But the original is to blame for that; they were inconsistent with Japanese too. At times it was the common language we could understand through translation at others it needed to be translated. The all Japanese scenes should have been in English for the plot to work. But that would have been ridiculous too..
Congratulations America
Ugh, I hate that. I can appreciate it for use in cinema, but for at home it sucks. Especially when you want to watch late at night with low volume. Part of the reason I often watch with subtitles (even if it's in a language I do understand) is so I can put the volume low enough that the shots/explosions aren't way too loud, and then I have trouble understanding what they say.Originally Posted by earthJoker
I can't remember what movie/show it was, but the original had bits in Spanish that the main character did not understand (and was not subtitled), and in the Spanish dub they did everything in Spanish, except the original Spanish parts that were dubbed in Italian
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
Having spent time with my sisters recently. It's hard to even acknowledge that it's so messed up, since they're the only family I have (besides my kids).
Ugh just brushed against the usb port with the plug of a speaker. PC died instantaneously and wouldn't turn back on again. Thought I'd fried the motherboard, but it turns out that was just a security shut down that I could fix with a reboot after removing cables and battery for a couple of minutes. Put a mini usb stick in that particular usb slot. It's way too close to the speaker jack.
Congratulations America
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/v...him-off-campus Pretty disturbing.
Hope is the denial of reality
On the other hand, I'm not sure that a staff member should post such disagreements publicly without having had some kind of conversation with the party he's disagreeing with.
Airing your dirty laundry in public without giving the opposite side a way to respond first is never a good idea.
Not to mention that a professor's position is quite superior to a mere instructor (who is a student to boot). This kind of relationship entails a heightened responsibility.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
He attacked the grad student because of her teaching policy, which should be fair game for public criticism.
Hope is the denial of reality
He heard of the incident 2nd hand. That's not a good basis to publicly criticize anyone on.
Furthermore, it's highly unprofessional behaviour. If I have a beef with someone's methods I will talk to the person first. In person if possible.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
The grad student was taped. He heard the tape. Furthermore, he knew that the university didn't punish her for her actions. Are you seriously saying that it's ok to punish someone for publicly disagreeing with a policy?
Hope is the denial of reality
I always think that it's not a very bright idea to publicly name and shame a mere student because of something you disagree with. Especially if you didn't even bother to talk to the person in question.
Or do you think that pillories in the dark ages were a good idea? Because that's what he did - he pilloried her.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
You are trying to say there is no difference between a blog post and a dark age pillory? Really? Are journalists pillorying the subjects of their investigations?
If you don't give the opposite side a chance to talk (which is what journalists at least purport to do) then, yes, there's not much difference.
Let's not forget: Once it's on the internet it's pretty much there forever. With a dark age pillory, you were released after a while and able to skip town.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
You have a truly warped perspective if you don't see a difference between a post that exists on an obscure blog, and forcibly detaining someone in the middle of town for the express purpose of public ridicule. One is the legal and justifiable expression of an opinion, the other a judicial punishment. We are talking about a blog. A blog with comments enabled, if giving a voice to your intellectual opposition is your primary objection. I mean, it would be the hallmark of a cowardly, intellectually bereft person to actively silence opposing viewpoints, wouldn't it? Especially if that person is in a position of authority. For example, the authority derived from being a teacher.
The fact that we're talking about that blog and that it made headlines shows that, yes, even obscure sites may, for some reason or other, find themselves in the view of the public. Because now we have the very situation I spoke about when comparing it to a pillory. With you and Loki judging her remotely.
This just proves my point that there's no such thing as an "obscure blog". Because it doesn't take any effort to reach the site at all (you merely need to click on a link or type an adress, just like any other site on the web) and as history has shown repeatedly, even the tiniest of incidents may provoke an unproportional response from the rest of the web. There's no "obscure", there's only "currently not well-known". That is an attribute, however, which can change in an instant.
You're thinking about the web as if it was consisting of hamlets, villages and cities one had to physically travel to. That's misunderstanding the nature of the internet. I meant what I said when I stated that "Once it's on the internet it's pretty much there forever."
