Tuesday, April 08, 2014
Must not laugh at Leftist meanderings about sexual identity
The chairman of the Boulder Faculty Assembly at the University of Colorado said he feels a blog post written by Steven Hayward, the school's first-ever visiting scholar of conservative thought, borders on hate speech.
The day after CU Student Government leaders spoke out against Hayward's "oppressive and discriminatory" ideas, the Boulder Faculty Assembly discussed statements made by the professor and whether it should respond officially as a faculty group.
"I found this offensive, bordering on what I think most people would say is hate speech," Chairman Paul Chinowsky told the group during a meeting Thursday. "If any (other) faculty member said this, we would find ourselves in a dean's office or possibly on suspension for writing this. I applaud the students for having the nerve to stand up to this. The question is, are we going to allow this or condone this from someone in our own faculty?"
Chinowsky said he couldn't believe what he read in Hayward's blog post, titled "Off on a gender-bender," on the website Powerline.
In the post, Hayward poked fun at the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community — referring to the community as "LGBTQRSTUW (or whatever letters have been added lately)" — and expressed his discomfort and confusion with university training about how to respect a student's gender identity.
SOURCE
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
I followed the links the article the precious snowflakes are flipping out over: Off On a Gender-Bender. Apparently he makes too much sense in observing the obvious for their delicate sensibilities to handle.
Come to think of it, it's more likely that they they don't want anyone telling them anything that would constrain their behavior; which, considering the purpose of a university to teach thinks which would tend to affect behavior, is incredibly ironic. Can you imagine courses on genetics teaching anything other than that humans have XX and XY chromosomes?
Here is the crux of this argument...
"oppressive and discriminatory" ideas...
So now to leftist IDEAS are bad. The thought police are in full riot gear.
The uproar is solely over being criticized. Snowflakes indeed.
Luke is as usual full of Christian charity and compassion. He is also incorrect in his last sentence.
Perhaps Anon 6:49 should read what the Bible has to say about fools and the unrepentant* sometime.
And I'm really curious what he thinks is wrong with the last sentence.
(*Redundancy alert!)
Then Luke should know better than be foolish and unrepentant himself.
Can you imagine when Luke will be hit by a bus?
Luke,
He thought that LGBT was a new kind of chromosome that society was previously too heteronormative to acknowledge, thus the confusion.
Both Stinky and Luke look very foolish displaying with pride their ignorance about human X and Y chromosomes.
Why should anyone read Luke's book of phrases-for-any-occasion-no-matter-how-vague-and-out-of-historical-context?
If I wanted to cherry-pick like Luke I'd go to an orchard and not the Bible.
Ah, trolls. No answers. Plenty of insults. No honesty.
What a waste.
Anon 1:47,
The "LGBT chromosome" comment was a joke, actually.
But if you laugh right now, you'll only be a little bit later than usual.
Luke shouldn't just get away with dismissing any counter-comment to his own as coming from a "troll". In the first place it's rude and insulting, secondly a lazy way to respond, and thirdly suggests he doesn't have a proper counter argument - and just resorting to spouting biblical quotes is equally lazy, as though everyone should accept such quotes were appropriate or valid.
Yes, obviously Stinky was attempting to make a joke (of sorts), but at the same time he was addressing Luke and implicitly supporting his incorrect statement.
Fundy-christians like Luke live in a fundy-bubble and think everyone should be impressed by quotes from their religious texts, or quotes from fellow religionists. Luke should reflect how impressed he would be by a pious muslim quoting from the Koran to further some argument.
… suggests he doesn't have a proper counter argument…
Counter? To what? There was literally no argument offered, no claims made beyond "incorrect". That's pure gainsaying not a valid argument. (Also see here)
And that's what marks it as trolling rather than debate.
So the Luke guy can't bring himself to admit his factual error or even bother to check it out, no doubt because he's too arrogant in his prejudices (but as usual just directs to non-relevant links, by way of a pretended response).
Using the "troll card" is unconvincing, especially doing it so often as Luke does.
Luke,
Convicting Luke of a crime without specifying the charges: trollery.
Then wondering why they're called trolls: priceless.
Still no counter-argument.
I rest my case. It's a troll.
Stinky and Luke have turned their troll-obsession into paranoia.
Post a Comment