to the free exchange of ideas.

Edited October 11, 2019 by tantric superman

[tantric superman 4,667]

5 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

A latino man with mestizo features buys chips, the clerk tells him to go back to his country, and the man leaves without buying chips.

Well in fairness, there were no Takis.  Hard to find Takis in Big Neb.

[Bateshorn 9,898]

I'm not arguing to police anything. I only posted it as news. 

I think waving this away as youthful indiscretion is......unwise and not consistent with the history of the conservative movement.

[tantric superman 4,667]

7 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

She is right, but she is putting herself on the wrong side of the equation, and that damages her message.  She needs to come at it from the perspective of someone that has been considered both white and non-white because that is what she is.

Damn.  I will admit, as someone who went to school and faced a few very small racial issues long ago, I am reminded how simple discrimination has morphed into a much more complicated "white privilege" issue.    What a beating to go into such an analysis when one is in college.  The white students who accepted me were my friends.  The one's who didn't were not.  (I can't remember any who didn't -- although there was this one VERY jewish woman who I liked who wasn't interested in me.)

I have no problem with all the academic research you can go into related to white privilege.  But the idea that a college student, who is just trying to learn to be a good citizens and a proper adult while trying to get good enough grades to get into grad school and trying to avoid VD - has to psychoanalyze every social interaction with a white person to determine whether it is sullied by white privilege -- man, I'll admit I wouldn't have had  the time or bandwith for that.

[tantric superman 4,667]

5 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

I think waving this away as youthful indiscretion is......unwise and not consistent with the history of the conservative movement.

Sometimes the low key approach sends a better message.  Plus, I'm waving it away because there are bigger fish to fry, and Presidents to impeach. 

[workswithseed 2,036]

1 hour ago, Huckleberry said:

You're both correct. Crucet's response was extremely presumptuous but burning the book was dumb. Crucet has probably benefited from white privilege in her life because, like me, even though she's Latin she looks fairly white. This is a white-looking woman who went to an Ivy League school lecturing Georgia Southern students on privilege.

If you didn't know who she was ahead of time and you were told that woman's name was Emily Johnson you would believe it.

This is my thought process as well before I even knew what she looked like. It's definitely weird that the students burned the books. Did they buy them to do that, cause that seems dumb.

[FondrenRoad 4,378]

2 hours ago, tantric superman said:

Burned this motherfucker after I got my C freshman year.

May as well burn that one.  The next year, they probably changed one useless paragraph so they can sell a brand new "edition" at $100 a pop.  College textbooks are a racket.

[Foosters 17,730]

6 hours ago, FondrenRoad said:

May as well burn that one.  The next year, they probably changed one useless paragraph so they can sell a brand new "edition" at $100 a pop.  College textbooks are a racket.

$100 a pop? 

 

You know how I know it's been a minute since you were in school?

[InkaUtexas 25,510]

8 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

Did you just respond to my statement that both sides are right by asking me which side is wrong? Saying you're both making arguments that are correct in no way implies that one of you is making an argument that's incorrect. Take a step back and redirect your ire toward Oklahoma.

Fuck OU. 

[Thetexashammer 1,062]

It's almost like stupid is as stupid does and you just have to decide what's right.

[atomheartbevo 89,416]

9 hours ago, tantric superman said:

Burned this motherfucker after I got my C freshman year.

I know exactly how you feel, I burned this one once, and also burned an updated 1990s edition:

[F250 28,682]

9 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

You're both correct. Crucet's response was extremely presumptuous but burning the book was dumb. Crucet has probably benefited from white privilege in her life because, like me, even though she's Latin she looks fairly white. This is a white-looking woman who went to an Ivy League school lecturing Georgia Southern students on privilege.

If you didn't know who she was ahead of time and you were told that woman's name was Emily Johnson you would believe it.

My first impression was that she is Puerto Rican, I checked and she is Cuban. I was off by about 30 miles.

 

[TwiceHorn 31,269]

11 minutes ago, F250 said:

My first impression was that she is Puerto Rican, I checked and she is Cuban. I was off by about 30 miles.

 

But culturally, in many cases, worlds apart, especially for white Cubans.

[Hank Scorpio 17,723]

I'm amazed there were enough white people at Georgia State to even have a book burning. 

[Fondren & Main 6,667]

You guys are literally insane lol.

[Mole 4,320]

1. FYE classes would be better served focusing more on academic integrity than advancing some ideology. I say this from experience and the endless plagiarism reporting that I find myself doing.

2. The ship has long since sailed, but if the goal is introspection by the beneficiaries (white men) and a more just and caring society for the less privileged, x privilege is unproductively antagonistic. It takes things that would be inherent in a better culture and casts them as tools of oppression. The phenomenon described as white privilege is no doubt true, but it implies an approach to dealing with it from a backwards perspective. I’m sure I’m guilty of white fragility or some other term designed to bludgeon out a victory rather than find mutual understanding and cultural growth.

