Walking Out of Graduations Like Notre Dame's

[Reddy]

Could you quote where I said they should lose their rights? I've always been very supportive of the first amendment. Just wish people would do it for reasons other than social brownie points. They're not bettering the world by not listening to Mike Pence's speech.

First of all, standing up for and protecting marginalized members of society is hardly about social brownie points. That's an insane thing to say. But as to your last sentence, do you feel that all protest is a "waste of time" that doesn't "better the world"? Do you think there's ever an appropriate moment for protest?

 

For one, if you ask a gay kid in that audience if that walkout made HIS world a little bit better that day, he'd tell you yes. This is all about perspective. Where's your tolerance for that kid's perspective?

[Dick Allen]

I don't think this was a big deal at all. It's their graduation. If they don't want to listen to Mike Pence speak, and considering ND is in Indiana, they have heard him speak a lot more than most, and/or are protesting his views, walking away silently is actually pretty polite. Many parents left as well.

[bmags]

I would see any former president up until Wilson, aside from the "back from the dead" novelty. I would not see Trump. He has no respect for the audience, and this isn't a monarchy so I just couldn't.

[bigruss]

As a school based in Catholic religion, pretty much.

 

I agree with the not always agreeing with the stance of the school. But for someone to disagree with the stance enough to stage a protest but still not care about it enough to attend the school is just funny.

 

Did you disagree with Illinois enough to stage an active protest?

Once again, ND =/= Pence's views on gays, so saying they are the one and the same is pretty silly. The action was a result of Pence and his beliefs, and they are much more extreme than ND's position (which according to their site at least is pretty open - I don't know enough about their on-campus culture or policies to go further than that). I'm pretty sure that if ND made a PR statement saying they believe in conversion therapy then you would see a pretty big protest from current students and most likely a lot of prospective students wouldn't go there.

 

I did not protest anything personally, I also wasn't as political/angry during those days. I was involved in a lot of social justice activities on campus, including being an intern at the University Housing department for Social Justice and Leadership.

[bmags]

While I don't really like the guy at all, I would LOVE to see Jackson speak in person. He is a guy who is legendary for being a gifted speaker. I almost throw him in the same sort of category as Bill Clinton. I can't stand the guy, I think he is a spineless con-artist who I have zero respect for. But when he came to my hometown in 2007, I had to go see him speak. Watching him work a room was really impressive. Almost more impressive was watching him work the people in person after the speech.

 

Despite my personal point of view on Clinton, I can't imagine missing out on seeing a President speak.

 

I actually remember going to see Bill Clinton because you or Tex talked about how special it is to see a President/former in person. At the time I hated Clinton, came to appreciate the difficulties he faced after Obama lost the dem congress and was like "ohh, makes more sense now".

[bigruss]

I would see any former president up until Wilson, aside from the "back from the dead" novelty. I would not see Trump. He has no respect for the audience, and this isn't a monarchy so I just couldn't.

I remember back in HS, my freshman year we had to write to a politician (of our choice) for our civics class. I wrote to President Bush, who I really didn't like at the time. I didn't get a response, which wasn't a surprise, but then my mom tells me like 3 months later that I got a photo of the president in the mail but she threw it out since she knew I wasn't a fan. I was pretty stunned and actually upset, because regardless of how I felt about the president, I thought it was really cool that I received something from the White House (though I'm sure it was an automated response thing).

 

These days however, I'd probably shred anything I got from the WH.

[Reddy]

I actually remember going to see Bill Clinton because you or Tex talked about how special it is to see a President/former in person. At the time I hated Clinton, came to appreciate the difficulties he faced after Obama lost the dem congress and was like "ohh, makes more sense now".

I actually think that very lack of context is why young people - especially women - didn't flock to Hillary in the numbers they'd anticipated. Young millennials have never known anything but Obama, and didn't grasp the actual risk of a Trump Presidency, because they weren't politically conscious during most of W. I feel many millennials today have the attitude about Hillary you had about Bill back then. If they'd had the proper context of her in the 80s and 90s, and understood the risks of a GOP governmental trifecta, I think we'd have seen a different result in November.*

 

*She also ran a terrible campaign. I know. There are simply MANY reasons for anything that happens, and this is no exception.

