Current Events > My former university removes 'racist rock' from campus

(+) Yeah! (+)

Kloe_Rinz posted...

It would be more beneficial to everyone involved if the students who found a rock offensive were removed instead

I bet you think racism only exists if someone is literally beating someone while declaring they are doing it because they hate that race.

Are we just going to pretend symbolism doesn't exist? A Robert E. Lee statue isn't literally racist either, but it does pay respect to a man who led the army of a rogue state that fought for slavery.

The rock could have never been called any racial slur and it could still become a symbol for X people to offend Y people. No, it doesn't mean every rock on the planet is offensive.

Everyone should never speak/write again if they want to pretend words mean nothing and symbols don't exist. No point in communication if it's meaningless.


---

hockeybub89 posted...

I bet you think racism only exists if someone is literally beating someone while declaring they are doing it because they hate that race.

Are we just going to pretend symbolism doesn't exist? A Robert E. Lee statue isn't literally racist either, but it does pay respect to a man who led the army of a rogue state that fought for slavery.

The rock could have never been called any racial slur and it could still become a symbol for X people to offend Y people. No, it doesn't mean every rock on the planet is offensive.

Everyone should never speak/write again if they want to pretend words mean nothing and symbols don't exist. No point in communication if it's meaningless.

I think you make a few big errors.

First you suggest that people can reasonably attach meaning to certain objects which is true, but your misstep is implying from this that all meanings attached to any object are reasonable. This is not true.

Similarly you seem to have no willingness to acknowledge the magnitude of the "badness" when weighted against the overall thing. They had a small statue of Bill Cosby at Disney, the statue was built specifically to honor the integrity and the value of him. And since we as a society realized lacked such moral character. It makes sense to remove it.

If a monument was built to honor something we don't as a society value any more then few would object to tearing it down. The issue is that you act like "racism" is this vampire bite that trumps everything else.

A statue of Robert E Lee could be somewhat reasonably be argued to be "a symbol of racism".

A statue of Thomas Jefferson, less so.

A statue of Abraham Lincoln, even less so.

A rock that was never anything racist to anybody, basically not at all.

But it seems like you or some people who think like you don't see a distinction on magnitude about anything.

If something is 99.9999% known as a significant geological landmark and 0.0001% known as "a place that was called the n-word once 96 years ago", no sensible person could think of that rock as a "symbol of racism".

Finally, what's really weird, is your logic on this gives intolerant people all the power. You'll never hear "sure nazis used the swastikas years ago, but we are going to reclaim it as a symbol of peace and tolerance!"

No instead "some people in racist groups flash the 'ok' sign, THE OK SIGN IS NOW A RACIST SYMBOL."

You should watch "Feels Good Man" it's a documentary about Pepe the frog, and how it was just a silly meme by an interesting guy, but then because some trolls used it, people similar to you insisted that frog (and even the creator) were by explicitly racist.

Why would you want to cede all ground to racists? You are giving them so much power by pretending that a single newspaper article from 96 years ago "infects" an inanimate object enough that it is undeniably and powerfully racist. Surely you know such a claim is asinine.

---

joe40001 posted...

So it was significant for geological reasons... and you think that means it was famous for being racist?

I went to college there. I don't know if I even knew the rock existed. It's weird that you have to insist something is famous (it wasn't) and that it was thought of as racist (it wasn't).

By your own admission the only thing notworthy about it was it's geological stance, so why spend 50k moving it when you basically admit that it had no racist significance.

Are you just kinda trapped by your ideology that you have to defend these dumb things regardless of how dumb they get? Or do you legitimately believe a single person 95 years ago can make something "a racist monument' by calling it a slur once, and then nobody knowing or caring in the intervening 95 years.

Isn't the moon racist then? A famous poet called it the n-word once.

I think to be logically consistent you have to think the moon is racist.

Man for a guy who spent a lot of energy complaining that people didn't read the article you didn't seem to do that much either or bother to read my post.

1. The rock isn't really famous at all. I didn't suggest otherwise and not sure how you got that I did.
2. The scientific appeal of the rock will naturally lead people to discovering the 1925 editorial. From that moment in any time that student walks by that rock, they'll be getting a reminder that it's the (racist slur) rock. This is a personal issue for the student.
3. Enough students got sick of this that they banded together to fund the relocation so they don't have to walk past it all the fucking time. You still get to study it, it's just somewhere else harder to stumble around on a regular basis.
4. If people are paying money for a rock moving service why the fuck should they be denied that service?
5. It's understandable that you don't know what it's like having to see racist symbolism everywhere you go but things that are simply academic to you can be deeply personal to other people and you don't have a right to tell them that their personal feelings shouldn't matter because you are apathetic yourself.

---

Kloe_Rinz posted...

It would be more beneficial to everyone involved if the students who found a rock offensive were removed instead

The rock isnt going +$100k in debt to be there though

---

Tyranthraxus posted...

Man for a guy who spent a lot of energy complaining that people didn't read the article you didn't seem to do that much either or bother to read my post.

1. The rock isn't really famous at all. I didn't suggest otherwise and not sure how you got that I did.
2. The scientific appeal of the rock will naturally lead people to discovering the 1925 editorial. From that moment in any time that student walks by that rock, they'll be getting a reminder that it's the (racist slur) rock. This is a personal issue for the student.
3. Enough students got sick of this that they banded together to fund the relocation so they don't have to walk past it all the fucking time. You still get to study it, it's just somewhere else harder to stumble around on a regular basis.
4. If people are paying money for a rock moving service why the fuck should they be denied that service?
5. It's understandable that you don't know what it's like having to see racist symbolism everywhere you go but things that are simply academic to you can be deeply personal to other people and you don't have a right to tell them that their personal feelings shouldn't matter because you are apathetic yourself.

+1

Meanwhile the double digit IQs will still go "hurr durr it's just a rock how can it be offensive????????????"
---

Tyranthraxus posted...

Man for a guy who spent a lot of energy complaining that people didn't read the article you didn't seem to do that much either or bother to read my post.

1. The rock isn't really famous at all. I didn't suggest otherwise and not sure how you got that I did.

Things like your next sentence suggest you believe it is well known.

2. The scientific appeal of the rock will naturally lead people to discovering the 1925 editorial.

This is nonsense. How many people have you ever known that they got so obsessed with a large rock they read up article after article dating back 100 years about it?

I'll answer that for you: 0

You have never met a single person who was so fascinated by a large rock that they read multiple articles about it going back 100s of years. Maybe you met somebody once who liked a rock enough to read the wikipedia page on it, but I'm pretty confident that's where it ends.

From that moment in any time that student walks by that rock, they'll be getting a reminder that it's the (racist slur) rock.

It was never named that though. It was called that once by the person in the article. It was never recognized or named that by anybody else. In no way is that the rock's official or unofficial name.

This is a personal issue for the student.

And not all "personal issues" are of equal gravity. Some people have "personal issues" that are completely unreasonable for them to expect society to accomodate.

3. Enough students got sick of this that they banded together to fund the relocation so they don't have to walk past it all the fucking time. You still get to study it, it's just somewhere else harder to stumble around on a regular basis.

Sick of what? And honestly how many of these students do you sincerely believe independently discovered a single 96 year old article?

Finally it does not appear the students raised any funds to do this expensive activity. "The cost to remove the rock is not expected to exceed $50,000 and will be paid for by the chancellors office using private donations."

4. If people are paying money for a rock moving service why the fuck should they be denied that service?

The students aren't paying for it, and also because you can't just remove things from campus because you can raise money to do so.

If I decided a tree was anti-polish they wouldn't let me get it chopped down even if I raised money.

People get denied unreasonable things all the time.

5. It's understandable that you don't know what it's like having to see racist symbolism everywhere you go but things that are simply academic to you can be deeply personal to other people and you don't have a right to tell them that their personal feelings shouldn't matter because you are apathetic yourself.

It's not a racist symbol. The newspaper's words were racist. The rock itself obviously never was. And I have never experienced agoraphobia but I still feel well within my rights to say "no we don't need to spend tons of funds to make the outdoors less upsetting for agoraphobics."

Even though I am fairly confident the distress an agoraphobic feels going outside is considerably more than somebody walking by a rock that was called a slur once 96 years ago.

If we are honest, and we are honestly "concerned" about the strong distress these people were experiencing. Then why would these student unions share the story that this rock was called that once?

The knowledge it was called that once was making people upset, not the rock itself. If this distress is so apparently unbearable for people, why would you tell everybody this and make a big story?

This story has made the single article all that more famous, and if the knowledge of such a slur was so distressing, surely this was a horrible idea then.

There's a million different ways to say this, but: pretending like this was a legitimate serious issue is obviously absurd. Fighting racism is a noble cause.

Whatever the fuck this is, this is not that, this is obviously illogical and unproductive.

You should read that NYT opinion piece I shared.

---

One_Day_Remains posted...

+1

Meanwhile the double digit IQs will still go "hurr durr it's just a rock how can it be offensive????????????"

It is weird that somebody can insult others intelligence while simultaneously saying something so profoundly moronic.

It is just a rock. It was never officially named a racial slur, nothing racist famously happened there.

One single news article 96 years ago referred to it as a racial slur.

That's it. And this article was not in any way commonly known until these people sought it out.

If you think that makes it a legitimately upsetting racist landmark, you're being so irrational that you are frankly are likely a lost cause.

I honestly couldn't make up a more obvious case of "SJW types making a big fuss about clearly nothing" than this rock story.

BTW. All of you diehard "the rock was racist" stans have to tell me what we are going to do about the moon. A famous poet called it the n-word, and by your self-proclaimed logic, night-time should be justifiably emotionally upsetting for black people in such a way that intervention is required.

---

I'm all for the removal of the racist rock.

---

joe40001 posted...

This is nonsense. How many people have you ever known that they got so obsessed with a large rock they read up article after article dating back 100 years about it?

I'll answer that for you: 0

You have never met a single person who was so fascinated by a large rock that they read multiple articles about it going back 100s of years. Maybe you met somebody once who liked a rock enough to read the wikipedia page on it, but I'm pretty confident that's where it ends.

This is a strawman. The rock is (was) the main geology exhibit on campus and anyone studying geology will be studying the rock at which point all it takes is 1 person to find the editorial, which they will, and they'll inform others.

You have conjectured this fantasy in your head of people looking to be offended by things and then researching for proof that they can be offended. Which isn't surprising given you've done analogous things here with COVID.

joe40001 posted...

Sick of what? And honestly how many of these students do you sincerely believe independently discovered a single 96 year old article?

Finally it does not appear the students raised any funds to do this expensive activity. "The cost to remove the rock is not expected to exceed $50,000 and will be paid for by the chancellors office using private donations."

Doesn't matter how many people "independently" found it. As I said, one person finds it, they tell others. And the students did not personally raise the funds but they started the campaign which led to the removal of the rock and that was funded through private donations.

joe40001 posted...

