A theory on the college campus issues.

[Forty Two]

Summary?

I mean, how many people do you expect to listen to the entirety of a 72 minute discussion by some panel at NYU? I expect your summary, should you bother to provide one, to include quotes and the h:mm:ss you took them from.

I have no expectation. The video is posted for anyone interested. Those not interested do not have to watch it.

You can listen to approx 3:10 to 5 minutes, and the woman on the panel, Viviana, presents an argument for content warnings likening it to the Americans with disabilities act, and claiming that the world is organized in an "ableist" way, privileging those without disabilities, and this is an arbitrary way to organize society. From about 10 minutes in to about 12:45, the other woman responds and explains her view on how content warnings in school are ineffective.

At 35 minutes, there is an interesting discussion about things professors say outside of class, and whether they can be prohibited because of what a student may feel about the professor who holds particular views. At 38, Viviana, says that if a professor says something that hurts someone's feelings, that they should be held accountable. They need to "own it." And, at 40 minutes in the other woman refers to that "accountability" being punishment and discipline of professors. At 42 minutes, Haidt recounts an issue with a class he was teaching, where he was called to task by a student. And, at 45 minutes the female law professor refers to professors whitewashing courses to remove controversial cases, and such, to stay out of trouble.

Hermit, videos are posted all the time, as is other material involving various topics. Not everything is posted as an argument. Some things are posted because they are fun, interesting, educational, and/or relevant to a given topic. There's nothing wrong with posting a video without a transcript or summary. I don't care what you expect, by the way.

[pErvinalia]

The bromance is over?!

[Hermit]

Hermit, videos are posted all the time...

Thanks for the pointer.

[Forty Two]

Hermit, videos are posted all the time...

Thanks for the pointer.

Well, the point being that there is no general expectation that when a video is posted that there must be a corresponding transcript or summary corresponding minute by minute with the video. I didn't really understand what was wrong with posting a video of a conference on topics relevant to the issue under discussion.

[Hermit]

there is no general expectation that when a video is posted that there must be a corresponding transcript or summary corresponding minute by minute with the video.

Correct. Most people don't expect one, let alone think there must be one. I merely asked for one.

I didn't really understand what was wrong with posting a video of a conference on topics relevant to the issue under discussion.

Who said there's anything wrong with posting a video of a conference on topics relevant to the issue under discussion? Passive-aggressive much?

[Forty Two]

there is no general expectation that when a video is posted that there must be a corresponding transcript or summary corresponding minute by minute with the video.

Correct. Most people don't expect one, let alone think there must be one. I merely asked for one.

I didn't really understand what was wrong with posting a video of a conference on topics relevant to the issue under discussion.

Who said there's anything wrong with posting a video of a conference on topics relevant to the issue under discussion? Passive-aggressive much?

My apologies. I took the tone of your post to be rather...expectant. So, gave a brief summary, but I'd instead recommend that when you have time, give it a listen, maybe while you're doing something else, have it on and listen to the arguments.

[Hermit]

Let me explain my point of view, 42. Plonking down a lengthy (in this case 72 minutes) panel discussion without as much as a comment is a piss-poor substitute for posting on a discussion forum. Make your point in your own words, then provide the link, preferably with some pointers where the most salient bits are. You might find the interminable expositions by Haidt et al extremely fascinating, but I am not sufficiently interested to get more than the gist of it. And no, I can't listen to the stuff while doing something else. I am definitely not a multitasker. If I want to listen to music I just want to enjoy listening to music. When I wash the dishes, I prefer to let my mind wander. Following a discussion requires my undivided attention.

By all means keep linking to stuff like that, but keep in mind that unless you add something that lures people to listen to it, or even just the bits you regard as critical, it is unlikely they will, especially when they know your opinions well enough to be able to predict the drift of the content. For instance, if you think there's something novel, something that will surprise me in the above panel discussion, mention it by way of a teaser and provide a pointer to the time. Not only might I choose to listen. I might even finish up going through the lot or at least a substantial part.

[Forty Two]

Let me explain my point of view, 42. Plonking down a lengthy (in this case 72 minutes) recording without as much as a comment of some panel discussion is a piss-poor substitute for posting on a discussion forum.