Edited May 22, 2017 by Reddy

[southsider2k5]

How many times am I going to have to repeat this?

 

The term "tolerance" does not include tolerating someone's intolerance. You can't call me intolerant for being critical of a member of the KKK. That's not how that works.

 

I think what is being lost on many these days is that tolerance and intolerance are 100% subjective to a persons point of view. When you start drawing lines and saying it is OK to hate or discriminate, the high moral ground becomes almost impossible to own. One persons low life, is another person's life style. This logic is exactly why we never bridge gaps, and it is all an artificial attempt to keep the masses divided and easier to keep under one tent.

[ptatc]

Once again, ND =/= Pence's views on gays, so saying they are the one and the same is pretty silly. The action was a result of Pence and his beliefs, and they are much more extreme than ND's position (which according to their site at least is pretty open - I don't know enough about their on-campus culture or policies to go further than that). I'm pretty sure that if ND made a PR statement saying they believe in conversion therapy then you would see a pretty big protest from current students and most likely a lot of prospective students wouldn't go there.

 

I did not protest anything personally, I also wasn't as political/angry during those days. I was involved in a lot of social justice activities on campus, including being an intern at the University Housing department for Social Justice and Leadership.

No it's not. They are a Catholic based school. These are the views of the founding of the school. There maybe differences of individuals at the school but not the school. They won't come out and specifically comment on it as they aren't stupid and will avoid it.

[Reddy]

No it's not. They are a Catholic based school. These are the views of the founding of the school. There maybe differences of individuals at the school but not the school. They won't come out and specifically comment on it as they aren't stupid and will avoid it.

So you're saying the actual official stances and policies of the school are just a front, and that they actually DON'T stand behind their anti-discrimination policies, etc?

 

You're usually so on top of things, but this is a weird position to be taking for anyone not named greg...

[illinilaw08]

I think what is being lost on many these days is that tolerance and intolerance are 100% subjective to a persons point of view. When you start drawing lines and saying it is OK to hate or discriminate, the high moral ground becomes almost impossible to own. One persons low life, is another person's life style. This logic is exactly why we never bridge gaps, and it is all an artificial attempt to keep the masses divided and easier to keep under one tent.

 

I think that's a very overly broad way of looking at the world. I mean, slavery was 100% subjective to a person's POV. So was integrating schools and getting rid of Jim Crow. At what point is pointing out intolerant behavior wrong? If you don't point out the intolerant behavior, social norms never change.

[StrangeSox]

It seems pretty silly to say that you lose the "high ground" when you stop tolerating certain ideologies that are themselves hateful and intolerant. I'm pretty sure I maintain the high ground if I wish to see Nazism purged from the Earth. That there are inevitably gray areas and difficult topics doesn't mean the entire concept is invalid or that all viewpoints deserve to be heard and deserve a platform.

 

Mike Pence loathes gay people. He's attempted to enact laws that will harm them. He supports emotionally and physically abusing them in order to "cure" them of being gay. If Mike Pence had his way, he would cause very real harm to people that I love. It's not "intolerant" to vocally and forcefully reject his bigotry, and an ideal of tolerance does not mean you must treat all viewpoints as equal or even worthy of consideration.

Edited May 22, 2017 by StrangeSox

[RockRaines]

Not tolerating and protesting a guy who pushes intolerance and hatred in a peaceful manner is exactly what this country is and should be about. My parents protested the Vietnam war in college and they sure as s*** wouldnt have cared about if I walked out in protest at a graduation ceremony.

[ptatc]

So you're saying the actual official stances and policies of the school are just a front, and that they actually DON'T stand behind their anti-discrimination policies, etc?

 

You're usually so on top of things, but this is a weird position to be taking for anyone not named greg...

They have those policies and behind them but they also represent the Catholic Church which is steadfastly against them. So which do you choose?

 

All I'm saying is that it's funny how they pick and choose what and where to believe and how to express it. I'll take a degree from a school that represents a view that I feel so strongly against that I am now going to protest it.

