This made me laugh. :rotfl: The U.S. Border Patrol voltuntarily withdrew from a career fair at the University of California at Irvine because undocumented students felt "uncomforatable" with U.S. Bordor Patrol's presence at a career fair. Unless the Border Patrol was going to arrest them who cares if they are on campus looking to hire new graduates? PC nonsense strikes again.
This made me laugh. :rotfl: The U.S. Border Patrol voltuntarily withdrew from a career fair at the University of Californai at Irvine because undocumented students felt "uncomforatable" with U.S. Bordor Patrol's presence at a career fair. Unless the Border Patrol was going to arrest them who cares if they are on campus looking to hire new graduates? PC nonsense strikes again.
Not true. Native born Latinos like myself greatly outnumber Mexician immigrants. And if they have a green card then they are legal immigrants, right? :think:
This made me laugh. :rotfl: The U.S. Border Patrol voltuntarily withdrew from a career fair at the University of California at Irvine because undocumented students felt "uncomforatable" ...
The entire State of California has pretty much turned into a sanctuary haven for illegal immigrants. This shows how much power that the illegal immigration movement has when a federal law enforcement agency withdraws from a job fair.
This made me laugh. :rotfl: The U.S. Border Patrol voltuntarily withdrew from a career fair at the University of California at Irvine because undocumented students felt "uncomforatable" with U.S. Bordor Patrol's presence at a career fair.
"Something strange is happening at America’s colleges and universities. A movement is arising, undirected and driven largely by students, to scrub campuses clean of words, ideas, and subjects that might cause discomfort or give offense."
"Two terms have risen quickly from obscurity into common campus parlance. Microaggressions are small actions or word choices that seem on their face to have no malicious intent but that are thought of as a kind of violence nonetheless. For example, by some campus guidelines, it is a microaggression to ask an Asian American or Latino American “Where were you born?,” because this implies that he or she is not a real American. Trigger warnings are alerts that professors are expected to issue if something in a course might cause a strong emotional response."
"This new climate is slowly being institutionalized, and is affecting what can be said in the classroom, even as a basis for discussion. During the 2014–15 school year, for instance, the deans and department chairs at the 10 University of California system schools were presented by administrators at faculty leader-training sessions with examples of microaggressions. The list of offensive statements included: “America is the land of opportunity” and “I believe the most qualified person should get the job.”"
"The ultimate aim, it seems, is to turn campuses into “safe spaces” where young adults are shielded from words and ideas that make some uncomfortable. And more than the last, this movement seeks to punish anyone who interferes with that aim, even accidentally. You might call this impulse vindictive protectiveness. It is creating a culture in which everyone must think twice before speaking up, lest they face charges of insensitivity, aggression, or worse."
"There’s a saying common in education circles: Don’t teach students what to think; teach them how to think...
...But vindictive protectiveness teaches students to think in a very different way. It prepares them poorly for professional life, which often demands intellectual engagement with people and ideas one might find uncongenial or wrong. The harm may be more immediate, too. A campus culture devoted to policing speech and punishing speakers is likely to engender patterns of thought that are surprisingly similar to those long identified by cognitive behavioral therapists as causes of depression and anxiety. The new protectiveness may be teaching students to think pathologically."
"Emotional reasoning dominates many campus debates and discussions. A claim that someone’s words are “offensive” is not just an expression of one’s own subjective feeling of offendedness. It is, rather, a public charge that the speaker has done something objectively wrong. It is a demand that the speaker apologize or be punished by some authority for committing an offense...
...The thin argument “I’m offended” becomes an unbeatable trump card. This leads to what Jonathan Rauch, a contributing editor at this magazine, calls the “offendedness sweepstakes,” in which opposing parties use claims of offense as cudgels. In the process, the bar for what we consider unacceptable speech is lowered further and further."
The article, while lengthy, is worth reading. The institutionalization of these attitudes is going to impact everyone. I see it in evidence even in discussion forums like TOL, where we find these cognitive distortions alive and well:
Spoiler
1. Mind reading. You assume that you know what people think without having sufficient evidence of their thoughts. “He thinks I’m a loser.”
2. Fortune-telling. You predict the future negatively: things will get worse, or there is danger ahead. “I’ll fail that exam,” or “I won’t get the job.”
