Remind me again whether we are in 2016 or 1956....

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/02/us/mississ...index.html

(11-01-2016 11:08 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  I'm a bit surprised by your ability to ignore or deny an obvious staple of modern leftism.

"Too often we judge other groups by their worst examples, while judging ourselves by our best intentions."
George W. Bush, July 12, 2016

(11-02-2016 01:53 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Remind me again whether we are in 2016 or 1956....

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/02/us/mississ...index.html

Pretty awful, and hopefully we see swift condemnation from leaders on both sides like when the Republican office was firebombed.

Absolutely awful.

(11-01-2016 04:51 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(11-01-2016 04:47 PM)JSA Wrote:  

(11-01-2016 11:44 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-01-2016 10:00 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  I think the thing is for many of us, it's that yeah, she shouldn't have had a private server, etc. but it pales in comparison to Trump's corruption. \

where have you been the last 35 years? The email is just the cherry on the sundae. She has been covering up stuff and stonewalling since her days as Arkansas' First Lady, and perhaps before. she has gotten very good at it, which is one point in her favor, but to say this is the Alpha and Omega of her misdeeds is to say that Al Capone led an exemplary life prior to messing up on his taxes.

Let us be clear - this is not Mother Theresa vs. Vlad the Impaler. More Lucretzia Borgia vs. John D. Rockefeller.

Or Edwin Edwards vs. David Duke.
And as the Edwards' people said, "Vote for the Crook, it's important."

LOL - Good one.

Louisiana politics - the blueprint for democracy - - - - - -

(11-02-2016 01:54 PM)Gravy Owl Wrote:  

(11-01-2016 11:08 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  I'm a bit surprised by your ability to ignore or deny an obvious staple of modern leftism.

"Too often we judge other groups by their worst examples, while judging ourselves by our best intentions."
George W. Bush, July 12, 2016

That is indeed a fallacy which leftists fall into time after time after time.

(11-02-2016 01:54 PM)Gravy Owl Wrote:  

(11-01-2016 11:08 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  I'm a bit surprised by your ability to ignore or deny an obvious staple of modern leftism.

"Too often we judge other groups by their worst examples, while judging ourselves by our best intentions."
George W. Bush, July 12, 2016

That quote came to mind when I was typing my response on the use of the perjorative "deplorables".

And it definitely is broadly applicable (i.e. both sides of the aisle)

(11-02-2016 03:10 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(11-02-2016 01:54 PM)Gravy Owl Wrote:  

(11-01-2016 11:08 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  I'm a bit surprised by your ability to ignore or deny an obvious staple of modern leftism.

"Too often we judge other groups by their worst examples, while judging ourselves by our best intentions."
George W. Bush, July 12, 2016

That is indeed a fallacy which leftists fall into time after time after time.

I think Rick's response is better and more on the nose.

(11-02-2016 02:03 PM)JSA Wrote:  

(11-01-2016 04:51 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(11-01-2016 04:47 PM)JSA Wrote:  

(11-01-2016 11:44 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-01-2016 10:00 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  I think the thing is for many of us, it's that yeah, she shouldn't have had a private server, etc. but it pales in comparison to Trump's corruption. \

where have you been the last 35 years? The email is just the cherry on the sundae. She has been covering up stuff and stonewalling since her days as Arkansas' First Lady, and perhaps before. she has gotten very good at it, which is one point in her favor, but to say this is the Alpha and Omega of her misdeeds is to say that Al Capone led an exemplary life prior to messing up on his taxes.

Let us be clear - this is not Mother Theresa vs. Vlad the Impaler. More Lucretzia Borgia vs. John D. Rockefeller.

Or Edwin Edwards vs. David Duke.
And as the Edwards' people said, "Vote for the Crook, it's important."

LOL - Good one.

Louisiana politics - the blueprint for democracy - - - - - -

Good stuff.

(11-02-2016 04:13 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-02-2016 03:10 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(11-02-2016 01:54 PM)Gravy Owl Wrote:  

(11-01-2016 11:08 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  I'm a bit surprised by your ability to ignore or deny an obvious staple of modern leftism.

"Too often we judge other groups by their worst examples, while judging ourselves by our best intentions."
George W. Bush, July 12, 2016

That is indeed a fallacy which leftists fall into time after time after time.

I think Rick's response is better and more on the nose.

Of course it is -- mine was more than a little tongue-in-cheek.
But I should have probably made that more obvious.

Edit: looking at it again, I see it was pretty poor execution on my part.