 

 

 

[RockRaines]

They have those policies and behind them but they also represent the Catholic Church which is steadfastly against them. So which do you choose?

 

All I'm saying is that it's funny how they pick and choose what and where to believe and how to express it. I'll take a degree from a school that represents a view that I feel so strongly against that I am now going to protest it.

Christians have been "picking and choosing" pieces of that religion to follow for hundreds of years. Whats to stop them now?

[southsider2k5]

I think that's a very overly broad way of looking at the world. I mean, slavery was 100% subjective to a person's POV. So was integrating schools and getting rid of Jim Crow. At what point is pointing out intolerant behavior wrong? If you don't point out the intolerant behavior, social norms never change.

 

It was actually biblically justified at the time. Real progress on the issue of slavery really didn't actually get made because the North ignored the South. In fact the constitution tried exactly that by punting the issue forward a couple of decades, and then just ignoring some more. How did that work out? It took a four year war to fix.

[southsider2k5]

It seems pretty silly to say that you lose the "high ground" when you stop tolerating certain ideologies that are themselves hateful and intolerant. I'm pretty sure I maintain the high ground if I wish to see Nazism purged from the Earth. That there are inevitably gray areas and difficult topics doesn't mean the entire concept is invalid or that all viewpoints deserve to be heard and deserve a platform.

 

Mike Pence loathes gay people. He's attempted to enact laws that will harm them. He supports emotionally and physically abusing them in order to "cure" them of being gay. If Mike Pence had his way, he would cause very real harm to people that I love. It's not "intolerant" to vocally and forcefully reject his bigotry, and an ideal of tolerance does not mean you must treat all viewpoints as equal or even worthy of consideration.

 

I see exactly this being said of people the left doesn't support.

[Dick Allen]

It was actually biblically justified at the time. Real progress on the issue of slavery really didn't actually get made because the North ignored the South. In fact the constitution tried exactly that by punting the issue forward a couple of decades, and then just ignoring some more. How did that work out? It took a four year war to fix.

Andrew Jackson would have avoided the war.

[illinilaw08]

It was actually biblically justified at the time. Real progress on the issue of slavery really didn't actually get made because the North ignored the South. In fact the constitution tried exactly that by punting the issue forward a couple of decades, and then just ignoring some more. How did that work out? It took a four year war to fix.

 

I'm not sure I understand this argument here. History shows that one side was in the moral right on slavery and one side was horribly, horribly wrong. There's no even moral footing in the slavery debate. Just like there was no even moral footing on Nazism, or Jim Crow, or, over the last couple decades, LGBT rights.

[illinilaw08]

I see exactly this being said of people the left doesn't support.

 

The Left supports sending intolerant people to "therapy camps" to get them to change their sexual orientation? I had no idea!

[StrangeSox]

I see exactly this being said of people the left doesn't support.

 

I do not see liberals advocating that conservatives being given electroshock therapy, be sent to psychological torture camps, or be denied basic human rights simply because they're conservative. The equivalency just ain't there.

[southsider2k5]

The Left supports sending intolerant people to "therapy camps" to get them to change their sexual orientation? I had no idea!

 

The part I highlighted is absolutely 100% true. Violence and attacks are OK as long as it is someone they don't agree with.

[StrangeSox]

It was actually biblically justified at the time. Real progress on the issue of slavery really didn't actually get made because the North ignored the South. In fact the constitution tried exactly that by punting the issue forward a couple of decades, and then just ignoring some more. How did that work out? It took a four year war to fix.

 

This is part of the reason that there are so many sects of Christianity in this country. Lots and lots of schisms over slavery.

[southsider2k5]

I'm not sure I understand this argument here. History shows that one side was in the moral right on slavery and one side was horribly, horribly wrong. There's no even moral footing in the slavery debate. Just like there was no even moral footing on Nazism, or Jim Crow, or, over the last couple decades, LGBT rights.

 

They got no where by "walking out" on the issue.

[StrangeSox]

So the students should have risen up in insurrection against Pence? Or...put down his insurrection in the name of bigotry? Or the slaveholders should have listened to more abolitionist speeches? The analogy seems to fall apart pretty quickly.