This may be the article I remember--the part towards the end caught my
attention:
"The Dangerous Speech Project has gathered typical hallmarks of speech that
seems to catalyze just such mass violence and has developed guidelines for
analyzing the level of danger posed by a particular turn of
"Keilana's actions have encouraged people to make it less so. "
or validating the bad behavior elsewhere.
i'd just say they don't need no validation, they will continue the "buzz
saw" regardless.
this language appropriation, (like sl**-walking) is a common enough device
to be cliché. shouldn't
On 22 February 2016 at 13:06, Neotarf wrote:
> @Risker, if your high school student are that benign, perhaps I will move
> to Canada.
>
>
:-) Even though it's a big urban centre that takes the word
"multicultural" to a whole new level, Toronto is actually a pretty
@Risker, if your high school student are that benign, perhaps I will move
to Canada.
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 12:54 PM, Risker wrote:
> Give me a break, Neotarf. I am critiquing the article and the decisions by
> its author and its publisher. It doesn't surprise me that
Give me a break, Neotarf. I am critiquing the article and the decisions by
its author and its publisher. It doesn't surprise me that having someone
of Keilana's stature drop more f-bombs in a couple of paragraphs than I
heard on a bus full of high school students this morning will change the
@Risker, the double standard is that several individuals dropped f-bombs on
the page, but only the woman got tsked. Talk pages of various users, not
to mention the arbitration committee's pages, routinely contain f-bombs,
which I have never seen anyone remark on. JimboTalk has occasionally seen
Some notes from Sumana Harihareswara framing codes of conduct, also on the
spectrum of liberty versus hospitality.
There is another piece I saw somewhere associated with the Berkman Center,
that this group might find useful, that gives a framework for evaluating
types of speech. I will try to