(11-02-2016 01:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-02-2016 01:02 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-02-2016 11:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-02-2016 11:44 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-02-2016 11:23 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  In the conversation with George and I was talking about his examples that were extreme. You really think there are substantially more people on the left that that do things like call others "white motherf..." and who tell others they have no opinion because they are white?

yes.

Quote:Because those are the extreme examples of the left that really are apt comparisons to the actions on the right that I mentioned, which have been seen and documented at Trump rallies. I think both sides of the political spectrum have members that act on the extreme, and I don't think one side has a significantly larger amount of crazy.

Well, I seen no large scale amount race-baiting and personal violence, just a few isolated incidents played up on the media. But the left is seemingly united in defining the racist, xenophobic right as deplorable.

Quote:I find it ironic that you complain about one-off instances being used to paint a broadbrush of Trump supporters, yet you do the same with the left. While the left is often more cognizant of the issues associated with being PC (not using language that may offend [see Master's titles at Rice], gender neautrality, race relations, etc), there are millions of people on the left who are not militant about these topics and just happen to fall on on side of the spectrum.

Try using a non PC term and watch the reaction. I am glad you agree the Trump supporter things are one-offs, but I disagree that PC reaction from the left are equally one-offs.

Quote:I find it likely that your interactions with Obama and Trump supporters support your views because that's how bubbles work, and we all live in one. I know that the vast majority of Trump supporters aren't out there yellow Jew-S-A, and at the same time, a majority of Clinton supporters aren't in the streets yelling things like about persecuting white, male, Christians. My guess is that you view some actions on the left and more extreme then I do, which is why you have the opinion that there are more extreme lefties than righties.

We are both in bubbles, but yours is more truthful?

No, Clinton supporters are not in the street yelling things about persecuting white Christian males, they are on the news and in the courts making their points.

I am not worried about the extremists as much as i worry about the broader movement. If there were thousands chanting Jew-S-A offsetting the thousands saying "you are deplorable", I would consider the extremism more balanced. Remember, my first quibble with you was over the statement that the two sides probably make up the same percentage.

BTW, what is the PC way to say "Master" now, and what happens if you say "Master"?

Rice Masters just voted 7-2 (2 abstained) to change the term Master into something else. One of the motivations was because of the historical context it has with slavery.

And regarding the bubble, I don't think mine is more right. I do think that I recognize the bubble better though, and that is likely due to my line of work. My friends are generallly left leaning, but I work in a industry that is surprisingly conservative and I work with a lot of blue collar guys. I've heard plenty of racist and misogynistic things said about Obama and Hillary (drillers LOVE to talk politics for some reason). I mean, if they didn't like Obama just because of his policies, why did the N-word get thrown around when talking about him so frequently? But here's the thing, I recognized that that drill crew was not EVERY drill crew, and that more likely than not, the majority of conservatives were like those I worked in the office with. However, one interesting thing is that, as the polls show, most of the people who would fall into the driller category are Trump supporters (white, non-college educated) while my coworkers and people like my father, and likely you (white, college educated) aren't fans of Trump.

But anyways, back to the bubble. My work pushes me outside of my bubble regularly, so I try and remind myself of that when talking in sweeping generalizations.

And I guess if you're not as worried about the extremists as much as the broader movement, did the Birther Movement give you pause?

I thought it was silly, as the location of birth is unimportant if the mother is an American citizen. As for as i am concerned, if you are an american citizen when you draw your first breath, you are a natural born citizen.

So are the guys racist because they are blue collar? No educated people would talk that way, right?

My experience with blue collar over the five plus decades is that there is a lot of talk, but when push comes to shove, people act like people. maybe they just need retraining in the proper way to speak and think.

But I think a lot of things are silly. The master, as in a college master, goes back to a English history that has nothing to do with slavery. More Downton Abbey than plantation. I would be bound to disagree (can I say bound?). Let me know what nonoffensive term is chosen.

Still, I am more concerned with the disapproving looks I would likely garner if I inadvertently referred to the Master at my college fifty years ago. will I be considered a racist, yet again?

People saying racist things in a work environment is not the same thing as opposing Obama just because he is black. I expect we will now have four to eight years when if we opposes President Clinton's policies, we will be called sexist. And I oppose a lot of her pronounced policies.

Still my basic disagreement with you is on perceived volume on either side. I have given my perceptions, you have yours. We will neither be able to convert the other, I think. Let us each go on our own way respectfully. But next time somebody chides you for using the wrong word, think of the source. I prefer to remain the Master of my fate, the Captain of my soul. Oops. Sorry about that.

To the bold: I never said that in the slightest. Correlation doesn't equal causation. It's just that my experience matches what demographic trends are telling us about Trump supporters. And I would find it odd that someone would need to use a racial slur about someone if all they didn't like were his policies.

And about your few comments about the Master term. I don't necessarily agree with the change and wouldn't have been championing it myself. But I think this is where there is a massive chasm between those on the left and right, moderate, extreme, and anywhere in between. I don't need to explain what side of the argument each side falls on, but I think your comments are a perfect example of the foundational difference in thinking.

On the left the moderates go "Hm, I know that the word is not meant to evoke references to slavery, but I understand that the word has obvious subtext that relates to slavery; therefore, if people would prefer that the name be changed, that's their right. I can empathize with that."

On the right, the moderates go "Well, that isn't offensive to me, it's so obvious it's not event about that. I'm not going to try and look at the situation through another lens and empathize with that person." I mean, your post makes a good point about where the word originated for Rice's context, but then it devolved into quips about using the term master or bound in every context, which undermined the initial argument.

And honestly, when I first heard about this issue a few weeks back, I didn't think much of it. I really didn't understand the situation until this was brought up at a party and one of my black friends told me how uncomfortable she had been using that term, and that apparently, her friends who were also black had echoed that sentiment. I had never been put into a position like that, and when I tried to empathize with my friend, I partially understood where she was coming from.

And this has nothing to do with the overzealous safe space issues that seem to be permeating higher education at the moment, where students try and block speakers who they disagree with from coming to campus. This isn't keeping specific ideologies out, it's just altering some language to make students a bit less uncomfortable.

to the bolded: that's what i get out of the various tatements that Trump leads among non college eduated whites and that most of his followers are racist and deplorable.

a few ears ago, i knew a couple of guys who worked for a friend. One black, one white. best buddies, roomies, old Army buds. the white guy made liberal use of the N-word and other slurs, and the black guy made liberal use of the R-word and other slurs, but each would have fought to the death for the other. You cannot always equate casual words to actual hatred.

(11-02-2016 01:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  On the left the moderates go "Hm, I know that the word is not meant to evoke references to slavery, but I understand that the word has obvious subtext that relates to slavery; therefore, if people would prefer that the name be changed, that's their right. I can empathize with that."

On the right, the moderates go "Well, that isn't offensive to me, it's so obvious it's not event about that. I'm not going to try and look at the situation through another lens and empathize with that person." I mean, your post makes a good point about where the word originated for Rice's context, but then it devolved into quips about using the term master or bound in every context, which undermined the initial argument.

But the dichotomy you describe is both false and self-serving. It would be more accurate (or at least, no less accurate) to say:

On the left, the moderates go "Hmm, I don't know if the claim of offense is reasonable, but it is being made by people who claim to be speaking for one of the identify groups I feel should be politically favored, and the claim also implicitly criticizes one of the classes that I feel should be disfavored. Therefore, I will not only give complete credence to the claim of offense, but I will insist that it cannot legitimately be disagreed with, and that anyone who does disagree with it is (by the definitions I have subscribed to) racist/sexist/otherwise uncivilized. (And if that's not enough, then as a matter of self-interest, it is important that I proclaim my endorsement of the claim of offense and my contempt for its skeptics, because I will face considerable social or professional repercussions if I don't.)"

Whereas on the right, the moderates go "Well, that isn't offensive to me, and after giving careful and comprehensive consideration to context, history, the perspective of others, and other factors, it is clear that it is not actually offensive to most others either -- even most members of the class whose spokesmen are claiming offense. Moreover, it also clear (again, after careful and comprehensive analysis) that while the claims of offense by the self-appointed spokesmen may (just may) be subjectively sincere, they are not objectively reasonable. And basing policy on claims that are grounded neither in fact nor in reason is not something that should be eagerly embraced. At the very least, it is neither logical nor fair to say that all people must accept those claims unthinkingly, or that any who fail to do so are necessarily racist/sexist/otherwise uncivilized."

A person who genuinely engages in empathy can appreciate that this dichotomy is no less self-serving than the one you proposed, and no less accurate.

(11-02-2016 04:18 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(11-02-2016 04:13 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-02-2016 03:10 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(11-02-2016 01:54 PM)Gravy Owl Wrote:  

(11-01-2016 11:08 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  I'm a bit surprised by your ability to ignore or deny an obvious staple of modern leftism.

"Too often we judge other groups by their worst examples, while judging ourselves by our best intentions."
George W. Bush, July 12, 2016

That is indeed a fallacy which leftists fall into time after time after time.

I think Rick's response is better and more on the nose.

Of course it is -- mine was more than a little tongue-in-cheek.
But I should have probably made that more obvious.

If it makes you feel better, I read it that way and it made me chuckle.

(11-02-2016 01:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I mean, your post makes a good point about where the word originated for Rice's context, but then it devolved into quips about using the term master or bound in every context, which undermined the initial argument.

Did those examples really undermine the argument?

The situation is:
Complainer: "The word 'abcdef', like most words, has various meanings. In context A, it is an innocuous, respected and time-honored term. But in a different context, it is associated with historical evil X. Therefore, I demand that you stop using the word in context A."
Defender: "By that logic, it seems we should also stop using it in contexts B, C, D and E."

Potential responses by the Complainer include:
1. "I see what you mean, and on further reflection, I realize that my demand was misplaced. Context A (like context B, C, D and E) has little relation to evil X. So even though we agree that X is evil, I can see there is no need to abolish the word in context A."
2. "I think I have a point, but you also have a point; let's discuss this further and maybe we can both learn something."
3. "Well, here are specific reasons why the term should be abolished in context A but remains appropriate in contexts B, C, D or E."
4. "You should realize that if you do not agree with me, you will lose social/professional standing."
5. "Stop 'splaining to me."
6. "You have no right to disagree with me; you must accept what I say because I am saying it."
7. "You're an Xist."

Too many leftists act as though the list begins at #4.

(11-03-2016 10:31 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(11-02-2016 01:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I mean, your post makes a good point about where the word originated for Rice's context, but then it devolved into quips about using the term master or bound in every context, which undermined the initial argument.

Did those examples really undermine the argument?

The situation is:
Complainer: "The word 'abcdef', like most words, has various meanings. In context A, it is an innocuous, respected and time-honored term. But in a different context, it is associated with historical evil X. Therefore, I demand that you stop using the word in context A."
Defender: "By that logic, it seems we should also stop using it in contexts B, C, D and E."

Potential responses by the Complainer include:
1. "I see what you mean, and on further reflection, I realize that my demand was misplaced. Context A (like context B, C, D and E) has little relation to evil X. So even though we agree that X is evil, I can see there is no need to abolish the word in context A."
2. "I think I have a point, but you also have a point; let's discuss this further and maybe we can both learn something."
3. "Well, here are specific reasons why the term should be abolished in context A but remains appropriate in contexts B, C, D or E."
4. "You should realize that if you do not agree with me, you will lose social/professional standing."
5. "Stop 'splaining to me."
6. "You have no right to disagree with me; you must accept what I say because I am saying it."
7. "You're an Xist."

Too many leftists act as though the list begins at #4.

8. STFU. You're fired.

(11-03-2016 10:31 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(11-02-2016 01:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I mean, your post makes a good point about where the word originated for Rice's context, but then it devolved into quips about using the term master or bound in every context, which undermined the initial argument.

Did those examples really undermine the argument?

The situation is:
Complainer: "The word 'abcdef', like most words, has various meanings. In context A, it is an innocuous, respected and time-honored term. But in a different context, it is associated with historical evil X. Therefore, I demand that you stop using the word in context A."
Defender: "By that logic, it seems we should also stop using it in contexts B, C, D and E."

Potential responses by the Complainer include:
1. "I see what you mean, and on further reflection, I realize that my demand was misplaced. Context A (like context B, C, D and E) has little relation to evil X. So even though we agree that X is evil, I can see there is no need to abolish the word in context A."
2. "I think I have a point, but you also have a point; let's discuss this further and maybe we can both learn something."
3. "Well, here are specific reasons why the term should be abolished in context A but remains appropriate in contexts B, C, D or E."
4. "You should realize that if you do not agree with me, you will lose social/professional standing."
5. "Stop 'splaining to me."
6. "You have no right to disagree with me; you must accept what I say because I am saying it."
7. "You're an Xist."

Too many leftists act as though the list begins at #4.

I think it does undermine the argument because it hints that the arguer doesn't understand why the phrase was uncomfortable. It wasn't the word "master" itself. It was the use and context of it, that a student who was black, had to call a person, who was more often than not at Rice, their Master when describing them. And so historically, the context of calling someone their Master to African Americans would overwhelmingly be related to slavery. There's a reason there is no protest or movement to change the term Master of Science for a degree, because there isn't really a grounded rationale for contextualizing the word master to the ownership/lordship over a person.

If you read the rationale behind why the Masters voted overwhelmingly for change, it was because that title does not accurately reflect their roles, and felt that it should change.

But regardless, I do agree that too many on the left immediately jump to some of the conclusions/responses you outlined. Far too many on the right do something similar, as well, just through their own lens.

(11-03-2016 11:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I think it does undermine the argument because it hints that the arguer doesn't understand why the phrase was uncomfortable.