And, no, merely enabling comments on your blog is not "giving the opposition a voice". The guy made it public. Airing your dirty laundry in public is, again, a stupid idea unless you have no other choice. This guy had still some choices left.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
No, you are making a straw-man argument. I have not said it was a private blog, nor have I argued that even infrequently visited parts of the web can't, on occasion become widely seen. What I have said, and will continue to maintain is that there is an enormous difference between a blog post and imprisonment in the pillories.
Great, I agree it was a dick move. Just like I think it's a dick move to silence people with differing opinions as a teacher in a college course. However, being a dick is not the same as forcibly putting someone in the town square to be subject to ridicule and flying fruit.And, no, merely enabling comments on your blog is not "giving the opposition a voice". The guy made it public. Airing your dirty laundry in public is, again, a stupid idea unless you have no other choice. This guy had still some choices left.
Answer me this: Is the student in question now object to public scrutiny due to that blog post?
Also, please don't forget the purpose behind the pillories. Imprisonment was a secondary objective for that particular punishment.
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/...discussion-gay
Yeah, not like a pillory at all...[...]Some reader comments are on-topic, but others are personal and threatening, such as this comment posted on the iOTWreport: “This ignorant liberal bitch needs me in her class for an hour. When I’m done with her she’ll have a full understanding of the abhorrent behavior of queers, lesbos and transgender freaks.”
Abbate said that since McAdams published his blog post, she’s also received a number of emails and a letter calling her a “tyrant,” a “stupid, stupid woman,” and a “toxic example to students.”[...]
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Absolutely. Thankfully, we have a whole host of terminology that can be used with a great deal of accuracy in this situation that doesn't involve hyperbolic comparisons to a punishment from the dark ages.
This is true. Being the subject of ridicule does not a pillory make - unless you are speaking perfectly reasonably in the modern sense of the word, and not ridiculously comparing it to the physical pillories of the dark ages.Also, please don't forget the purpose behind the pillories. Imprisonment was a secondary objective for that particular punishment.
I can't help but wonder what your response would be if this was a blog post about the president of Uber and their handling of rate hikes in areas of high demand. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess you wouldn't be nearly as aghast.
Last edited by Enoch the Red; 12-19-2014 at 09:54 PM.
I personally find the professor's actions pretty objectionable for someone in his position, though suspending him seems over the top (without knowing about his previous record, which from the updates in the link isn't spotless). On one side you have a professor, on the other a student who made a mistake while teaching. Should you A) talk to the student to try and teach her to improve, or B) post an online, one sided, attacking rant that leads to said student receiving trashing mails? I think I know which way I'd prefer a professor to act..
edit: plus he apparently misquotes from the recordings, and while he asked for the instructor's side as well, never gave her time for replying. That combined seems pretty unprofessional for a professor to me.
If the guy writing a blog post was an Uber driver himself? Would not be that surprised if he was fired for it, people get fired pretty frequently for slandering bosses/coworkers/companies on social media (I think a lot of companies have policies for that these days). The big difference is of course that a university is supposed to be promoting free speech and discussions.
Last edited by Flixy; 12-19-2014 at 11:13 PM.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
I think refusing to discuss a topic because alternative views are not permitted in class and telling a student who holds those views to drop the class for that reason are far more flagrant violations of a teacher's job than criticizing the behavior of a grad student (especially since the university wasn't willing to do punish the grad student in any way). Talking to the grad student first might have been the nice (or the non-asshole) thing to do, but I don't see how it violates any rules of conduct. It's not like the grad student was even in his department.
Hope is the denial of reality
First of all, the instructor is still a student, so I suppose bigger violations are to be expected somewhat. That said, after reading some more posts, and comments, I don't think that's exactly what happened here. Apparently, the discussion was about something else, with gay marriage being somewhat offtopic, which is why it was dropped (possible, at least, that part isn't recorded). I.e. more for being offtopic and not because it's an alternate view. Then after class he complained, after which she re-stated that it was offtopic (which it was, because he was going on about parenting) and that the facts he claimed were wrong (which are indeed discredited). Only after that did she make the remark about homophobic (and racist) comments not being allowed (while reiterating that his comments were offtopic from the class discussion). Then, she said his remarks could come across as homophobic (which isn't that much of a stretch if you use faulty research). The professor misquotes her as saying “everyone agrees with gay rights and there is no need to discuss this” - she just said opposing gay marriage would violate Rawl's equal liberty principle.