The students aren't paying for it, and also because you can't just remove things from campus because you can raise money to do so.

If I decided a tree was anti-polish they wouldn't let me get it chopped down even if I raised money.

People get denied unreasonable things all the time.

1. I didn't say students paid for it. I said people paid for it.
2. Find a tree with a history of being known as the "Subhuman Pole" that is also a major landmark in a polish community and you might be surprised at your results if you tried.
3. There's nothing unreasonable about paying $50,000 to move a rock.

joe40001 posted...

It's not a racist symbol. The newspaper's words were racist. The rock itself obviously never was.

Not to you it isn't. Other people clearly don't feel that way and you don't get to tell them their feelings are wrong.

I have no fucking idea how you can go on this tangent about Agoraphobia while completely oblivious to the vast increases of trigger warnings within the past decade or so. Those trigger warnings are there for people like you because people like you complained about it.

And I don't need to read someone else's opinion. I can make up my own.

---

Tyranthraxus posted...

Not to you it isn't. Other people clearly don't feel that way and you don't get to tell them their feelings are wrong.

You ostensibly you don't get to tell me my feelings are wrong then either.

I have no fucking idea how you can go on this tangent about Agoraphobia while completely oblivious to the vast increases of trigger warnings within the past decade or so. Those trigger warnings are there for people like you because people like you complained about it.

How do you figure?

And I don't need to read someone else's opinion. I can make up my own.

I guess so, but maybe next time put more thought into said opinion though.

Still waiting to hear what we are going to do about that racist moon we got. Because by your logic it would be a "racist symbol"

---

I'm really glad I got out of undergrad before all this signaling when mainstream. At the graduate level I was so removed from campus I didn't need to deal with it.

Autocraticus posted...

I'm really glad I got out of undergrad before all this signaling when mainstream. At the graduate level I was so removed from campus I didn't need to deal with it.

Universities haven't changed since you've been there. They are the same.

---

WeeWeiWiiWie posted...

Universities haven't changed since you've been there. They are the same.

Nothing even close to this shit happened when I was there, and I went to this literal school.

---

joe40001 posted...

You ostensibly you don't get to tell me my feelings are wrong then either.

I didn't say you're not allowed to not be offended by the rock. I'm not offended by the rock either. And moving the rock doesn't affect me in any way whatsoever so my motivation to care about the rock any further than this is severely inhibited. I wouldn't even be talking about it right now if not for this topic.

If moving the rock doesn't hurt anyone and does help some students feel better about themselves and is privately paid for and it's all legally done I don't understand why there's a fucking controversy. Maybe you can explain that one to me because it sounds to me like people only took up the position of anti-rock moving when they learned of the motivation for wanting it moved in the first place and that is something I take a deeper issue with.

joe40001 posted...

How do you figure?

You're asking how do I figure a statement saying "This place has been known to cause panic in people with Agoraphobia" was put there at the request & complaints of people with Agoraphobia?

joe40001 posted...

I guess so, but maybe next time put more thought into said opinion though.

Still waiting to hear what we are going to do about that racist moon we got. Because by your logic it would be a "racist symbol"

I'm not going to do anything about the moon or the far fetched reference to racism. If other people want to take on that cause that's on them and I wish them luck.

---

Kaiganeer posted...

bad, bad man. can't believe how much money it took to get him to leave those kids alone

---

Tyranthraxus posted...

I didn't say you're not allowed to not be offended by the rock. I'm not offended by the rock either. And moving the rock doesn't affect me in any way whatsoever so my motivation to care about the rock any further than this is severely inhibited. I wouldn't even be talking about it right now if not for this topic.

My feelings are: I'm offended that they removed the rock because doing so was obviously stupid and diminishes the value of my degree from that university by devaluing the intellectual credibility of that institution.

And by your rules:

1. You don't get to tell me my feelings are wrong
2. You are obligated to take my offense seriously and want to fix it.

If moving the rock doesn't hurt anyone

Who said it didn't?

If people can be hurt by a rock, people can be hurt by moving a rock.

and does help some students feel better about themselves

DoesItThoughThor.jpg

Maybe you can explain that one to me because it sounds to me like people only took up the position of anti-rock moving when they learned of the motivation for wanting it moved in the first place and that is something I take a deeper issue with.

Because it's dumb it validates the idea that black people are helpless houseflowers, and that racism spreads like vampire bites, more lingering in it's danger that fucking hiroshima (literally [ edit: to be clear the places that were nuked are 'cleared of fallout' such that people feel it's safe to live there, it's insane to believe that one invocation of a racist word makes an object more dangerous for longer than a nuclear bomb]).

It's extremely anti-intellectual and it bastardizes a good thing (fighting racism) into something asinine, such that now when people ask me "do you support fighting racism" instead of saying "yes obviously" I have to say "do you mean the real kind or the paying 50k to move big rocks because of one word said 96 years ago kind?"

It's frankly a waste of good will and effort that could be spent on the plenty of real valid problems out there.

You're asking how do I figure a statement saying "This place has been known to cause panic in people with Agoraphobia" was put there at the request & complaints of people with Agoraphobia?

I think you didn't understand my hypothetical. Many Agoraphobics do feel severe distress when going outside, this is a real feeling and I don't deny that feeling, yet I don't think we as a society would ever try to provide roofs to the outdoors or whatever it would take to calm them.

And that's my point. there are plenty of people who experience much worse distress. This rock shit is at absolute best an asinine distraction, and much more likely counterproductive because it let's people feel like they made a positive difference while making a neutral or bad one.