No it doesn't. It simply asks whether, if the word is uncomfortable in context A which is unrelated to evil X, isn't it also uncomfortable in other contexts unrelated to evil X? That is a reasonable exercise in critical thinking.

(11-03-2016 11:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  It wasn't the word "master" itself. It was the use and context of it . . .

You chose response type #3. Your reasons aren't ultimately persuasive -- for example, choosing to conflate the academic title with the history of slavery is a choice, and one could just as easily choose not do so and to instead recognize the separate histories, which is what most faculty and students have done for decades, if not centuries -- but that's for another day.

(11-03-2016 11:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  If you read the rationale behind why the Masters voted overwhelmingly for change...

The are 11 colleges and 22 college Masters. Seven out of 22 (or even 7 out of 11, if they voted by college) is not overwhelming. When you consider the professional pressure to vote that way (a pressure which I know was definitely felt), the fact that only seven did so is unimpressive. Courage in academia may be rare, but at Rice at least, it has not entirely vanished.

(11-03-2016 11:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  ...it was because that title does not accurately reflect their roles, and felt that it should change.

As a further aside, I have had detailed (and, fortunately, polite) conversations in the past year -- on my own time -- with several Rice administrators, faculty members, students and alumni about this topic. From all these, the reasons for change remain thin and unpersuasive. These conversations made it clear that:
- Even in this admirably polite environment, much of the actual motive comes down to trendiness, or (relatedly) to not wanting to be seen as going against a trend that has taken hold elsewhere. (To be fair, it's not necessarily wrong to do things for public relations reasons, and it's typical in such cases to pretend that there are other reasons as well.)
- For those same reasons, the change was almost a foregone conclusion from the moment that idea was raised, and the discussions were chiefly to stamp the conclusion that had been ordained anyway.
- Among the faculty and staff I talked with (but not the students), some of the proponents were surprisingly uninformed about the college system itself, and particularly about student-faculty interaction in the colleges.
- Some of the other rationales offered were clearly post-facto justifications rather than genuine reasons, and were given chiefly as window dressing.
- A few of the Rice folks I talked with were unable to articulate ANY rationale that really holds intellectual water, and ultimately fell back on "Because I (or someone else) said so." This factor was far more common among Rice faculty and staff that most of us would expect.
- One of the Rice staff was an arrogant jerk about it.

(11-03-2016 11:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  But regardless, I do agree that too many on the left immediately jump to some of the conclusions/responses you outlined. Far too many on the right do something similar, as well, just through their own lens.

Indeed. However, your initial argument was not that the two sides are similar, but that moderate rightists distinctively lack empathy, while moderate leftists are distinctively thoughtful. That was self-serving and wrong. More generally, a subtle but recurrent theme among your comments seems to be an assumption that leftists are superior thinkers. That, too, is wrong.

(11-03-2016 11:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-03-2016 10:31 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(11-02-2016 01:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I mean, your post makes a good point about where the word originated for Rice's context, but then it devolved into quips about using the term master or bound in every context, which undermined the initial argument.

Did those examples really undermine the argument?

The situation is:
Complainer: "The word 'abcdef', like most words, has various meanings. In context A, it is an innocuous, respected and time-honored term. But in a different context, it is associated with historical evil X. Therefore, I demand that you stop using the word in context A."
Defender: "By that logic, it seems we should also stop using it in contexts B, C, D and E."

Potential responses by the Complainer include:
1. "I see what you mean, and on further reflection, I realize that my demand was misplaced. Context A (like context B, C, D and E) has little relation to evil X. So even though we agree that X is evil, I can see there is no need to abolish the word in context A."
2. "I think I have a point, but you also have a point; let's discuss this further and maybe we can both learn something."
3. "Well, here are specific reasons why the term should be abolished in context A but remains appropriate in contexts B, C, D or E."
4. "You should realize that if you do not agree with me, you will lose social/professional standing."
5. "Stop 'splaining to me."
6. "You have no right to disagree with me; you must accept what I say because I am saying it."
7. "You're an Xist."

Too many leftists act as though the list begins at #4.

I think it does undermine the argument because it hints that the arguer doesn't understand why the phrase was uncomfortable. It wasn't the word "master" itself. It was the use and context of it, that a student who was black, had to call a person, who was more often than not at Rice, their Master when describing them. And so historically, the context of calling someone their Master to African Americans would overwhelmingly be related to slavery. There's a reason there is no protest or movement to change the term Master of Science for a degree, because there isn't really a grounded rationale for contextualizing the word master to the ownership/lordship over a person.

