BF2S Forums Should college athletes be allows to unionize?

Cybargs wrote:

first amendment rights don't apply to the workplace and uni. mchrystal got fired for talking shit about bama.

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Literally the only vaguely left group supporting the frat.

Cybargs wrote:

you act like the US is the only country with the cooncept of freedom of speech

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Jay wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Literally the only vaguely left group supporting the frat.

Leftists only support speech they agree with. Everything else is to be banned because it might offend someone and hurt their feelings or 'act as a trigger'. The herd preaching tolerance are violently intolerant towards those they've chosen to exclude. It's kind of funny really.

that whole "act as a trigger" line is utter bullshit.  The amount of internet complaining about tumblr SJWs is strictly that - internet grumbling.  That shit does not exist in real life anywhere near what people on the internet pretend it does.  Sure, people are hypocrites - and that is not endemic to the "left" only.  It's like so-called free-market proponents doing everything possible to make sure governments interfere in markets.

Have you ever heard of anyone in real life complaining about an event acting as a trigger?

uziq wrote:

Jay wrote:

uziq wrote:

that's liberals actually. the doctrinal line of the left is that emphasising difference – identity politics – is an ideological deadend. their rhetoric tends to emphasise commonality rather than 'respecting difference' or pussyfooting around issues. the basis of all analysis begins with Marxian economics and the concepts of labour/capital/property, and the engine is dialectical materialism rather than social progressivism, per se. so you're talking about liberals.

There's really no difference here. Progressive, Marxist, Anarchist, Stalinist, they all vote blue and pick and choose paradoxical mixtures of the belief systems. The right wing does it too, but they're not sitting there trying to convince everyone how smart and superior they are for believing in failed economic systems that killed a hundred million people last century while espousing anti-vaccination theories, gluten free lifestyles, and applauding the destruction of GMO crops that could cure illnesses for a billion poor people.

well, jay, i'm just telling you that any 'left' ideology will not emphasize difference or positive discrimination and end up in the political cul-de-sac you just outlined (cf. the culture-wars between first-wave feminism and the beret-wearing campus marxists in the mid 20th century; the whole argument consisting of a fundamental disagreement in the cause of 'patriarchy': is it something that can be remedied within liberal democracy through policy and changing institutions, or is it all a consequence of capitalist economics itself). the former analysis, which today cashes out as mostly bickering over 'triggers' and getting hopelessly embroiled in identity politics, and tip-toeing around various segmented political micro-issues, is not a feature of any left discourse. the over-riding ethos of nearly all leftist discourse is solidarity or commonality of some sort, not endlessly promoting the individual's rights and feelings (again, that's liberalism by definition).

also a little puzzling how you say 'there's no difference here' and then ascribe to all political philosophy left-of-centre the catastrophic results of two badly interpreted marxist dictatorships. that's a bit like criticising a senator in wisconsin by talking about a military junta in burma. again: if the political scale in america is so distorted that anything left of the centre-right democratic norm is a scary 'Left' that ends in the gulag, then that's a perspectival slant you should correct, not vice versa. that is not the way political philosophies are discussed in normal discourse. just sounds like your own confusing rhetorical gloss.

and yes, that entire group of the american populace who mix-and-match disparate political views in a hodgepodge of pragmatism to suit their own selfish, immediate needs. you mean like the big government army career handout babies who are more familiar with toting voluminous ayn rand books than heavy ordnance? does sound familiar, actually. oh, how intellectually bankrupt those lefties are!!!

pirana6 wrote:

Jay wrote:

uziq wrote:

well, jay, i'm just telling you that any 'left' ideology will not emphasize difference or positive discrimination and end up in the political cul-de-sac you just outlined (cf. the culture-wars between first-wave feminism and the beret-wearing campus marxists in the mid 20th century; the whole argument consisting of a fundamental disagreement in the cause of 'patriarchy': is it something that can be remedied within liberal democracy through policy and changing institutions, or is it all a consequence of capitalist economics itself). the former analysis, which today cashes out as mostly bickering over 'triggers' and getting hopelessly embroiled in identity politics, and tip-toeing around various segmented political micro-issues, is not a feature of any left discourse. the over-riding ethos of nearly all leftist discourse is solidarity or commonality of some sort, not endlessly promoting the individual's rights and feelings (again, that's liberalism by definition).

also a little puzzling how you say 'there's no difference here' and then ascribe to all political philosophy left-of-centre the catastrophic results of two badly interpreted marxist dictatorships. that's a bit like criticising a senator in wisconsin by talking about a military junta in burma. again: if the political scale in america is so distorted that anything left of the centre-right democratic norm is a scary 'Left' that ends in the gulag, then that's a perspectival slant you should correct, not vice versa. that is not the way political philosophies are discussed in normal discourse. just sounds like your own confusing rhetorical gloss.

and yes, that entire group of the american populace who mix-and-match disparate political views in a hodgepodge of pragmatism to suit their own selfish, immediate needs. you mean like the big government army career handout babies who are more familiar with toting voluminous ayn rand books than heavy ordnance? does sound familiar, actually. oh, how intellectually bankrupt those lefties are!!!

