Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://www.dailyemerald.com/2016/01/25/2438507/


http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/01/29/mlk-s-inspiring-have-dream-quote-survives-pc-nightmare-at-oregon-campus.html



It's seems that a quote, from one of the greatest, most inspiring speeches of the 20th Century, isn't "inclusive" enough for the millennial "social justice" types at the University of Oregon at Eugene. There was talk of replacing it for that reason in the lobby of the EMU. Fortunately, Dr. King's famous quote will remain after renovations are complete...for now.

Correct title for this thread: RIGHT WING OUTRAGE MACHINE HAS A SLOW DAY, INVENTS A STORY OUT OF NOTHING

 Peregrine wrote:
Correct title for this thread: RIGHT WING OUTRAGE MACHINE HAS A SLOW DAY, INVENTS A STORY OUT OF NOTHING

Well, no, considering the article of origination is from the campus publication.

It's always a hoot to see "Right Wing Outrage Machine" in type, though.

So, student's thought that there might be a more inclusive, relevant, and modern quote to put in place of this one and somehow they are at fault?

This thread is going places.

 Peregrine wrote:
Correct title for this thread: RIGHT WING OUTRAGE MACHINE HAS A SLOW DAY, INVENTS A STORY OUT OF NOTHING

Aaaaannnd...right on que.


I figured if I posted a link from Fox, the folks who get their opinions on news networks from 4chan would get silly. That's why I posted a link from the University's news service.


The point was that there was a debate, however civil. But it was a debate that was ridiculous to begin with. King's message resonates beyond mere racial issues. The SJWs at UOE didn't seem to understand that fact.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Correct title for this thread: RIGHT WING OUTRAGE MACHINE HAS A SLOW DAY, INVENTS A STORY OUT OF NOTHING

Aaaaannnd...right on que.


I figured if I posted a link from Fox, the folks who get their opinions on news networks from 4chan would get silly.

Did you just admit to making a trolling title and linking to Fox in order to troll?

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Correct title for this thread: RIGHT WING OUTRAGE MACHINE HAS A SLOW DAY, INVENTS A STORY OUT OF NOTHING

Aaaaannnd...right on que.


I figured if I posted a link from Fox, the folks who get their opinions on news networks from 4chan would get silly.

Did you just admit to making a trolling title and linking to Fox in order to troll?

Not really. I just know how some in the Off Topic board reacts to anything from Fox, regardless of whether it's a legit story or more partisan crap.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
I figured if I posted a link from Fox, the folks who get their opinions on news networks from 4chan would get silly. That's why I posted a link from the University's news service.

What's your point? I'm not disputing that the story refers to events that actually happened, I'm pointing out how the right-wing outrage machine (you included) blew it up into a significant event to complain about "SJWs".

The point was that there was a debate, however civil. But it was a debate that was ridiculous to begin with. King's message resonates beyond mere racial issues. The SJWs at UOE didn't seem to understand that fact.

Yes, there was a debate. Who cares? Debating things is part of having a free society. And let's not ignore the fact that:

1) The "debate" seems to have consisted of one student making a comment. There was no angry mob of "SJWs" demanding the removal of the quote, and there doesn't even seem to have been any serious chance that it would be removed. Even if you think the student's comment is the dumbest thing ever it's pretty blatantly dishonest to present it as some kind of broader attack on "SJWs" instead of "ONE COLLEGE STUDENT SAID SOMETHING STUPID". This does not get national-level attention unless the right-wing outrage machine needs it to make a political point.

2) The point the student made was actually pretty reasonable. Note that they did NOT say that they disagree with the quote. They merely asked whether another quote would be better. And let's be honest, that quote meant a lot at the time but it is over-used to the point of being a cliche in 2016. So it's a fair point to suggest that there's more to "diversity" than copying the same old quote over and over again.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Correct title for this thread: RIGHT WING OUTRAGE MACHINE HAS A SLOW DAY, INVENTS A STORY OUT OF NOTHING

Aaaaannnd...right on que.


