grxcehxrrishspaw

[grxcehxrrishspaw]

I feel like Christians want to be oppressed really bad. I would have assumed this was a more recent phenomenon but after reading Teitler’s piece I’m thinking it is kind of baked into the fabric of the belief system. Obviously, they faced persecution and punishment under Julian but in chapter 18 it seems like maybe they were overblowing the danger they were in. This opinion might stem from the fact that I feel like Christianity was frankly a little boring compared to other religions at the time so I think maybe they should have stopped complaining and added a little bit of pizzazz. The description of Bacchic rites sound way cooler and way more justifiable in repressing than Christianity, though I guess it was all rumors either way. Regardless, Christians believing they are repressed is a really common theme in my service-learning research findings. One of the more out there conspiracy theories I stumble upon is that every powerful person is Jewish and exists solely to keep the good hard-working Christian folk of America subjugated. This is patently untrue considering the vast majority of political leaders we have in this country are Christian men, as are the majority of people represented in business and media no matter how hard white supremacists work to convince people that Jewish people rule the world. I feel like it’s also necessary to point out that at no point have Jewish people systemically oppressed Christians, so this fear is generally unfounded anyway. I’m not sure what part of the bible tells its followers that they are in charge of making themselves seem as oppressed as possible despite being the ruling class but I feel like maybe we should take it out because this is getting old.

[grxcehxrrishspaw]

not not me complaining about Juvenal again

Satire Six, in a twist that cannot be surprising to anyone at this point, is a touch unsettling. First of all, most of the archetypes of women that Juvenal describes sound fun and I’m not sure exactly where his complaints lie. Secondly, this reads like every incel’s Reddit rant that concludes with them all broken up about not being able to find a girlfriend. Exhausting, frankly.

           Let’s address the first point. He describes a woman that runs off to Egypt with a gladiator, 100% cooler than whatever provincial life her boring husband would offer her. She sounds cool. Another woman sleeps with an actor, again proving to be more interesting than her husband. Women who train with gladiators sound way more interesting than Juvenal and would today be regarded as Megan Thee Stallion types not gross degenerates. He’s going to complain about women who correct their husbands’ grammar? Come on, nothing wrong with a woman who wants her man to better himself. Astrology is fun! What is wrong with this man!

Has Juvenal considered that maybe he and other men are the problem and that maybe women are mean to him because he’s annoying? He spends this whole time demonizing women of pretty much every kind and I’m not sure that’s a super effective way to go through life happily. Reddit and 4chan are quite literally filled with this exact sentiment- women are gross and bad and can’t do anything right unless they’re doing what I think is cool. In Juvenal’s case I’m not sure what that would be other than just… sitting? But not in a whoreish way. Today incels seem to want a woman who also just sits but also plays video games? I’m not sure, I just know Juvenal has massive incel energy.

[grxcehxrrishspaw]

umbricius probably would have been a neo nazi

Both of the Juvenal Satires we read this week were kind of reminiscent of the accusations and conspiracy theories I’ve been finding in my service-learning project research. In particular, Satire 3 echoed a lot of anti-multicultural sentiments that are pretty common in white supremacist circles online. Umbricius goes on and on about all the faults and failings that any non-Roman group has and is speaking from a place of presumed authority. He presents everything he’s saying as a fact, rather than his opinion. In his monologue, he rails against the Greeks and Syrians for being liars and cheaters who will do anything to get ahead in society. Umbricius accuses them of stealing Roman jobs and crowding the cities to a point where it is unbearable. White supremacists on Parler and Gab heavily lean on instilling fear into the reader and they do so by making some of the same arguments as Umbricius: minorities are coming to steal your jobs, ruin your “culture”, and crowd your cities with a bunch of useless freeloaders. This is often done under the guise of protecting white culture, but since that’s not something that exists, it’s mostly just racist. Opposition to multiculturalism is a racist dog whistle that may go over the heads of people not looking for hateful messaging but definitely signals to other white supremacists that they are interested in the same things. I’ve attached some screenshots of posts that I’ve encountered in my research that really radiate Umbricius’s energy.

[grxcehxrrishspaw]

politics is and has always been a full blown nightmare

           Cicero’s Pro Milone uses many of the same tactics that modern politicians use today, namely personal attacks on the opposition in order to discredit their argument or worthiness as an opponent. Cicero throughout his speech paints Clodius as weak and evil and essentially blames him for his own murder. This demonization was intended to make it seem like though Milo may have murdered him, he was justified in doing so and it even served the Republic’s interests. This is reminiscent of last night’s debate (which I did not watch for mental health purposes but have since read a recap of) in that it is chock full of character attacks rather than legitimate arguments against the other side. Particularly worth noting, the president attacked Biden’s son for past drug use, something entirely irrelevant to a presidential debate. In no way is this a pertinent issue, especially in the wake of the president’s failures to do literally anything positively productive during his term and his own family’s shady dealings. Biden was not immune either, calling the president a clown on multiple occasions and telling him to shut up as he was making a point (not a good one, but the principle stands). Both candidates openly questioned the intelligence of the other, frankly a valid point to make at this point but it would have been preferable to discuss each of their terrible ideas for policies moving forward rather than attack the personal character of the other. In all, it was a disaster of truly untold proportions, in large party to the low-level scrapping that both men engaged in. As always, it’s certainly intriguing to see that literally nothing has truly changed in politics and it seems that the foreseeable future will not be ushering in reform of the system and its participants.

[grxcehxrrishspaw]

           Paphlagonian/Creon in Aristophanes The Knights is the subject of much of the same criticism as the president of the United States. The play begins with accusations that Creon has wormed his way into the confidence of the people (Demos) even though he is not a good leader. The real Cleon that Aristophanes was referencing was a populist and demagogue much like Donald Trump. Both leaders used fear and manipulation to gain the confidence of their constituents, something Aristophanes takes issue with in The Knights. The Chorus leader accuses Cleon of manipulating the political and legal system for his own gain, something Trump has also come under fire for. One of the most prominent examples of this that comes to mind is his constant threatening of the Intelligence Community. He threatened to shut down probes and committees that aimed to investigate his actions and came very close multiple times. The Chorus encouraging the sausage seller to basically just be louder than Cleon is oddly reminiscent of American politics in general these days; it seems that politicians on both sides of the aisle are just yelling past each other and not leaving room for genuine debate. Hurling insults and using “common” language is a classic populist move, one that Trump and Cleon both employ. Cleon is also accused of being indifferent to the suffering of the people during war, something one could easily compare to Trump’s handling of the current pandemic. Trump’s political opponents have been gifted an easy dig at him as they can simply point to his lies and ignorance to make a case why he is a terrible leader who, despite his populist message, does not care about the American people.

[grxcehxrrishspaw]

           There isn’t one particular reading I want to reference today as they’ve all shaped my opinions on this as a whole. The focus of my blog posts has been about social upheaval on Tulane’s campus and this will be no different. In the past week, there have been a major movement taking place- the protest calling for the abolishment of TUPD, resulting in class walkouts and a student led march down Freret and Broadway. I didn’t participate, though I did see it on my way home from class. It was completely peaceful, pretty much everyone was wearing a mask, there was just some chanting and holding signs. The only thing that could be construed as violent was the speech, though it was just profanity that the average college student says and hears plenty of times throughout the course of the day. It was, in every way, a peaceful protest. I’m not sure if Tulane is being especially lax with student protests because the administration knows it’s on the hot seat with students right now, but I can’t help but thinking about some of the anecdotes from the readings. The schools that did poorly on FIRE’s rankings of free speech on campus may have reacted differently than with indifference (and I really mean indifference- I haven’t heard a peep from the administration about the whole situation). I hesitate to say Tulane handled the protest well, but it certainly didn’t send disciplinary notices to the organizers or tell them that was not allowed. In my opinion this is truly the bare minimum of acceptance by the administration but at least we’re lucky enough to not worry about suppression of ideas on campus, even ones calling for the complete defunding of a campus institution. I have the sneaking suspicion that if that had happened on a larger, less liberal campus, there would have been hell to pay both from administration and other students.

[grxcehxrrishspaw]

In the There Is an Increasingly Pronounced Pattern of Hostility Toward Free Speech on American College Campuses reading, one of the examples given is of a student group at Amherst College called Amherst Rising. The group demands apologies for racism on campus, a written statement declaring pro-free speech advocates are racially insensitive, and that any student found to be doing racist things must engage in anti-racist training. This is similar to demands currently being made by the Tulane Black Student Union. The BSU is asking, among other things, for complete accountability for students who commit hate crimes or engage in any sexist, racist, misogynistic, or bigoted language or actions. There is not a clear outline of exactly how this is defined, but, as we’ve already learned in the class, it can be difficult to lay out the definitions of hate speech and hate crimes. The question then is lain at the administration’s feet: how far are they willing to bend? Does it weaken them and set a precedent for students to take ‘too much’ power in the future? If the authors in the first chapter of Freedom of Speech on Campus are to be believed, the first amendment is under assault. I cannot imagine that the BSU’s demands would please these conservative authors as it places a lot of power in the hands of the students, apparently indoctrinated by liberal professors. This disregards the legitimate injustices faced by students of color on campuses across the country, and does not acknowledge the importance of equity in situations of systemic injustice.

[grxcehxrrishspaw]

free speech and blackattu

As I read the Chemerinsky and Gillman reading about freedom of speech on college campuses, I was reminded of the numerous instances of blatant racism at colleges across the United States that have gone viral on social media. Instagram has become a virtual town square for decrying racism on a personal and institutional level with accounts dedicated to experiences of BIPOC especially at predominately white institutions (much like Tulane). Since there is no debate on the existence of racism on an institutional level in academia, let’s turn our attention to individual students’ experiences with racism and hate speech.

I understand the need for free debate in academic circles. I think that, generally, any thought can be showcased and highlighted with the right context. I do not believe that there is ever a reason to allow, for example, a far-right white nationalist group on campus as it directly endangers the safety of many students. However, in the interest of naming and shaming, I think people with vile beliefs should be allowed to express them. The question remains: what is showcasing an idea vs blatantly attacking one’s peer? The Instagram account @blackattu has many years worth of posts from BIPOC students that detail explicit name calling, racial profiling, and assault based on race. It also showcases stories of professors being ignorant or dismissive of concerns from students about the course content or discourse in the classroom. There is value in boundary setting on what is and is not protected as ‘hate speech’ in a technical sense. That said, a very cursory glance over this account and the stories it tells highlights a bigger problem than semantics. In the moment, the person being discriminated against, attacked, talked down to, or dismissed due to race does not care about the boundaries and lines of what is and is not hate speech. In the end, the part of the equation that matters is the sum- how it affected the person at the receiving end.

I will never advocate for censorship in any context, but I do not see the punishment and hopefully prevention of hate speech and other vitriolic rhetoric on my campus as censorship. I see it as the only right thing to do when there’s a huge contingent of the student population feeling unsafe and unprotected by the administration. Protecting free speech is not protecting someone’s ability to use a racial slur, protecting free speech is protecting contextualized debate and sharing of ideas. Debate and idea sharing doesn’t happen on the quad between classes or the dining hall or at the Boot, it happens in a moderated and well-run conversation. There should be no protection for students or professors who use hate speech, regardless of the technical definition, at Tulane or any other university.