I'm not going to do anything about the moon or the far fetched reference to racism. If other people want to take on that cause that's on them and I wish them luck.

But you see the problem though, by your logic anybody would be within their right to complain about the moon as a racist symbol.

Can you see how silly that is at least?

---

joe40001 posted...

My feelings are: I'm offended that they removed the rock because doing so was obviously stupid and diminishes the value of my degree from that university by devaluing the intellectual credibility of that institution.

And by your rules:
You don't get to tell me my feelings are wrong
You are obligated to take my offense seriously and want to fix it

"Moving a rock diminishes the credibility of the University" isn't a feeling. It's an assertion of a consequence that isn't true. "I'm offended they're moving the rock" is a feeling but your justification for this offense is incorrect. You don't get to make shit up and then claim to be offended by it. That's just not how things work.

That doesn't mean you're not actually offended though. But I think you should do some deeper questioning as to why you're really offended and ask yourself is the problem in origin with the students or with me.

People are legitimately offended at the idea of interracial marriage. Is the problem the married couples or the people taking offense?

joe40001 posted...

Who said it didn't?

If people can be hurt by a rock, people can be hurt by moving a rock.

In an abstract sense sure moving a rock can potentially cause harm. See: the Belgian border stone incident. Moving this particular specific rock, however, doesn't hurt anyone.

joe40001 posted...

DoesItThoughThor.jpg

Uhh... Yes.

joe40001 posted...

Because it's dumb (truncated for space)

1. No it's not dumb.
2. It does not validate anything about "black people" except in the eyes of racists.
3. Racism is, in fact, very insidious and vampire bites aren't really that bad of a comparison.
4. You are advocating for literally ignoring racist symbolism and then claiming people not wanting to do that are anti-intellectual.
5. All racism is real racism. The fact that one particular instance of racism can be scrubbed clean with $50,000 of private donations suggests all the more reason to do it sooner rather than later.

joe40001 posted...

I think you didn't understand my hypothetical. Many Agoraphobics do feel severe distress when going outside, this is a real feeling and I don't deny that feeling, yet I don't think we as a society would ever try to provide roofs to the outdoors or whatever it would take to calm them.

And that's my point. there are plenty of people who experience much worse distress. This rock shit is at absolute best an asinine distraction, and much more likely counterproductive because it let's people feel like they made a positive difference while making a neutral or bad one.

Other people having things worse is irrelevant and this tangent of agoraphobia has essentially become "please ignore this rock because of starving children in Africa"

1. Other people suffering aren't your enemy
2. More than one cause of suffering can be dealt with at a time.
3. Even if your particular instance of suffering isn't being addressed right now, that does not mean people do not care about your suffering.
4. You should not interpret other people receiving relief for suffering that you do not experience as an assertion that your suffering is less important or less severe.

Hope that clears everything up. And if there's a place you'd really like to go but would be nice to have some shade, try asking. This rock would have never gotten moved if students didn't ask.

joe40001 posted...

But you see the problem though, by your logic anybody would be within their right to complain about the moon as a racist symbol.

Can you see how silly that is at least?

I can certainly see the silliness in using the moon as a pivot from the original issue. I do not see anything silly about discussing historical attributions of racism in real life things and how they might best be addressed. The moon is simply a topic of conversation I'm not interested in but I think if any academics want to talk about it then good for them.

---

Tyranthraxus posted...
"Moving a rock diminishes the credibility of the University" isn't a feeling.

Fine it makes me feel a lump of sadness in my stomach when I think about how low my institution has sunk in it's integrity.

It's an assertion of a consequence that isn't true.

It is true because it diminished the credibility of the university in my and other people's eyes.

"I'm offended they're moving the rock" is a feeling but your justification for this offense is incorrect.

"They're offended by the rock being there" is a feeling but their justification for this offense is incorrect

You don't get to make shit up and then claim to be offended by it. That's just not how things work.

I agree, we shouldn't indulge people when they get offended for BS reasons, that's just not how things work.

That doesn't mean you're not actually offended though. But I think you should do some deeper questioning as to why you're really offended and ask yourself is the problem in origin with the students or with me.

I think the students that were offended should do some deeper questioning if they were actually offended or just wanted to feel powerful and self-righteous by getting people in power to submit to silly demands.

People are legitimately offended at the idea of interracial marriage. Is the problem the married couples or the people taking offense?

I don't validate every offense like your rules seem to argue one should, so you tell me.

In an abstract sense sure moving a rock can potentially cause harm. See: the Belgian border stone incident. Moving this particular specific rock, however, doesn't hurt anyone.

It hurt me. It hurt others. You don't get to say it didn't hurt people.

1. No it's not dumb.
Yes it is dumb

2. It does not validate anything about "black people" except in the eyes of racists.
I honestly don't think you'd take a claim of racial offense seriously from a white person, suggesting you believe black people are more fragile which is racist.

3. Racism is, in fact, very insidious and vampire bites aren't really that bad of a comparison.
At least we agree on this framing as being accurate to how you see things.

4. You are advocating for literally ignoring racist symbolism and then claiming people not wanting to do that are anti-intellectual.

No, because the rock isn't racist

If you go through any rational thought nobody can rationally conclude the rock was a real active symbol of racism. One person called it that 96 years ago, there is no intelligent way to act like that makes it "infected by racism". The mere concept of infecting a rock by racism sounds far more like religious thought than scientific thought.

You are effectively demanding a rock be moved because 96 years ago somebody cast a "racism curse" on it by calling it a word once.

If I said a tree had to be taken down because 96 years ago a witch cast a demon's curse on it you would not see that as at all intellectual.

You are literally doing the same thing, but because you are a member of the church of wokeism this curse is "real" to you whereas a witches curse is obviously false.

5. All racism is real racism. The fact that one particular instance of racism can be scrubbed clean with $50,000 of private donations suggests all the more reason to do it sooner rather than later.

Just because somebody calls something racist doesn't make it racist. So no, not all things called racist are actually racist.

Other people having things worse is irrelevant and this tangent of agoraphobia has essentially become "please ignore this rock because of starving children in Africa"

It wasted time and energy that could have been put elsewhere. it didn't accomplish anything meaningful. And yeah, frankly if the world hunger relief fund announced this year they were spending a lot of time and money to move "hunger rock" because it was a symbol of hunger, all while doing jack shit to feed people, I'd bitch about that too.

1. Other people suffering aren't your enemy

I didn't say they were, I want to help people who are actually suffering.

2. More than one cause of suffering can be dealt with at a time.

Yes, but not infinite things can not be done at a time. And every time you spend a lot of energy on something stupid you are both giving people false self satisfaction, and wasting time and resources that could be better spent elsewhere.

3. Even if your particular instance of suffering isn't being addressed right now, that does not mean people do not care about your suffering.

I agree with this statement

4. You should not interpret other people receiving relief for suffering that you do not experience as an assertion that your suffering is less important or less severe.

I generally agree with this statement too

Hope that clears everything up. And if there's a place you'd really like to go but would be nice to have some shade, try asking. This rock would have never gotten moved if students didn't ask.

I'm not agoraphobic, you still seem confused about this.

For what it's worth, I suffer from chronic severe depression but I don't make demands that the world bend over backwards to coddle me.

Honestly facing and working through the emotional discomfort has helped me more than running away from it or demanding the world change to accommodate me ever did... just something to think about when it comes to reflexively giving into every demand made upon the world in the interest of people who are offended.

I can certainly see the silliness in using the moon as a pivot from the original issue. I do not see anything silly about discussing historical attributions of racism in real life things and how they might best be addressed. The moon is simply a topic of conversation I'm not interested in but I think if any academics want to talk about it then good for them.

Maybe reflect on how your stance leads to seemingly illogical and silly issues. And how as such it might not be an indication of the flaws in that line of thinking.

And I will say this, even though I STRONGLY disagree with your take on all of this, you have conducted yourself very well and respectfully in conversation. Arguably exercising more diplomacy towards me than I've even done towards you. And I wanted to point that out, thank you, and say that I do respect/value that.

---

Autocraticus posted...

I'm really glad I got out of undergrad before all this signaling when mainstream. At the graduate level I was so removed from campus I didn't need to deal with it.

I made it out just as the embarrassing occupy wall street thing was happening. Shit brought the homeless, drugs, garbage, and crime deeper into the campus.

RoseLuck2022462 posted...

I made it out just as the embarrassing occupy wall street thing was happening. Shit brought the homeless, drugs, garbage, and crime deeper into the campus.

OWS is honestly quite admirable when compared to modern stuff.

It went after the right people and for a damn good reason. The housing bubble really hurt everybody middle class and below.

---

Gonna number the bullets here for responses.

joe40001 posted...

1. Fine it makes me feel a lump of sadness in my stomach when I think about how low my institution has sunk in it's integrity. It is true because it diminished the credibility of the university in my and other people's eyes.
2. "They're offended by the rock being there" is a feeling but their justification for this offense is incorrect. I think the students that were offended should do some deeper questioning if they were actually offended or just wanted to feel powerful and self-righteous by getting people in power to submit to silly demands.
3. It hurt me. It hurt others. You don't get to say it didn't hurt people.
4. I honestly don't think you'd take a claim of racial offense seriously from a white person, suggesting you believe black people are more fragile which is racist.
5. No, because the rock isn't racist. If you go through any rational thought nobody can rationally conclude the rock was a real active symbol of racism. One person called it that 96 years ago, there is no intelligent way to act like that makes it "infected by racism". The mere concept of infecting a rock by racism sounds far more like religious thought than scientific thought. You are effectively demanding a rock be moved because 96 years ago somebody cast a "racism curse" on it by calling it a word once.
6. If I said a tree had to be taken down because 96 years ago a witch cast a demon's curse on it you would not see that as at all intellectual. You are literally doing the same thing, but because you are a member of the church of wokeism this curse is "real" to you whereas a witches curse is obviously false.
7. Just because somebody calls something racist doesn't make it racist. So no, not all things called racist are actually racist.
8. It wasted time and energy that could have been put elsewhere. it didn't accomplish anything meaningful. And yeah, frankly if the world hunger relief fund announced this year they were spending a lot of time and money to move "hunger rock" because it was a symbol of hunger, all while doing jack shit to feed people, I'd bitch about that too.
9. Yes, but not infinite things can not be done at a time. And every time you spend a lot of energy on something stupid you are both giving people false self satisfaction, and wasting time and resources that could be better spent elsewhere.
10. For what it's worth, I suffer from chronic severe depression but I don't make demands that the world bend over backwards to coddle me.
11. Honestly facing and working through the emotional discomfort has helped me more than running away from it or demanding the world change to accommodate me ever did... just something to think about when it comes to reflexively giving into every demand made upon the world in the interest of people who are offended.
12. Maybe reflect on how your stance leads to seemingly illogical and silly issues. And how as such it might not be an indication of the flaws in that line of thinking.
13. And I will say this, even though I STRONGLY disagree with your take on all of this, you have conducted yourself very well and respectfully in conversation. Arguably exercising more diplomacy towards me than I've even done towards you. And I wanted to point that out, thank you, and say that I do respect/value that.