If you read the rationale behind why the Masters voted overwhelmingly for change, it was because that title does not accurately reflect their roles, and felt that it should change.

But regardless, I do agree that too many on the left immediately jump to some of the conclusions/responses you outlined. Far too many on the right do something similar, as well, just through their own lens.

I'm not going to argue your point, but I never referred to Dr. Martin or Dr. Clark as Master while at Sid. The term, in actual use, is almost exclusively limited to 3rd party usage when describing / identifying the position (i.e., Dr. Martin is the Master of Sid Rich). It is never Master Martin or Dr. Martin is my Master, at least it wasn't in my day. So in that sense it is no different than a Master of Science.

I can accept the term makes some people uncomfortable because hearing it brings an unconnected association. That may be sufficient justification for a change to some. But I'd speculate that uncomfortable association isn't ubiquitous within any demographic, and that it isn't uniformly felt each and every time the word is heard.

We all have unconnected associations when we hear certain words. I do as well. Over time, those associations can diminish as the current usage becomes regular and supplants the old association, especially when the old usage is historic and not in current usage.

Note that I said 'can' diminish. Different people have different perceptions (and Myers-Briggs personality type indicators).

My family emigrated to the US in the 1800's. From what I've heard, my uncle would get in fights during the 1940's (as a teenager) when people would use the word 'kraut' or something similar in reference to him. This was during WWII. He dropped out of high school and enlisted in the US Navy, and IIRC, some of the fights occurred in that service.

The word kraut does not bother me, and yes I fully understand that the context between the terms kraut and master are vastly different. But I doubt that the word sauerkraut ever bothered my uncle either.

I'm just saying that it is possible to overcome the unconnected associations a person may have when they hear a word. I would expect that for some words it is virtually impossible to accomplish (frankly it's difficult to imagine an unconnected definition for words like kraut or the n-word). But when a word has very common, inocuous unconnected usage, and the old offensive usage is archaic (e.g. master), I'd think that over time it might happen more often that this discussion would concede.

Then of course, there's the question of whether it's fair to assume everyone will eventually, and then always, 'not make" the unconnected association when the current usage has become more ingrained.

Not arguing, just presenting some thoughts that don't get normally brought up in these discussions.

(11-03-2016 12:48 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(11-03-2016 11:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I think it does undermine the argument because it hints that the arguer doesn't understand why the phrase was uncomfortable.

No it doesn't. It simply asks whether, if the word is uncomfortable in context A which is unrelated to evil X, isn't it also uncomfortable in other contexts unrelated to evil X? That is a reasonable exercise in critical thinking.

(11-03-2016 11:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  It wasn't the word "master" itself. It was the use and context of it . . .

You chose response type #3. Your reasons aren't ultimately persuasive -- for example, choosing to conflate the academic title with the history of slavery is a choice, and one could just as easily choose not do so and to instead recognize the separate histories, which is what most faculty and students have done for decades, if not centuries -- but that's for another day.

(11-03-2016 11:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  If you read the rationale behind why the Masters voted overwhelmingly for change...

The are 11 colleges and 22 college Masters. Seven out of 22 (or even 7 out of 11, if they voted by college) is not overwhelming. When you consider the professional pressure to vote that way (a pressure which I know was definitely felt), the fact that only seven did so is unimpressive. Courage in academia may be rare, but at Rice at least, it has not entirely vanished.

(11-03-2016 11:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  ...it was because that title does not accurately reflect their roles, and felt that it should change.

As a further aside, I have had detailed (and, fortunately, polite) conversations in the past year -- on my own time -- with several Rice administrators, faculty members, students and alumni about this topic. From all these, the reasons for change remain thin and unpersuasive. These conversations made it clear that:
- Even in this admirably polite environment, much of the actual motive comes down to trendiness, or (relatedly) to not wanting to be seen as going against a trend that has taken hold elsewhere. (To be fair, it's not necessarily wrong to do things for public relations reasons, and it's typical in such cases to pretend that there are other reasons as well.)
- For those same reasons, the change was almost a foregone conclusion from the moment that idea was raised, and the discussions were chiefly to stamp the conclusion that had been ordained anyway.
- Among the faculty and staff I talked with (but not the students), some of the proponents were surprisingly uninformed about the college system itself, and particularly about student-faculty interaction in the colleges.
- Some of the other rationales offered were clearly post-facto justifications rather than genuine reasons, and were given chiefly as window dressing.
- A few of the Rice folks I talked with were unable to articulate ANY rationale that really holds intellectual water, and ultimately fell back on "Because I (or someone else) said so." This factor was far more common among Rice faculty and staff that most of us would expect.
- One of the Rice staff was an arrogant jerk about it.