Understood, and I don't disagree with your sentiment. However, I think it's very clear that I contribute substantively to discussions generally. I don't think that the occasional informational video, offered for its entertainment and/or informative value, is out of bounds for a discussion forum. That is especially true for a forum like this, which is rather more loose and free than some other forums.

It's a long video, yes, and various "sides" of the campus free speech issue are presented at length, rather than in snippets. It's interesting to listen and folks may take different things from it, or find different parts of it relevant.

Make your point in your own words, then provide the link,

Agreed, however, not every posting of a video or article must be posted to "make a point." I wasn't making a point. Was posting substance, and the video itself makes many points and presents various perspectives on the issues. I wasn't making an argument.

I was preferably with some pointers where the most salient bits are. You might find the interminable expositions by Haidt et al extremely fascinating, but I am not sufficiently interested to get more than the gist of it. And no, I can't listen to the stuff while doing something else. I am definitely not a multitasker. If I want to listen to music I just want to enjoy listening to music. When I wash the dishes, I prefer to let my mind wander. Following a discussion requires my undivided attention.

Fair enough, if that's how you approach it. Then you may not be one of the people who will watch the video. That's fine. Note that I did provide pointers were some salient bits are.

Whether a bits is fascinating or not is beside the point. If one doesn't find it worth the time or energy to watch and listen, then one does not have to.

By all means keep linking to stuff like that, but keep in mind that unless you add something that lures people to listen to it, or even just the bits you regard as critical, it is unlikely they will, especially when they know your opinions well enough to be able to predict the drift of the content. For instance, if you think there's something novel, something that will surprise me in the above panel discussion, mention it by way of a teaser and provide a pointer to the time. Not only might I choose to listen. I might even finish up going through the lot or at least a substantial part.

I'm not posting it for you specifically, Hermit. I don't think most people focus on specific forum members who might potentially watch a video and then craft summaries to focus on what might be surprising or interesting to those people. And, after you asked, I posted times and substance to look for.

But, again, not everything is posted for debate purposes. Sometimes stuff is posted for fun, for information, or because it's related to a given topic, and a poster might think that others who are interested in the thread might find it interesting.

[laklak]

HuffPo blogger thinks white men shouldn't be allowed to vote.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/04/14/hu ... -vote.html

I think she shouldn't bother her pretty little head with politics, and should concentrate on improving her sammich making skills and maybe shaving her legs. How's she going to snag a good man with an attitude like that?

[Hermit]

HuffPo blogger thinks white men shouldn't be allowed to vote.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/04/14/hu ... -vote.html

I think she shouldn't bother her pretty little head with politics, and should concentrate on improving her sammich making skills and maybe shaving her legs. How's she going to snag a good man with an attitude like that?

Mebbe her idea of a good man differs from yours.

[rainbow]

I mean, how many people do you expect to listen to the entirety of a 72 minute discussion by some panel at NYU? I expect your summary, should you bother to provide one, to include quotes and the h:mm:ss you took them from.

Summary: Your opinions don't matter.
Get used to it.


Feeling marginalized?
Who cares?

[JimC]

I mean, how many people do you expect to listen to the entirety of a 72 minute discussion by some panel at NYU? I expect your summary, should you bother to provide one, to include quotes and the h:mm:ss you took them from.

Summary: Your opinions don't matter.
Get used to it.


Feeling marginalized?
Who cares?

That was Hermit, not 42...

[Animavore]

I suspect feminist articles like the one above are deliberately controversial to raise a point. The article seems to provocatively turn things on its head (remember the US is a country where minority voter suppression is still a thing) rather than genuinely advocating disallowing white males the vote. Trust Fox News to get into a Huff over this. But then, irony was never a strong suit of the Christian right.

[rainbow]

HuffPo blogger thinks white men shouldn't be allowed to vote.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/04/14/hu ... -vote.html

I think she shouldn't bother her pretty little head with politics, and should concentrate on improving her sammich making skills and maybe shaving her legs. How's she going to snag a good man with an attitude like that?

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.za/shelley ... _22036640/

If ignorance is bliss, she would be in a state of ecstasy. For what does she need a man?

[pErvinalia]

HuffPo blogger thinks white men shouldn't be allowed to vote.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/04/14/hu ... -vote.html

I think she shouldn't bother her pretty little head with politics, and should concentrate on improving her sammich making skills and maybe shaving her legs. How's she going to snag a good man with an attitude like that?