I figured if I posted a link from Fox, the folks who get their opinions on news networks from 4chan would get silly.

Did you just admit to making a trolling title and linking to Fox in order to troll?

Not really. I just know how some in the Off Topic board reacts to anything from Fox, regardless of whether it's a legit story or more partisan crap.

No, pretty confident you did. Your whole title is bait. Let me help you make a non bait title. "Student's at Oregon University discuss removing MLK Quote"

You are welcome.

So no one should ever propose that they might want an alternative quote at some point? I don't see a problem with someone suggesting they consider alternatives. That's better than having such blind reverence to famous quotes that you never consider changing those put in public spaces.

So just to make sure I have it right:

1. The Student Union Lobby used to have a quote talking about "men". The students wanted something more inclusive than that.
2. In 1985 the quote was changed to the MLK quote about race.
3. The lobby is being renovated.
4. The Student Union went to the student body and asked: "hey, since we are renovating and having to replace the quote anyway, do you think we should put the same quote back or replace it with something else to make it more inclusive again?"
5. The student body had a discussion about it, and decided to stick with the current quote.
6. FoxNews goes "PC NIGHTMARE!!!"
7. Someone on Dakka calls SJWs stupid.

Did I get all that right?

Maybe change the thread title to be a little less inflammatory?

Also I think they should change the Dr. King's quote. Take it out or use something more inclusive.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
So just to make sure I have it right:

1. The Student Union Lobby used to have a quote talking about "men". The students wanted something more inclusive than that.
2. In 1985 the quote was changed to the MLK quote about race.
3. The lobby is being renovated.
4. The Student Union went to the student body and asked: "hey, since we are renovating and having to replace the quote anyway, do you think we should put the same quote back or replace it with something else to make it more inclusive again?"
5. The student body had a discussion about it, and decided to stick with the current quote.
6. FoxNews goes "PC NIGHTMARE!!!"
7. Someone on Dakka calls SJWs stupid.

Did I get all that right?

Exalt

 Peregrine wrote:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
I figured if I posted a link from Fox, the folks who get their opinions on news networks from 4chan would get silly. That's why I posted a link from the University's news service.

What's your point? I'm not disputing that the story refers to events that actually happened, I'm pointing out how the right-wing outrage machine (you included) blew it up into a significant event to complain about "SJWs".

Did you even look at the headlines?

Do you really think that FoxNews would take an article that was very factual reporting with a headline of "Martin Luther King Jr. quote in the EMU will return after construction" and turn it into an article with the headline of "MLK’s inspiring ‘I have a dream’ quote survives PC nightmare at Oregon campus" and lying about students saying that the MLK quote wasn't politically correct?

Clearly "Is there a quote that is more inclusive" is secret code for "the quote is not politically correct" and only FoxNews has the PC/SJW decoder ring.

 djphranq wrote:
Maybe change the thread title to be a little less inflammatory?

Also I think they should change the Dr. King's quote. Take it out or use something more inclusive.

More inclusive, eh? Recommendations?

I have no opinion on the topic.

I will, however, offer an alternative new quote that would fit in perfectly with a university.

 cincydooley wrote:

 djphranq wrote:
Maybe change the thread title to be a little less inflammatory?

Also I think they should change the Dr. King's quote. Take it out or use something more inclusive.

More inclusive, eh? Recommendations?

"CRASSUS ARMOURED ASSAULT TRANSPORT"

 Compel wrote:
I have no opinion on the topic.

I will, however, offer an alternative new quote that would fit in perfectly with a university.

Spoiler:

This. This is the path we must follow!

 Compel wrote:
I have no opinion on the topic.

I will, however, offer an alternative new quote that would fit in perfectly with a university.

Spoiler:

Advice for life!

 Avatar 720 wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 djphranq wrote:
Maybe change the thread title to be a little less inflammatory?

Also I think they should change the Dr. King's quote. Take it out or use something more inclusive.

More inclusive, eh? Recommendations?

"CRASSUS ARMOURED ASSAULT TRANSPORT"

Haha that'll do!

Either that or something from the illustrious DOOMBREAD

It sounds like a slow news day. The news must be waiting for something noteworthy to happen.

Peregrine wrote:

What's your point? I'm not disputing that the story refers to events that actually happened, I'm pointing out how the right-wing outrage machine (you included) blew it up into a significant event to complain about "SJWs".

Yes, there was a debate. Who cares? Debating things is part of having a free society. And let's not ignore the fact that:

1) The "debate" seems to have consisted of one student making a comment. There was no angry mob of "SJWs" demanding the removal of the quote, and there doesn't even seem to have been any serious chance that it would be removed. Even if you think the student's comment is the dumbest thing ever it's pretty blatantly dishonest to present it as some kind of broader attack on "SJWs" instead of "ONE COLLEGE STUDENT SAID SOMETHING STUPID". This does not get national-level attention unless the right-wing outrage machine needs it to make a political point.

2) The point the student made was actually pretty reasonable. Note that they did NOT say that they disagree with the quote. They merely asked whether another quote would be better. And let's be honest, that quote meant a lot at the time but it is over-used to the point of being a cliche in 2016. So it's a fair point to suggest that there's more to "diversity" than copying the same old quote over and over again.

1. "Right wing outrage machine"? How partisan of you to assume that I'm in the same camp as the crew that runs the Fox media machine, just because I find the idea ridiculous?

And no, Fox may have used an inflammatory title in their version of the article (which is an old tactic of media organs going back to the days of newspapers), most (but not all) of what was in their article was regurgitated from the Emerald's reporting of the issue. That doesn't exclusively make it more of the kind of so-called "right wing hysteria" that you see coming from conservative slanted sources.It's just another, typical, old school sensationalist headline.


2. Agreed. Debate is critical in a free society. So is having opinions. And I'm exercising my freedom to state how silly I see the subject of the debate as, and the fact that there was a debate/discussion on replacing it in the first place.


3. You ignore the fact that the articles (plural) reported that the Student Union discussed/debated the matter. It wasn't a case of just "one student making a stupid comment". That student was just one of the ones directly quoted. And nowhere did I say, nor did any one of the articles state or imply, that there were mobs of angry SJWs with torches and pitchforks raising hell over the matter.


4. It's not any more silly than what should be purely local matters and local crimes getting national reporting by other media organs to advance an agenda, or for ratings/circulation. It's all nonsensical, to be honest. And the idiots at Fox are not the only ones guilty of it.


5. Call it a "broad attack" if you want to, but I see it as just another symptom of the overall SJW phenomena that originated on the internet, and has spread into areas of "IRL" No matter how well reasoned and civil it may seem/be. And it's a phenomena that actually HURTS the causes of those ACTUALLY fighting for equality. In other words, do not make issues out of something where none actually exist in the interests of your "feels".


6. You might think it was reasonable. And that fine. It's your right. But it's also my right to call it like I see it. It's also my opinion that your views regarding the specific quote disrespect the memory of those who faced the trials of the Civil Rights Era, from Bull Connor's attack dogs to the march on Washington D.C, just because it's from a different era, doesn't explicitly reflect what some college kids today think is relevant, or is "overused". However, I also respect your right to express such a view, as long as you respect MY RIGHT to express how silly that notion is, and my belief that King's message resonates across the generations and reflects justice for all. Not just on the matter of race.

Dreadwinter wrote:

No, pretty confident you did. Your whole title is bait. Let me help you make a non bait title. "Student's at Oregon University discuss removing MLK Quote"

You are welcome.

Believe whatever floats your boat, Cap'n. It's no more inflammatory than "Domestic Terrorist Take Over Federal Building In Oregon".