3. Catastrophizing.You believe that what has happened or will happen will be so awful and unbearable that you won’t be able to stand it. “It would be terrible if I failed.”
4. Labeling. You assign global negative traits to yourself and others. “I’m undesirable,” or “He’s a rotten person.”
5. Discounting positives. You claim that the positive things you or others do are trivial. “That’s what wives are supposed to do—so it doesn’t count when she’s nice to me,” or “Those successes were easy, so they don’t matter.”
6. Negative filtering. You focus almost exclusively on the negatives and seldom notice the positives. “Look at all of the people who don’t like me.”
7. Overgeneralizing. You perceive a global pattern of negatives on the basis of a single incident. “This generally happens to me. I seem to fail at a lot of things.”
8. Dichotomous thinking. You view events or people in all-or-nothing terms. “I get rejected by everyone,” or “It was a complete waste of time.”
9. Blaming. You focus on the other person as the source of your negative feelings, and you refuse to take responsibility for changing yourself. “She’s to blame for the way I feel now,” or “My parents caused all my problems.”
10. What if? You keep asking a series of questions about “what if” something happens, and you fail to be satisfied with any of the answers. “Yeah, but what if I get anxious?,” or “What if I can’t catch my breath?”
11. Emotional reasoning. You let your feelings guide your interpretation of reality. “I feel depressed; therefore, my marriage is not working out.”
12. Inability to disconfirm. You reject any evidence or arguments that might contradict your negative thoughts. For example, when you have the thought I’m unlovable, you reject as irrelevant any evidence that people like you. Consequently, your thought cannot be refuted. “That’s not the real issue. There are deeper problems. There are other factors.”
Src: here
While academia is the focus of the article, the points delivered therein have been creeping into the church militant for some time leading to dilution of the teachings therein. First there is the loose-leaf Bible being used in not a few churches, wherein things taught in the Bible are not agreed to by its pastors or leaders that deprives the Church of the infallible tool it needs to equip the saints. And secondly, there is the theology of accommodation, wherein things in Scripture that are seen as giving offense to the sensibilities of some are never taught or preached, dilutes the Gospel so that it becomes meaningless.
Truth isn't a matter of one's personal viewpoint. Folks must learn to see things as they really are, not as they imagine they are. Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it or who says it. No matter what someone believes, it never changes the facts. If they are there, the facts always speak for themselves. The truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of people. If sixty-million people say a foolish thing, it's still a foolish thing. (Hat tip here to Anatole France.)
We have gotten accustomed to the blurred puffs of gray fog that pass for doctrine in churches and expect nothing better. From some previously unimpeachable sources are now coming vague statements consisting of a milky admixture of Scripture, science, and human sentiment that is true to none of its ingredients because each one works to cancel the others out. Little by little Christians these days are being brainwashed. One evidence is that increasing numbers of them are becoming ashamed to be found unequivocally on the side of truth. They say they believe, but their beliefs have been so diluted as to be impossible of clear definition. Moral power has always accompanied definite beliefs. Great saints have always been dogmatic. We need a return to a gentle dogmatism that smiles while it stands stubborn and firm on the Word of God that lives and abides forever. - A. W. Tozer.
The old guard rejects anything outside there programming, be it govern-mental or theology that deals with the artifice/straw man who is legally dead anyway so the strict way of their dogma has no relation to the liberty in the Spirit, some Dogma treats formulated from some book that is even stated as being dead 2Cor 3:6.
And those who proclaim to be Christ like are the most anti Christ while supporting this world invisible lines, national borders and barriers that doesn't exist in the Spiritual Covenant since time began, All things are one in Christ which is all things to all people, yet theology bemoans worldly concerns while being exposed as it's number one supporter, Ra Ra Patriot surname actors on the play ground of Divine contrast.
The old guard rejects anything outside there programming, be it govern-mental or theology that deals with the artifice/straw man who is legally dead anyway so the strict way of their dogma has no relation to the liberty in the Spirit, some Dogma treats formulated from some book that is even stated as being dead 2Cor 3:6.
"Something strange is happening at America’s colleges and universities. A movement is arising, undirected and driven largely by students, to scrub campuses clean of words, ideas, and subjects that might cause discomfort or give offense."
And if they have a green card then they are legal immigrants, right? :think:
