Random Politics & Religion #00

sexist

1.
attitudes or behavior based on traditional stereotypes of gender roles.
2.
discrimination or devaluation based on a person's sex or gender, as in restricted job opportunities, especially such discrimination directed against women.
3.
ingrained and institutionalized prejudice against or hatred of women; misogyny.

I had a journalism professor who had some pretty great grading standards.

You lost one letter grade for every grammatical error or typo in regular words of an article or press release.

You got a zero on the assignment if you incorrectly spelled a proper name of any kind.

So it's whitey fault then? Figures.

Exactly which definition are you referring to?

I had a journalism professor who had some pretty great grading standards.

You lost one letter grade for every grammatical error or typo in regular words of an article or press release.

You got a zero on the assignment if you incorrectly spelled a proper name of any kind.

I dunno...if you want your career to be writing then spelling should probably be one of your priorities..

I guess today is "Ravael's Anecdotes Day". I had a college professor that made a girl cry. Homework was due before the start of class, and she handed her homework to fellow classmates to pass the paper down to the professor's desk. The paper hit his desk a couple seconds after the hour. He handed it back to her and gave her a zero. I wonder how well that would go for him at other universities nowadays.

That's what editors are for.

Editors must suck then. I rarely see an online article without a typo.

Editors must suck then. I rarely see an online article without a typo.

Depends. It's a pretty important life lesson.

It doesn't necessarily matter how well you do something if you can't complete it in the given timeframe.
Also, knowing you have a problem or issue and addressing it in due time beforehand, rather than waiting to the last minute or after to try to resolve it.

A lot of people (and organizations) would be better off for having learned those things.

I'll overlook a lot of spelling errors for a little journalistic integrity, that's a terrible grading standard.

I think both liberal and conservative posters alike on this forum can agree with this article written by a liberal professor. As much as some people here like to slam "feels", I think it's safe to say most people here don't actually go so far as to let those "feels" effect their day-to-day in a drastic way, just our ideals as we argue them on said internet forums.

This, however, has very serious, very problematic real-world repercussions for everyone and it's out the *** of control.

I'm a liberal professor, and my liberal students terrify me

liberal policy

Yeah. Liberals are the only ones spoiling their children and making them entitled.

Rich conservatives would never turn their children into entitled brats who have been handed everything and for whom every shortcoming is someone else's fault, and they should pay for that fault.

This is not a poltical issue

This is a cultural problem that doesn't pay heed to party lines.

Yet, liberal policy enables both.


How is it not?



True. Now that conservatives have begun using liberal policy against liberals, liberals are mad and need someone/thing to blame.

Westboro church to picket Beau Biden's funeral

/sigh.

Yet, liberal policy enables both.


How is it not?



True. Now that conservatives have begun using liberal policy against liberals, liberals are mad and need someone/thing to blame. They cannot blame themselves now can they.

Liberals and trolls, bringing down America together.

"feels"

It's like you only post to insult "lolLibtards".

He has virtually no chance to get the Democratic nomination but former Rhode Island Governor and Senator Lincoln Chafee deserves credit. He finally said what all responsible Democrats need to acknowledge about their inevitable nominee:

It’s a long record going back over decades of questionable ethical practices. People groan when I bring up Whitewater and all these things, the Rose Law Firm records; it seems like it never stops. Now, we are into the tenure of secretary of State and the emails and of course the Clinton Foundation donations at the same time the State Department is making critical decisions, combined with some of those donations by the Clinton Foundation. It’s just too close and too many ethical questions. Over my 30-year record in public office, I’ve never had any ethical questions about my behavior.

Well, good for him. There are a few critical points worth noting here.

First, we are not talking about an isolated incident in Clinton’s career. We are talking about endemic behavior, a pattern of conduct reinforced over decades. The has inverted the essence of public service. Rather than serve the voters she has used to her office and her potential candidacy to further her own political and financial interests. It undermines the notion of accountability and ultimately of democracy itself to say that corrupt, secretive and dishonest pols deserve our indulgence.

Second, not everyone does it. Not all politicians are crooks; in fact no other politician behaves as she does.

Consider the litany just since 2009: She repeatedly violated her agreement with the administration to disclose potential conflicts of interest. While in office the State Department made decisions directly implicating donors to the foundation and her husband’s speaking fee sponsors. She violated administration guidelines in keep her entire email system private, risking hacking and preventing oversight. When it became an issue, she destroyed tens of thousands of emails. She evaded her president’s directive not to hire a scurrilous political operative Sidney Blumenthal, but instead received and circulated his official-looking, but entirely unvetted, memos on Libya — while he was paid by the foundation and despite his business connections to those who stood to profit there. And that does not touch on issues of gross incompetence (e.g. failing to protect diplomats in Benghazi, Libya), lack of vision (e.g. no coherent response to the Arab Spring), bad judgment (e.g. Russian reset), shortsightedness (e.g. celebrating withdrawal of all troops from Iraq in 2011), and self-delusion (e.g. outreach to Iran and obsessing over the “peace process”).

And finally, Chafee’s outburst reminds us that she still refuses to be questioned about any of this in depth. She hides from real voters and the press, scoffing at the need to explain herself.

Unfortunately for the Democratic Party and for the country, only Lincoln Chafee is saying this. Members of Congress, liberal pundits and big donors have yet to say, “Hey, this is a bridge too far. We can’t justify supporting her. There is no excuse for this.” Only if they finally admit this can the party recover its soul and a candidate not ethically disqualified to hold office (let alone the presidency) can emerge. For now, Clinton — just like with Whitewater, the Rose Law Firm, the White House travel office, the Chinese finance scandals of the 1990’s, the foundation, the emails and the conflicts of interest — is getting away with it. She’s conducted herself this way for 20-plus years because she’s never paid any real price.

Go take your drugs and drink yourself into a stupor, expatriate.

Go take your drugs and drink yourself into a stupor, expatriate.

I mean, all of our posts are useless in some grand sense.

Please outline which "liberal" policies you are referring to.

Yeah. Liberals are the only ones spoiling their children and making them entitled.

Rich conservatives would never turn their children into entitled brats who have been handed everything and for whom every shortcoming is someone else's fault, and they should pay for that fault.

And liberals are the people turning universities and colleges into businesses over places of learning. That sure sounds like liberal policy to me.

This is not a poltical issue, people. This encompasses many people throughout the vast majority of the political spectrum.

This is a cultural problem that doesn't pay heed to party lines.

So you do not agree liberal policy enables this behavior?

"Policy" enables this behavior. It's been across the board for decades. Everyone sues and takes everyone to court over everything.

And frankly, no. In this particular instance, this is not a liberal policy. A liberal policy would allow a professor to teach as intended, and to defend himself against baseless accusations of entitled students.

Corporate culture bleeding into academia causes this, where the student is the customer, so they get their way because they're the ones paying.

Conservatism doesn't raise people to be entitled.