(11-03-2016 11:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  But regardless, I do agree that too many on the left immediately jump to some of the conclusions/responses you outlined. Far too many on the right do something similar, as well, just through their own lens.

Indeed. However, your initial argument was not that the two sides are similar, but that moderate rightists distinctively lack empathy, while moderate leftists are distinctively thoughtful. That was self-serving and wrong. More generally, a subtle but recurrent theme among your comments seems to be an assumption that leftists are superior thinkers. That, too, is wrong.

To the bold: You're making that jump in logic there - I certainly don't think that. There are brilliant minds and thinkers on both sides, and complete and utter idiots on both.

Regarding the vote, it was 7-2-2. 7 colleges for, 2 against, 2 abstained. So 78% of those who voiced an opinion voted for the change.

And to your first point, my whole argument hinged on the fact that the term Master in how it was used, has a relation to the control/lordship of people (e.g. slavery). I see the logic you're applying, but don't think it applies so strictly and bluntly here, and actually lacks critical thinking because you are only looking at things superficially. Yes, the College Masters are not slave drivers and the term derived from the academic world. But your argument appears to be that there is no logical way to connect the term to slavery, and mine is that there are common themes between the two. The College Masters reside over the house and can wield considerable power and control over the lives of students. I think that relates the two enough that the if there are enough people who feel there should be a change, then let them make the change. I get why someone may not want to talk about "their Masters."

I do think this is the result of a trend across the country, but I don't think it's one of the examples of the trend that goes too far, unlike say, trying to rename the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton.

(11-03-2016 12:54 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(11-03-2016 11:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-03-2016 10:31 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(11-02-2016 01:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I mean, your post makes a good point about where the word originated for Rice's context, but then it devolved into quips about using the term master or bound in every context, which undermined the initial argument.

Did those examples really undermine the argument?

The situation is:
Complainer: "The word 'abcdef', like most words, has various meanings. In context A, it is an innocuous, respected and time-honored term. But in a different context, it is associated with historical evil X. Therefore, I demand that you stop using the word in context A."
Defender: "By that logic, it seems we should also stop using it in contexts B, C, D and E."

Potential responses by the Complainer include:
1. "I see what you mean, and on further reflection, I realize that my demand was misplaced. Context A (like context B, C, D and E) has little relation to evil X. So even though we agree that X is evil, I can see there is no need to abolish the word in context A."
2. "I think I have a point, but you also have a point; let's discuss this further and maybe we can both learn something."
3. "Well, here are specific reasons why the term should be abolished in context A but remains appropriate in contexts B, C, D or E."
4. "You should realize that if you do not agree with me, you will lose social/professional standing."
5. "Stop 'splaining to me."
6. "You have no right to disagree with me; you must accept what I say because I am saying it."
7. "You're an Xist."

Too many leftists act as though the list begins at #4.

I think it does undermine the argument because it hints that the arguer doesn't understand why the phrase was uncomfortable. It wasn't the word "master" itself. It was the use and context of it, that a student who was black, had to call a person, who was more often than not at Rice, their Master when describing them. And so historically, the context of calling someone their Master to African Americans would overwhelmingly be related to slavery. There's a reason there is no protest or movement to change the term Master of Science for a degree, because there isn't really a grounded rationale for contextualizing the word master to the ownership/lordship over a person.

If you read the rationale behind why the Masters voted overwhelmingly for change, it was because that title does not accurately reflect their roles, and felt that it should change.

But regardless, I do agree that too many on the left immediately jump to some of the conclusions/responses you outlined. Far too many on the right do something similar, as well, just through their own lens.

I'm not going to argue your point, but I never referred to Dr. Martin or Dr. Clark as Master while at Sid. The term, in actual use, is almost exclusively limited to 3rd party usage when describing / identifying the position (i.e., Dr. Martin is the Master of Sid Rich). It is never Master Martin or Dr. Martin is my Master, at least it wasn't in my day. So in that sense it is no different than a Master of Science.

I can accept the term makes some people uncomfortable because hearing it brings an unconnected association. That may be sufficient justification for a change to some. But I'd speculate that uncomfortable association isn't ubiquitous within any demographic, and that it isn't uniformly felt each and every time the word is heard.

We all have unconnected associations when we hear certain words. I do as well. Over time, those associations can diminish as the current usage becomes regular and supplants the old association, especially when the old usage is historic and not in current usage.

Note that I said 'can' diminish. Different people have different perceptions (and Myers-Briggs personality type indicators).