Reply:

1. The actual credibility of a university is determined by accreditation bureaus and recognized accolades. Lots of Rs these days want to shit on places like Princeton just for teaching CRT as losing credibility. That does not mean it does. Princeton remains one of the most credible universities despite losing value in the eyes of those who disagree with it.
2. Their justification is that it's a permanent reminder of bygone racism and they would rather just not have to walk past it daily. All of that is a fact. You obviously just think they should be made to walk past it daily and be reminded constantly of 1925-era racism.
3. I do not believe anyone is legitimately hurt by moving the rock. No harm was caused. Note that there is a difference between offense and harm. People sometimes worry too much about the former and not enough about the latter. You may disagree with the move (offense), but absolutely nothing bad will ever happen to you because it was moved (harm).
4. I'm not the one suggesting black people are anything. Some students on campus wanted it moved. That's not a reflection on black people, it's not a reflection on students, and it's not a reflection of the state of racism in this country. It's just one thing.
5. I didn't say the rock was racist, just that it was a symbolic reminder of racism which, to see least some students, it was, and they wanted it gone.
6. The thing is racism is real and witch curses are not. That's why this should be taken seriously and not a fabricated hex. But if you find a satanic monumental rock on a church property, let them know and I'm sure they would be eager to remove it and I'd support them doing so.
7. Nobody called the rock racist that is a gross misrepresentation of the complaint.
8. Jack shit isn't not being done about "real racism" they're just also moving this rock at the same time.
9. Seeing as the main problem being caused by the rock was seeing it ever day causing stress and anxiety among some students, the satisfaction of having it moved is very real. This only affects a small portion of students at one campus but they still matter.
10. Just because you voluntarily subject yourself to suffering without complaint does not give you authority to demand everyone else do the same. And if you're not already doing so, I suggest talking with a psychiatrist about your depression because things don't have to be this way for you.
11. "Your suffering builds your character" is a generally horrible thing to say that warrants a completely separate topic. While I do believe in confronting physical problems head on, like the peanut allergy ban craze that I disagree with, sociological problems cannot be addressed the same way.
12. If that's the conclusion of the racist moon argument, I'd love to see it.
13. I do not like you and I don't think I've ever pretended otherwise but I never got the impression ever that you weren't having discussions in good faith and I'm usually willing to engage with people in that capacity even if I disagree. There's no requirement to insult people just because I don't like them.

---

Tyranthraxus posted...

1. The actual credibility of a university is determined by accreditation bureaus and recognized accolades. Lots of Rs these days want to shit on places like Princeton just for teaching CRT as losing credibility. That does not mean it does. Princeton remains one of the most credible universities despite losing value in the eyes of those who disagree with it.
2. Their justification is that it's a permanent reminder of bygone racism and they would rather just not have to walk past it daily. All of that is a fact. You obviously just think they should be made to walk past it daily and be reminded constantly of 1925-era racism.
3. I do not believe anyone is legitimately hurt by moving the rock. No harm was caused. Note that there is a difference between offense and harm. People sometimes worry too much about the former and not enough about the latter. You may disagree with the move (offense), but absolutely nothing bad will ever happen to you because it was moved (harm).
4. I'm not the one suggesting black people are anything. Some students on campus wanted it moved. That's not a reflection on black people, it's not a reflection on students, and it's not a reflection of the state of racism in this country. It's just one thing.
5. I didn't say the rock was racist, just that it was a symbolic reminder of racism which, to see least some students, it was, and they wanted it gone.
6. The thing is racism is real and witch curses are not. That's why this should be taken seriously and not a fabricated hex. But if you find a satanic monumental rock on a church property, let them know and I'm sure they would be eager to remove it and I'd support them doing so.
7. Nobody called the rock racist that is a gross misrepresentation of the complaint.
8. Jack shit isn't not being done about "real racism" they're just also moving this rock at the same time.
9. Seeing as the main problem being caused by the rock was seeing it ever day causing stress and anxiety among some students, the satisfaction of having it moved is very real. This only affects a small portion of students at one campus but they still matter.
10. Just because you voluntarily subject yourself to suffering without complaint does not give you authority to demand everyone else do the same. And if you're not already doing so, I suggest talking with a psychiatrist about your depression because things don't have to be this way for you.
11. "Your suffering builds your character" is a generally horrible thing to say that warrants a completely separate topic. While I do believe in confronting physical problems head on, like the peanut allergy ban craze that I disagree with, sociological problems cannot be addressed the same way.
12. If that's the conclusion of the racist moon argument, I'd love to see it.
13. I do not like you and I don't think I've ever pretended otherwise but I never got the impression ever that you weren't having discussions in good faith and I'm usually willing to engage with people in that capacity even if I disagree. There's no requirement to insult people just because I don't like them.

1. Public opinion of universities matters too, and that has been deminished.
2. It is only a reminder if they choose to let a single word from 96 years ago define it, and share that word and that story alone.
3. If no harm was caused by moving the rock then no harm was caused by leaving the rock there
4. Fair enough on the black people part, it's a good point that often times the people playing these virtue signaling games are white privledged people anyway, but it's clearly not a reflection on the state of racism in this country as it's only relation to perceived racism happened 96 years ago.
5. It's absense will be a symbolic reminder of lack of the apparent power of racist words to shape the world, as well as a reminder of how weak and virute-singnaling modern activism has become.
6. Racism is real, a thing becoming effectively cursed by racism by it being called a racist slur once is not. Curses and unholy grounds are not scientific. But if you find a satanic monumental rock on a church property, let them know and I'm sure they would be eager to remove it and I'd support them doing so. I think this is right and perfectly framed. A church is to the religion of Christianity as a modern university is to the church of wokeness. Agreed.
7. It simply is not. Their ire was directed at the rock for what it symbolized. But the rock has no racist history. Moving the rock suggests the rock was the problem, which is obviously silly.
8. It kinda is though. If you stay on top of where money, time, and administrative resources go, lots of it go to surface pointless type things like this, and far too little of it goes to meaningful things
9. The satisfaction does not matter if it was actually more about power dynamics, which often these things tend to be. I honestly would bet money if we could see into people's souls, that they were not actually upset by the rock, but more excited to launch a "righteous crusade". I don't think a reasonable person could be emotionally distressed by that rock.
10. I do see a psychologist, but my suffering isn't voluntary, just that we simply can't have a fair society if everybody demands everything they could possibly need at all times to feel comfortable. Part of being a healthy member of society is not being selfish.
11. I did not say suffering builds character. I said facing internal mental problems responsibly is typically the path towards growth and self improvement. Overcoming adversity and distress rather than fleeing from it and/or demanding you never face it is overall the better approach. Trust me, I've been on the other side of "pseudo-tough love" so I understand the pitfalls of that. I just also know unlimited coddling is impractical and conditions you to be more fragile, not less.
12. Yep. Maybe I should help raise awareness on it
13. I never said I disliked like you. :(

But yeah civil disagreements are good.

---

Love when people whove never set foot in an institution of higher learning think they have anything worthwhile to say about it

---

Shezarr posted...

Love when people whove never set foot in an institution of higher learning think they have anything worthwhile to say about it

Who are you talking about?

---

This was already posted over a month ago. It was just as stupid then as it is now.

---

joe40001 posted...

Who are you talking about?

You, clearly.

---

Shezarr posted...

You, clearly.

I said already multiple times in this topic that I went to this college.

I went to UW-Madison.

My degrees were
Communication Arts: Radio, TV, Film
and
Physics

---

Joe thinks his feelings as a geek well out of college, shitposting on Gamefaqs matter as much as the college students actively attending the university and being reminded of that article. That's cute lol
---

One_Day_Remains posted...

Joe thinks his feelings as a geek well out of college, shitposting on Gamefaqs matter as much as the college students actively attending the university and being reminded of that article. That's cute lol

All feelings matter, bro

---

joe40001 posted...

All feelings matter, bro

The feelings of rightwing trolls who get purged regularly for shilling covid disinfo dont matter

---

joe40001 posted...

All feelings matter, bro

Your feelings absolutely do not matter. You don't go to the university anymore and you're trying to tell college students how you believe they should feel.
---

One_Day_Remains posted...

Your feelings absolutely do not matter. You don't go to the university anymore and you're trying to tell college students how you believe they should feel.

You tell people you disagree with how they should feel literally every day here. How is this different?

---

One_Day_Remains posted...

Your feelings absolutely do not matter. You don't go to the university anymore and you're trying to tell college students how you believe they should feel.

There are reasonable things to get upset about and things that are unreasonable.

Demanding this rock be moved because a witch cursed it 100 years ago is unreasonable.

Demanding this rock be moved because somebody called it a racist word 100 years ago is unreasonable.

I won't sincerely say anybody's feelings are wrong. but as an action to fight racism this is dumb and counterproductive. There has to be limits to what absurdity we are willing to indulge in the name of SJW tolerance.

And this is well over my line.

---

One_Day_Remains posted...

Your feelings absolutely do not matter. You don't go to the university anymore and you're trying to tell college students how you believe they should feel.

Oh and one good counterpoint is this:
You suggest that proximity to the event imparts relative weight to the feelings of the people involved.

With that being said I am the only person in this topic who attended this school, so as far as this topic goes, by that logic, my feelings in this topic matter more than anybody else's.

---

Gamerguymass posted...

You tell people you disagree with how they should feel literally every day here. How is this different?

Yeah I typically do that in regards to objective stances such as trans rights and COVID-19 vaccination

Which you couldn't draw any parallels to this even if you so desperately tried
---

If you heard 86 years ago a newspaper called your street a racial slur would you be in support of tearing it down?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/26/sports/baseball/yawkey-way-name-change.html

back to your conservative cryfest

---

joe40001 posted...

Oh and one good counterpoint is this:
You suggest that proximity to the event imparts relative weight to the feelings of the people involved.

With that being said I am the only person in this topic who attended this school, so as far as this topic goes, by that logic, my feelings in this topic matter more than anybody else's.

Actually that's not a good counterpoint. Especially not just because you declare it is

You don't attend the university. You don't walk past the rock. Your feelings are equal in merit to all the other shitposters who aren't smart enough to figure out how there's more nuance to this situation than "a rock being racist".
---

BeantownHero posted...

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/26/sports/baseball/yawkey-way-name-change.html

back to your conservative cryfest

The difference being that Yawkey Way was named after a racist, and there was lots of opposition to the change, and this rock wasn't named after a racist. It was referred to as a racial slur literally one time by one person in one article of one paper nearly 100 years ago. And then never called that again. The two aren't the same.

---

One_Day_Remains posted...

Actually that's not a good counterpoint. Especially not just because you declare it is

You don't attend the university. You don't walk past the rock. Your feelings are equal in merit to all the other shitposters who aren't smart enough to figure out how there's more nuance to this situation than "a rock being racist".