The one who started that thread seems to believe that the ones involved are so-called "domestic terrorists". And thus, the thread title here reflects my opinion on this subject matter. 'Nuff said.


So, thanks but no thanks. Appreciate the offer to help, though.

d-usa wrote:So just to make sure I have it right:

1. The Student Union Lobby used to have a quote talking about "men". The students wanted something more inclusive than that.
2. In 1985 the quote was changed to the MLK quote about race.
3. The lobby is being renovated.
4. The Student Union went to the student body and asked: "hey, since we are renovating and having to replace the quote anyway, do you think we should put the same quote back or replace it with something else to make it more inclusive again?"
5. The student body had a discussion about it, and decided to stick with the current quote.
6. FoxNews goes "PC NIGHTMARE!!!"
7. Someone on Dakka calls SJWs stupid.

Did I get all that right?

Generally correct up until number seven. I said that the "SJW's" in question "got a case of the stupids". Reading comprehension and context are your friends.


The ultimate point is that I was expressing the view that to consider such was positively ridiculous (hence, stupid). Somebody was displeased with the fact that the quote from one of history's great liberators, and champions of justice didn't, according to their "feels", expressly reflect the entire alphabet soup of modern day "oppressed groups", but reflected justice for all. King's cause wasn't just for blacks or whites, but for ALL OF US. Such attitudes from those kids on that campus all fit the hallmark of the so-called "SJW".

d-usa wrote:

Did you even look at the headlines?

Do you really think that FoxNews would take an article that was very factual reporting with a headline of "Martin Luther King Jr. quote in the EMU will return after construction" and turn it into an article with the headline of "MLK’s inspiring ‘I have a dream’ quote survives PC nightmare at Oregon campus" and lying about students saying that the MLK quote wasn't politically correct?

Clearly "Is there a quote that is more inclusive" is secret code for "the quote is not politically correct" and only FoxNews has the PC/SJW decoder ring.

Yes, I did read the articles and looked at the headers. And I already addressed the issue of Fox's sensationalism in their choice of titles (typical idiocy seen in the modern media eager for ratings and circulation).


And yes, what it all boils down to is that the use of King's quote doesn't fit the modern dogma of "political correctness" on college campuses. Even if the students didn't come right out and say, it all comes down to it. Some of the student body obviously didn't think so, since it doesn't right out and say "It's not just about race, but for all peoples". That's less about some vast right wing paranoia and more about the state of people using common freakin' sense and not sleeping in high school history class.

"Going back to the days of newspapers." Damn, that was low. Or it had a case of the lows. Whatever the current generation is saying.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
1. "Right wing outrage machine"? How partisan of you to assume that I'm in the same camp as the crew that runs the Fox media machine, just because I find the idea ridiculous?

I don't need to assume anything, it's right there in your title.

And no, Fox may have used an inflammatory title in their version of the article (which is an old tactic of media organs going back to the days of newspapers), most (but not all) of what was in their article was regurgitated from the Emerald's reporting of the issue. That doesn't exclusively make it more of the kind of so-called "right wing hysteria" that you see coming from conservative slanted sources.It's just another, typical, old school sensationalist headline.

Describing how the conservative outrage machine works is not in any way a counter-argument to the idea that this is an example of it.

2. Agreed. Debate is critical in a free society. So is having opinions. And I'm exercising my freedom to state how silly I see the subject of the debate as, and the fact that there was a debate/discussion on replacing it in the first place.

So what is your position then? That once a quote is placed somewhere it can never, under any circumstances, be changed? That MLK's specific words are some kind of sacred artifact that must remain forever, even when the building that houses them is changed? That the mere suggestion of using a different quote on the same theme is such horrifying blasphemy that it needs your comment on it?

3. You ignore the fact that the articles (plural) reported that the Student Union discussed/debated the matter. It wasn't a case of just "one student making a stupid comment". That student was just one of the ones directly quoted. And nowhere did I say, nor did any one of the articles state or imply, that there were mobs of angry SJWs with torches and pitchforks raising hell over the matter.

If even the right-wing outrage machine can't find more than one student's comment about the subject it's a pretty safe bet that there wasn't much more to it than one student making a comment.

5. Call it a "broad attack" if you want to, but I see it as just another symptom of the overall SJW phenomena that originated on the internet, and has spread into areas of "IRL" No matter how well reasoned and civil it may seem/be. And it's a phenomena that actually HURTS the causes of those ACTUALLY fighting for equality. In other words, do not make issues out of something where none actually exist in the interests of your "feels".

The only people "making an issue about this" are part of the right-wing outrage machine. If you take away the obsessive need to constantly publish examples of how evil SJWs are ruining everything in our once-great country this story never would have made it beyond a brief comment in the campus newspaper.

And do you honestly not see a problem with your argument that merely discussing a subject other than your approved Serious Issues, even in a civil and well-reasoned manner, is a horrible thing that needs to be silenced? You're completely failing to understand the point of those words and turning them into an object of mindless worship.

6. You might think it was reasonable. And that fine. It's your right. But it's also my right to call it like I see it. It's also my opinion that your views regarding the specific quote disrespect the memory of those who faced the trials of the Civil Rights Era, from Bull Connor's attack dogs to the march on Washington D.C, just because it's from a different era, doesn't explicitly reflect what some college kids today think is relevant, or is "overused". However, I also respect your right to express such a view, as long as you respect MY RIGHT to express how silly that notion is, and my belief that King's message resonates across the generations and reflects justice for all. Not just on the matter of race.

Oh FFS, nobody is disrespecting anything here. Even the person who suggested an alternative quote said "I agree with it, but I think we could have an even better quote". Failing to grant one particular quote a permanent place of worship does not in any way disrespect the memory of the people who fought for good things in that era.

 djphranq wrote:


Also I think they should change the Dr. King's quote. Take it out or use something more inclusive.

Agreed... the quote should merely read C.R.E.A.M. (and maybe finish up with "dolla dolla bill y'all"... but I don't think we need to push the idea too hard)

I have edited the thread title to make it less misleading and offensive.

Users are directed to review the rules they agreed to follow when they joined the forum.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 djphranq wrote:


Also I think they should change the Dr. King's quote. Take it out or use something more inclusive.

Agreed... the quote should merely read C.R.E.A.M. (and maybe finish up with "dolla dolla bill y'all"... but I don't think we need to push the idea too hard)

and there should be a screen dedicated to displaying a gif 24/7 of someone 'making it rain' c-notes.

Oh boy. This is one hell of a can of worms. What happens if the #blacklivesmatter lot get wind of it?

And isn't this like...cultural appropriation? Trying to revise history and update a famous quote by a beloved black civil rights activist for the 21st century.



God, its hard to keep up with trends in political progressivism.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Oh boy. This is one hell of a can of worms. What happens if the #blacklivesmatter lot get wind of it?

And isn't this like...cultural appropriation? Trying to revise history and update a famous quote by a beloved black civil rights activist for the 21st century.



God, its hard to keep up with trends in political progressivism.

They could always change it to this one:

Martin Luther King, Jr., in Letter from a Birmingham Jail, wrote:
First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

Full Text

Well they decided not to change it so you can rest easy.

A similar case has arisen Oxford University where the Oxford Union voted to remove the statue of famous colonialist-imperialist Cecil Rhodes from Oriel College. The vote is non-binding, as the Union is a debating society.

The college authorities have decided not to remove the statue, since it would entail the loss of about £100 Million in donations and bequests, but they are going to put up a new plaque explaining Rhodes's place in African history.

However the controversy carries on, since Oriel reached this decision in a couple of days after having promised a six-month "listening" exercise.