3. All too often, and it appears to be the case based on the article, calls of white privilege are used to negate someone else’s experience rather than bring about mutual understanding. I’m sure this can be written off with claims of white fragility as well (another true phenomenon that is described in antagonistic terms).

4. Book burning, even of bad books, is usually a bad thing, but I’d be willing to make some exceptions. 

5. These terms are often used to antagonize and reinforce the victim/oppressor dichotomy. They don’t necessarily do this and they claim to not do so, but in practice they often do. This is largely due to the way they are framed.

6.  This will probably be the best thing to ever happen to the author’s career. She owes those morons a debt of gratitude. I’d kill to have some conservative kids burn some of my academic work and make the national news. I’d probably attach the press clippings to my CV.

[Mrs Whiggins 13,049]

2 hours ago, Foosters said:

$100 a pop? 

 

You know how I know it's been a minute since you were in school?

Open source, man; that's where it's at. It's free and more schools are doing it now. The book reps have had to scramble the last few years because everything is  changing.

[softlynow 1,783]

9 hours ago, tantric superman said:

Sometimes the low key approach sends a better message.  Plus, I'm waving it away because there are bigger fish to fry, and Presidents to impeach. 

Everyone knows that the Dotus administration is THE crisis of our times. What BH presupposes is ... maybe it isn’t. 

[Nivek 16,858]

One day she will really like it when cute girl privilege is published.

[FondrenRoad 4,378]

3 hours ago, Foosters said:

$100 a pop? 

 

You know how I know it's been a minute since you were in school?

Now y'all just download stolen copies, no? 

[Vito Andolini 9,103]

I googled, and this story isn’t as interesting anymore.

[CooterBrown 17,905]

That prof suffers from attractiveness privilege which is definitely a real thing. It’s the reason why there’s no good looking homeless people and why those that can easily change their social class by marrying into money are almost 100% always attractive. She should write about that.

[UDontKnow 10,439]

20 hours ago, tantric superman said:

I went back to read the article to make sure my thoughts that this is a great example of freedom of speech and a great teaching moment, and came upon this exchange:

“I noticed that you made a lot of generalizations about the majority of white people being privileged,” one respondent said into the microphone. “What makes you believe that it’s okay to come to a college campus, like this, when we are supposed to be promoting diversity on this campus, which is what we’re taught. I don’t understand what the purpose of this was.”

Crucet immediately responded to the student with audible reactions from the audience.

“I came here because I was invited and I talked about white privilege because it’s a real thing that you are actually benefiting from right now in even asking this question,” Crucet said.

Now that, to me, is a pretty insulting reply by Crucet.  She doesn't know these students.  She doesn't know whether some are poor or disadvantaged or even whether they are part black or brown.  She could have easily kept the conversation going by responding first that the book was based on her own experiences and then extending the argument as she saw fit.  Instead, she goes with a patronizing and accusatory response. 

[Admit that I am relying on the article - who knows how the conversation went.]

Book burning is a powerful symbolic act.  That's why this is a story.  But I don't think it needs to be conflated into some reflection of fasicm or government power.  This is a bunch of moron students feeling put upon.  Hail to diversity and morons on campus. 

As a man of color and son of immigrants and someone whose career is rooted in healthcare, I agree with this completely. Does the phenomenon of white privilege exist? Sure, in some situations it does. But to show up and automatically assume someone has a leg up because they're white is absolutely ludicrous. Having seen hundreds of patients with severe mental illness (in Georgia of all places ironically), I know for a fact that I had more privilege than many of these patients and their families. Crucet comes off as an angry blowhard because the right to question is a freedom of the Western World, not because of some racial privilege. 

And yes, college students do stupid shit. Personally, I do not agree with burning anything, especially books, because I was raised to not disrespect the concept of knowledge. But colleges supporting freedom of expression - which book burning clearly falls under - is not government gone fascist. 

[UDontKnow 10,439]

1 hour ago, Vito Andolini said:

I googled, and this story isn’t as interesting anymore.

Her elbows are too pointy and she's a couple of McDonald's trips away from becoming a @Vic Mackey special.

[CooterBrown 17,905]

That prof suffers from attractiveness privilege which is definitely a real thing. It’s the reason why there’s no good looking homeless people and why those that can easily change their social class by marrying into money are almost 100% always attractive. She should write about that.

Aw fuck. Now I see that last pic. No wonder she’s angry.

[UDontKnow 10,439]

20 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

You're both correct. Crucet's response was extremely presumptuous but burning the book was dumb. Crucet has probably benefited from white privilege in her life because, like me, even though she's Latin she looks fairly white. This is a white-looking woman who went to an Ivy League school lecturing Georgia Southern students on privilege.

If you didn't know who she was ahead of time and you were told that woman's name was Emily Johnson you would believe it.

Looking at her appearance, I could also believe that her name is Elmira Aghdam or she was some distant relative of Sirhan Sirhan.

[FondrenRoad 4,378]

10 hours ago, CooterBrown said:

Aw fuck. Now I see that last pic. No wonder she’s angry.

Still would.