Sorry, but as somebody who never walked past the large rock like I routinely had to endure, you have to right to speak to me or disagree with my feelings.

---

You never walked past it. Lmao

You didn't even know what it was until you made this topic
---

joe40001 posted...

1. Public opinion of universities matters too, and that has been deminished.
2. It is only a reminder if they choose to let a single word from 96 years ago define it, and share that word and that story alone.
3. If no harm was caused by moving the rock then no harm was caused by leaving the rock there
4. Fair enough on the black people part, it's a good point that often times the people playing these virtue signaling games are white privledged people anyway, but it's clearly not a reflection on the state of racism in this country as it's only relation to perceived racism happened 96 years ago.
5. It's absense will be a symbolic reminder of lack of the apparent power of racist words to shape the world, as well as a reminder of how weak and virute-singnaling modern activism has become.
6. Racism is real, a thing becoming effectively cursed by racism by it being called a racist slur once is not. Curses and unholy grounds are not scientific. But if you find a satanic monumental rock on a church property, let them know and I'm sure they would be eager to remove it and I'd support them doing so. I think this is right and perfectly framed. A church is to the religion of Christianity as a modern university is to the church of wokeness. Agreed.
7. It simply is not. Their ire was directed at the rock for what it symbolized. But the rock has no racist history. Moving the rock suggests the rock was the problem, which is obviously silly.
8. It kinda is though. If you stay on top of where money, time, and administrative resources go, lots of it go to surface pointless type things like this, and far too little of it goes to meaningful things
9. The satisfaction does not matter if it was actually more about power dynamics, which often these things tend to be. I honestly would bet money if we could see into people's souls, that they were not actually upset by the rock, but more excited to launch a "righteous crusade". I don't think a reasonable person could be emotionally distressed by that rock.
10. I do see a psychologist, but my suffering isn't voluntary, just that we simply can't have a fair society if everybody demands everything they could possibly need at all times to feel comfortable. Part of being a healthy member of society is not being selfish.
11. I did not say suffering builds character. I said facing internal mental problems responsibly is typically the path towards growth and self improvement. Overcoming adversity and distress rather than fleeing from it and/or demanding you never face it is overall the better approach. Trust me, I've been on the other side of "pseudo-tough love" so I understand the pitfalls of that. I just also know unlimited coddling is impractical and conditions you to be more fragile, not less.
12. Yep. Maybe I should help raise awareness on it
13. I never said I disliked like you. :(

But yeah civil disagreements are good.

1. I do not think public opinion of universities matter much. Professionals do not care about the public opinion of a university. If your argument is that potential future academics will be spurned, I'd argue the types of people being spurned is the intended long term goal.
2. You can't really just choose to not be reminded of things. Racism affects people differently even in the same races and some people struggle with it more than others.
3. Harm was being caused to the mental well being of the students actively walking by it. Maybe not a significant amount of harm but no significant resources were spent moving the rock.
4. I'd like to forget about 1925 racism as much as anyone. "Out of sight out of mind" they say. This seems like the simplest and most direct way to fix the problem.
5. We can instead put something else there that serves as positive reinforcement. Removing something doesn't mean we can't put anything in its place.
6. It's not a "racist curse" but rather "walking past this thing every day causes me discomfort because of an old journal that treated me like a subhuman that I can't forget." Understand that this has a real effect even if it's not a big one and it's the right of the students to ask that it be removed. In this particular case, the faculty agreed.
7. I think you're still misrepresenting the nature of the complaint. They do not "hate" the rock. They hated walking past it constantly. They only wanted it moved. Some of them will likely go on to study the rock anyway even after it's been moved.
8. There's lots of efforts to combat racism and even more being spent to combat the attempts to combat racism because racism benefits TPTB. The lack of "progress" isn't because we're moving rocks. It's because millionaire asshole fuck faces like Fucker Carlson are reinforcing that the racist status quo either doesn't exist or is actually desirable or needs to be intensified.
9. I mean I also agree that the rock is trivial in terms of contribution to racism today but that doesn't mean I agree that the complaints of the students aren't valid. This was a matter to be settled between students and faculty and it was. And the most important part is the students still there are happier for it. Even if it was a meaningless victory, the happiness is real. Even if the racism was "not real" the happiness is real.
10. I will not tell you how to manage your suffering but I will say things would be definitely be more fair if everyone got what they needed. Life isn't fair but it's on us to change that.
11. What you're saying is just a paraphrase of "suffering builds character" people all cope with their problems in different ways. It's up to an individual to decide if they want to suffer or complain. Your decision to not complain does not deprive other people of that path.
12. I strongly suggest using a proxy person to raise awareness for you who can do so in a more sensitive and nuanced way. But if you pull it off I'd be interested to see what comes of it.
13. Do not take it personally. I am just being honest with myself and with you which I think is preferable for everyone. And I do like to reaffirm from time to time that we can still be adults even if we don't get along. Lots of people don't have that luxury and they're running the government.

---

Joe's immediate silence after my last post tells me all I need to know. Cause we all know for a fact he doesn't do anything else
---

Probably worth noting that the "it's just a rock!" argument can be used both ways.

---

My only problem with this rock is that they didn't give it a public shaming before removing it.

If we eliminate all references to racism, racism will cease to exist.

---

One_Day_Remains posted...

Joe's immediate silence after my last post tells me all I need to know. Cause we all know for a fact he doesn't do anything else

I'm not online 24/7.

---