Friday, September 30, 2016





Crucifix, Trump chalkings reported as 'hate incidents' at UW-L

More than 1-in-10 "hate incidents" reported to the UW-La Crosse "Hate Response Team" were deemed fake or frivolous.

Among the reports that were considered legitimate were the display of a Crucifix, the mere existence of a Christian student group, and an off-campus blog post about life as a white student.

A report released by the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse’s “Hate Response Team” shows that more than 10 percent of reported hate incidents were determined to be fake or frivolous.

In fact, the report notes that 28 of 192 reports were found to be either completely fake or “not a bias/hate incident,” accounting for 14 percent of all incidents reported.

A Crucifix was reported for representing “oppression and hate of the LGBT+ community.”   

Meanwhile, of the reports that were legitimate, students complained about everything from images of the crucifix to a blog post about life on campus as a white student.

According to The La Crosse Tribune, one student reported feeling unsafe when discovering a Campus Crusade for Christ poster on campus, claiming that the cross represents “oppression and hate of the LGBT+ community.”

Two other students turned in one of their peers for publishing a blog post about life as a white student, calling his post offensive to students of color, and even saying that the proximity of the author’s off-campus residence made them feel unsafe living on campus.

After the infamous “chalkening” had spread to UW La Crosse’s campus, several students reported the incident to the Hate Response Team, whose report shows a drastic increase in activity over the few days it occurred—18 reports in just three days.

The school had initially responded to the chalkening with a Facebook post that called it “contradictory to our mission as a university,” but later deleted the post after facing national criticism.

In most cases, students who reported instances of bias refused contact with the Hate Response Team, with only 34 of 192 reporters requesting contact from a Hate Response Team advocate.

Of the 192 reports, 56 of them were simply classified as a “statement,” which the Hate Response Team describes as “not only words that are spoken, but also instances where hateful messages are conveyed using sign language, gestures, or similar forms of direct interpersonal communication.”

But the Hate Response Team continues to defend itself as being consistent with the First Amendment rights of students, arguing in its report that “while the First Amendment protects free expression of ideas that are sometimes offensive, that does not mean the university is powerless to respond.”

Indeed, the Hate Response Team claims that its mission is to “assist the victim/target in receiving the appropriate services,” but only 34 students requested such services in the past academic year alone.

The Hate Response Team has been highly criticized by several national institutions, including the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), which awarded the school its February “Speech Code of the Month” award.

SOURCE

24 comments:

Bird of Paradise said...

The sight of a cross scares liberals just like it dose with all evil things

Anonymous said...

These snowflakes don't know what real hate looks like. If they succeed in creating
the utopian diversity paradise of their liberal wet dreams, they'll find out the hard way.
Of course by then it will be much too late.

Anonymous said...

Anon 2:34 - Those "snowflakes" don't even know hate when they are expressing it themselves, most of those reports ARE expressions of hatred in themselves as those "snowflakes" are trying to use the authorities to punish someone they chose to hate.

Anonymous said...

Lefties sure do dislike the sight of a christian cross.

Anonymous said...

Of course the cross is a symbol oppression and hate. The Romans perfected the artform.

Crucifixion was a popular method of dispatching threats to the Roman empire. Romans practiced both random and intentional violence against populations they had conquered, killing tens of thousands by crucifixion. Crucifixion was a method of torture—not just putting to death. It was a particularly cruel and unusual form of disposing of people. The two men who were killed along with Jesus are identified in some translations as “thieves,” but the word can also mean “insurgents,” supporting the idea that crucifixion was a political weapon used to send a message to those still living: Do not stir dissent or this will be the result.

Spurwing Plover the Fighting Shorebird said...

Listen to the snowflakes whining all they ever do is WHINE,WHINE,WHINE Just wait until they have to leave their safe space and go out into the big wide world without toofie bear becuase toofie bears tired of their stupid whining

kite, bird that hovers and looks straight down, said...

5:17AM
The Roman use of crucifixion is not the reason that lefties hate the Christian cross.
They hate the cross because of what it represents today - Christian teachings - and because Christian teachings are a foundation stone of western civilisation.
Lefties believe they have an alternative and superior teaching to that within Christianity.
But they don't. Theirs is counterfeit.

Anonymous said...

Yeah - the cross has represented lots of different things at different times.
A red one on a package during the war, a burning one on a black person's front lawn in Alabama, a black one on a pirate's map...
Context and timing are everything.

Anonymous said...

Christian teachings have been bastardized over time. Today's Christian teachings are the culmination of centuries of interpretations and redefinition mostly by very strong political entities for their own gain. This can be seen by reading the actual words of the Lord Jesus. Pick up a red letter Bible and see for yourself. Christ's idea of Christianity is much different than what today's so-called "Christians" call Christianity.

Darzee the Tailorbird said...

Their so cuaght up in this Darwinist bull twaddle they think all life came crawling out of the oceans as some dumb looking fish and all humans are related to monkeys

kite said...

3:51AM You are inclining a bit elitist, thinking you understand Christ's idea of Christianity better than what you call "today's so-called Christians". And you contradict yourself by saying Christian teachings have been bastardised over time, then advising us to read the bible and see those teachings for ourselves.

The bible IS the Christian teachings. And the Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant churches have thankfully carried those teachings down through the centuries, and we still have them word for word today. Of course the Church made mistakes along the way; they were human beings of their times. Everyone was barbaric; human sacrifice, tortures, cannibalism, and all sorts of cruelties were rife all over the planet. The general pattern is that people develop in increments, not in great leaps of progress. Though great personal change for the better is certainly possible and does occur, and Christianity does enable that. There are millions of born again Christians who profess personal transformation and freedom from past personal struggles since handing over their life and struggles to Christ. Psychology can't do that. Not yet at least.

True religion is a discipline of spirituality. It is a means, not a mark, of spiritual attainment. A church naturally includes spiritually undeveloped people, just as an exercise class naturally includes out of shape people. These are natural expectations. Only an elitist would look down critically on them. But in seeing such things as natural, an elitist may come down to earth.

Most Christians do read Christ's words. His parables are very well known, as is His essential teaching on the power of love and forgiveness to heal us psychologically, physically and our relationships.

When practiced collectively the Religion naturally has to best fit the collective pyramid of its demographic, therefore its interpretation has to be basic/literal and non-esoteric, so as to suit the base and to include all in its practice and understanding. Any further or higher spiritually abstract or esoteric/mystic/occult interpretation is for the discreet understanding of the individual, not for the generalised interpretation of scripture and not for the collective religious practices. Hence basic interpretations of scripture and basic explanations of practice, symbols and ritual, are generally taught in Christian churches. This is because higher understandings if openly discussed exclude those who do not grasp those understandings, but keeping the understandings basic includes everyone.

Olaf Koenders said...

I'm a long way from the Left and I care nothing about crucifixes and Bible bashings. Religion has been the one primitive scourge that's held Man back from true knowledge and prosperity for centuries. Stop it.

University of Wisconsin needs a swift kick in the pants for creating an avenue to vilify people that have every right to speak their mind. The complainants are the hate mongers. Expel them.

Olaf Koenders said...

Kite 3:29 PM

You seem to throw the word "understand" around as if it were of no consequence.

In legal terms, if a cop or judge asks you if you "understand", he's confirming whether or not you "stand under" his authority, whether he legally (let alone lawfully) has any or not. It's dangerous to affirm his wet dream by responding "yes" or "I understand".

Best always to use "I comprehend, but can never understand". Remove "understand" from your life and use "comprehend" instead. It's far safer.

kite said...

Yes, I see the difference between understand and comprehend, and will endeavour to use them each more precisely and distinctly.

Anonymous said...

"then advising us to read the bible and see those teachings for ourselves."

Original teachings, moron.

Anonymous said...

"This can be seen by reading the actual words of the Lord Jesus. Pick up a red letter Bible and see for yourself."

Anonymous said...

What about the words of Jesus not put into the biblical canon?

Anonymous said...

I think the most important points got included.

Anonymous said...

11:15 Have you checked?

Anonymous said...

7:51 hehehe

Anonymous said...

"What about the words of Jesus not put into the biblical canon?"

There are none. Unless, of course, you were there.

Anonymous said...

10:00 it was referring to the recorded words in the "Gnostic Gospels" (look it up). It should be unnecessary to say that recorded words are not necessarily the actual words of a person (real or imagined). Eye-witnesses are not necessarily correct in how they remember words either, especially after many years or decades, as in the case of the biblical gospels (canon); even less when they are hearsay accounts of eye-witness accounts (and the four gospel accounts are not written as eye-witness accounts at all, and rely on another unstated account).

Anonymous said...

John 21:25

Anonymous said...

John 21:25 refers to what Jesus did and not what he said (unless you count "saying" under "doing"). Incidentally, nobody was supposed to be listening to Jesus praying to God in the Garden of Gethsemane (praying to himself if he was God?), or when he talked with the Devil in the wilderness, so a claim that he was overheard somehow, or that he confided in someone later (somewhat difficult after being arrested), then there should be some mention or evidence presented for that, and there's none.