It's just the consequence of having two parties. They try to squeeze as many conflicting ideologies as possible under one tent in order to win elections. It's how you end up with a party full of people who scoff at religion, tell the world they believe in science, and then propagate myths about vaccines and GMO crops. Or people who want to legalize marijuana on the one hand under the banner of freedom and justice but who then demonize nicotine addicts to the point that they're ostracized from polite society. Or those that want to be inclusive and add Muslim religious holidays to the school calendar but ban all mention of Christmas. Or those that want cops in every school in order to prevent school shootings but become outraged when those same cops are used by the school principal to break up fights and their kid ends up in handcuffs and with a criminal record.

I could go on, the contradictions are nearly endless... but you get the point. There's no rational basis, and there's certainly no pure ideologies.

I think you're putting a lot of ideas about those types of people under the "liberal" umbrella. I myself am pretty liberal but think most of those ideas are as stupid as you. For example, anti-vaccination people aren't necessarily "liberal" as they are necessarily "completely fucked in the head".
Yes, we NEED GMO crops because we need more food in the world. If/when we find potatoes that grow like weeds in the plains of africa and help ebb world hunger, we've progressed as a society.
How about, in public school, exclude all holidays that aren't government days. You want muslim holidays? Make them official.
etc.
etc.

And yes the right wing must assuredly "sits there trying to convince everyone how smart and superior they are". There's roughly a quarter billion dead horses flogged by those who make the argument against conservatives who:

Want smaller government but can't wait to make sure it tells a woman what to do with her body.
Cannot understand why having the 10 commandments outside the capital building is a bad thing, only to seemingly have no clue what that whole revolutionary war was fought for.
etc.
etc.

Contradictions exist aplenty on both sides.

Thousands of families across the Empire State said no to standardized testing, boycotting the state-mandated English Language Arts exams which began Tuesday.

While accurate figures were hard to come by, testing opponents, parents groups, and school officials from Boerum Hill, Brooklyn, to Buffalo all agreed the number is likely to far exceed the 60,000 students who refused to take the test last year.
...
“Essentially I see no diagnostic educational benefit to my child,” she said. “I see no compelling evidence this is a fair and accurate way to assess children or teachers. All this emphasis on testing actually interferes with meaningful learning and assessment.”

Other parents whose kids opted-out echoed Cohen’s complaints that teachers are being forced to “teach to the test” to preserve their jobs — and their kids were being short-changed as a result.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

your comment was - the parents are shortchanging their kids by not letting them learn how to take tests.  OK, bro. If that's your main concern, cool.  There's way more important things to worry about than little Jimmy not getting his test-taking reps in.  There is a valid argument to be made against standardized testing, and the methods and incentives around it need to be addressed.

Your and Jay's anecdotal comments about teachers complaining and helicopter parents are just that - opinions and comments.  For Jay specifically, here's a little bit of reality for you - a lot of people everywhere hate their jobs.  It's a reality that is not exclusive to teaching.  Two of my best friends' wives are teachers and my experience is different than yours - but I'm not dense enough to ascribe my experience to the general population like you two weirdos do.  But MacB, I laugh how you reduce the people into two distinct groups - helicopter moms and anti-government weirdos.  Good stuff.

Please don't ever change, you two.

Jay wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

your comment was - the parents are shortchanging their kids by not letting them learn how to take tests.  OK, bro. If that's your main concern, cool.  There's way more important things to worry about than little Jimmy not getting his test-taking reps in.  There is a valid argument to be made against standardized testing, and the methods and incentives around it need to be addressed.

Your and Jay's anecdotal comments about teachers complaining and helicopter parents are just that - opinions and comments.  For Jay specifically, here's a little bit of reality for you - a lot of people everywhere hate their jobs.  It's a reality that is not exclusive to teaching.  Two of my best friends' wives are teachers and my experience is different than yours - but I'm not dense enough to ascribe my experience to the general population like you two weirdos do.  But MacB, I laugh how you reduce the people into two distinct groups - helicopter moms and anti-government weirdos.  Good stuff.

Please don't ever change, you two.

I was sitting in the teacher's lounge at a school i was redesigning last summer when a bunch of them came in and sat down. De Blasio had negotiated a 15% retroactive pay raise for them plus guaranteed yearly increases for however many years the contract was negotiated, and they were bitching it wasn't enough! Like holy shit, I want my salary to go up 15% on the whim of the mayor.

My views aren't based on two teachers, but hundreds. I have a lot of teacher friends and they're generally nice people and mean well, but if they start talking about work, run for the hills. So, anything regarding education, salaries, tests, whatever, the last person I'd ask for their opinion are the teachers themselves because they're so fucking jaded.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

The goal is to create some sort of benchmark to score both teachers and students so there is a baseline for comparison and ultimately, to improve the education of American youth.  However, tying funding and job performance reviews is putting an undue burden on teachers and administrators

Dilbert_X wrote:

One of the teachers I know, and I don't know hundreds, has a class of 40 and is allowed a 1% failure rate, ie 0.4 of a pupil is allowed to fail each year, and his career progression and salary is tied to it.

In general, across job types, people who have only had one kind of job and no experience of switching careers see no way out and do tend to be pessimistic and morose, and often 'entitled' with it as its the only way they see to progress. If they really do have only one marketable skill, and only one industry interested in that skill then bad luck for them.
I've seen it with factory workers, construction workers etc 'I've been doing this work for five years and I'm due a promotion' - nope.