My family emigrated to the US in the 1800's. From what I've heard, my uncle would get in fights during the 1940's (as a teenager) when people would use the word 'kraut' or something similar in reference to him. This was during WWII. He dropped out of high school and enlisted in the US Navy, and IIRC, some of the fights occurred in that service.

The word kraut does not bother me, and yes I fully understand that the context between the terms kraut and master are vastly different. But I doubt that the word sauerkraut ever bothered my uncle either.

I'm just saying that it is possible to overcome the unconnected associations a person may have when they hear a word. I would expect that for some words it is virtually impossible to accomplish (frankly it's difficult to imagine an unconnected definition for words like kraut or the n-word). But when a word has very common, inocuous unconnected usage, and the old offensive usage is archaic (e.g. master), I'd think that over time it might happen more often that this discussion would concede.

Then of course, there's the question of whether it's fair to assume everyone will eventually, and then always, 'not make" the unconnected association when the current usage has become more ingrained.

Not arguing, just presenting some thoughts that don't get normally brought up in these discussions.

I pretty much agree with all of your post and your points you brought up. This issue isn't black and white, right or wrong, and is very nuanced as you mention. Words have power, but that power fluctuates not only from person to person, but over time as you mention.

(11-03-2016 01:01 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

Quote: More generally, a subtle but recurrent theme among your comments seems to be an assumption that leftists are superior thinkers. That, too, is wrong.

To the bold: You're making that jump in logic there - I certainly don't think that. There are brilliant minds and thinkers on both sides, and complete and utter idiots on both.

It is not a jump in logic at all. My observation is based entirely on your written words:

1. Yesterday at 1:21 PM you wrote:

Quote:On the left the moderates go "Hm, I know that the word is not meant to evoke references to slavery, but I understand that the word has obvious subtext that relates to slavery; therefore, if people would prefer that the name be changed, that's their right. I can empathize with that."

On the right, the moderates go "Well, that isn't offensive to me, it's so obvious it's not event about that. I'm not going to try and look at the situation through another lens and empathize with that person."

This characterization seeks to portray "your" side as distinctively thoughtful, and the opposing side as distinctively superficial -- i.e. inferior in thinking.

2. At 11:58 AM today you wrote:

Quote:"I think it does undermine the argument because it hints that the arguer doesn't understand why the phrase was uncomfortable..."

As I pointed out in reply, you didn't opine that it indicates that the arguer, e.g., questions the logical or factual basis of the claim of offense; you said it indicates that the "arguer doesn't understand..." The implication is that you believe disagreement with the claim of offense is necessarily based not on fact or reason but on a lack of understanding -- i.e. an inferiority in thinking.

3. Just now you wrote that the argument you disagree with "lacks critical thinking" and is "superficial" -- i.e. that it is based on inferior thinking to your own.

In light of that evidence, my observation that "a subtle but recurrent theme among your comments seems to be an assumption that leftists are superior thinkers" seems not only sound, but perhaps too mild. It's not actually subtle.

* * * * *

(11-03-2016 01:01 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Regarding the vote, it was 7-2-2. 7 colleges for, 2 against, 2 abstained. So 78% of those who voiced an opinion voted for the change.

You can try to spin it that way, but why? You said "overwhelmingly in favor", but only seven of the 11 current Master pairs took the position that the measure is a good idea. And as I said, that thin majority is especially unimpressive considering the professional pressure to vote that way.

* * * * *

(11-03-2016 01:01 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And to your first point, my whole argument hinged on the fact that the term Master in how it was used, has a relation to the control/lordship of people (e.g. slavery). I see the logic you're applying, but don't think it applies so strictly and bluntly here, and actually lacks critical thinking because you are only looking at things superficially.

Again, an inaccurate and self-serving characterization. I am not looking at this topic superficially (I almost NEVER look at things superficially). You BELIEVE that the details and arguments you point out are persuasive and sufficient to make your conclusion correct. I am fully aware of those details (have been for some time), and have considered and discussed them a length with many intelligent people over a fairly long period. Based on all of that information, as well as considerable reflection and analysis, my conclusion is that those details are NOT sufficient to make your conclusion correct, and that any link between the college Mastership and an antebellum slaveholder is still too tenuous and contrived to make the claims of offense objectively reasonable, or to make the proposed change either necessary or wise. That is not a superficial result, nor one that lacks critical thinking, and it is unseemly to label it as such.

In all fairness, I see the logic you're applying as well. It is a decent enough attempt, but I don't think it is strong enough to get you to the conclusion you prefer. Yet none of us on this thread have denigrated it as lacking in "understanding", or "superficial", or "lacking critical thinking."