Now I agree that telling him that he can drop the class if he doesn't agree with her policy on not allowing homophobic or racist comments (and, presumably, with her opinion on what is homophobic) crosses the line, but other than that she doesn't seem to do much wrong. We can debate on whether using discredited studies to support your point against gay rights is homophobic or not (he argued gays are worse parents), but it doesn't seem that outlandish. And, apparently, the student's comments would be considered offensive according to the university's guidelines, which means that the TA actually did the right thing (in changing the subject, not telling him he can drop the class if he disagrees), just that the university's guidelines are wrong.
On the other hand, I think for a professor to write an attack blog like that, in public, and personal, is pretty unprofessional. Especially considering he misquotes, gives the wrong context, and only uses one side of the story. Considering the end result (public shaming of the TA, resulting in harassing messages to her), it might violate the rules of conduct about harassment. In fact, the university says that "the university will not tolerate personal attacks or harassment of or by students, faculty and staff". This seems like a personal attack. If he wanted to criticize the lack of follow up to the complaint (which is what he should have done) he could easily have done the same without naming names but complain in his blog that nothing happened. That is, if nothing happened, since I've only seen his word for that (for all we know she has had a talk or reprimand about this, or the complaint could still be being reviewed). Still, suspending a professor and banning him from campus seems extreme, but your link mentions this was (according to a coworker) not just because of this incident, but that this was the straw. Based on just this, I do agree with you that the punishment is way over the top.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
I think I should reiterate that I am not opposed to any professional sanctions that the university chooses to discipline him with. I don't necessarily have to agree with them to believe they should have the right to do so. The same goes for this hypothetical Uber employee.
Last edited by Enoch the Red; 12-20-2014 at 01:32 AM.
I think everyone was playing a losing hand...
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
I wouldn't be so sure that they have this right. The professor had tenure, which carries with it many perks. There's also the matter of academic freedom; the professor is being punished for voicing an opinion. And I don't for a moment believe that this is an instance of harassment, unless one defines harassment as bringing wrong doing to public attention. The uneven power held by the professor and grad student are also irrelevant as the former had no power over the latter.
Hope is the denial of reality
When I say they should have that right I am not speaking of the rights they actually possess in today's society, I am speaking of the rights I believe they should possess in Enoch's Perfect World (TM).
In your perfect world, people can't give away any rights through a mutually agreeable contract?
Hope is the denial of reality
They certainly could. What I am saying is I don't know the actual agreements, policies, or contracts, in question, so I could not speak intelligently about whether or not the university is behaving appropriately or not.
And he's punished for the way in which he voiced his opinion, Loki. You may disagree all you want but as soon as you open your dissent to the public then your case better be watertight.
Which in this case, it isn't.
I don't get this holy cow of "voicing your opinion" (i.e. freedom of speech) many US-Americans seem to worship - it's one principle of freedom, yes, but it's not the only one and it is not a principle without limits.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
The right to speech takes precedence over the right to offend, as long as the former isn't libel/slander. And seriously, you want a university system that encourages avoiding offense?
Hope is the denial of reality
You're once again deliberately misunderstanding my comments. I don't care whether he disagrees or not. I care about the method he employed to voice his opposition.
I can't make that any clearer. If you're still unable to understand that distinction then I feel sorry for your lacking brain capacity, Loki. Because I have repeatedly stated this very notion. I don't care what he said. I care about how he said it - namely, in a profoundly unprofessional way.
And as his university is a private one, I don't get where this "freedom of speech" thing is supposed to even come into play. In my opinion, that's one of the most over-used and ill-used methods one usually employs in a pisspoor attempt to silence your opposition. It's one of those intellectually dishonest cards one plays when one doesn't have any other good argument left.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Academic freedom applies in public and private universities...Incidentally, part of that academic freedom means not shutting down discussion in class because you don't want anyone to voice a view that will offend someone.
So public criticism of a policy that the university refuses to condemn is now unprofessional? Right.
Hope is the denial of reality
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote