Talk about confusing: Cornell didn't do the thing that my OP claims that it did but if it did, it is confusing because of some term I learned on the internet.
No. I did not say Cornell did not do the thing my OP claims. I said I entertained the possibility. I considered other perspectives.
If Cornell is not offering exemptions to BIPOC as BIPOC,
then its framing of the issue is confusing. It could have avoided the confusion with a slight re-arrangement of its webpage or the addition of a single sentence preceding its virtue signalling.
I wasn't at all confused and you know I'm not that smart.
That you have supreme confidence that your understanding is the correct one, and the exact same people who always march in lock step with every single one of your posts also support it, does not indicate what you appear to believe it does.
Quite a number of other people are equally unconfused by Cornell's policy statements and statements supporting students. You've discounted all of that, including when Rhea mentioned that she's very familiar with Cornell, recruits there, speaks there, etc.
In fact, I did not discount Rhea's testimony. I asked questions about the specifics of it. Rhea then used that questioning to accuse me of things I did not say, to caricature me, and to dismiss me as a whackjob with a persecution complex.
The reasons you cite seem to be your interpretation, which multiple individuals have pointed out is incorrect.
I have stated the reasons for what I believe a dozen times and I'm not doing it again. But I never, not once, not anywhere, cited my own belief as evidence.
Fair enough. I think you would have more success if you discussed things with which you had more personal or immediate knowledge. But of course you should do you.
Yes, I will do me. I don't know that I can do otherwise.
Ah, so I misinterpreted your statement that you wanted to save academia?
You misunderstood my sentence "I want to save academia" as if I'd said "I want to save academia and I have the singular will and wherewithall to do it."
Apparently not but more than that: You now say you are aping a group that you hold in distain? How's that working out for you? From here, it doesn't look good.
My response was satirical, but there's nevertheless some truth to it.
I've learned from feminists that outrageous headlines are permitted in internet discourse.
I've learned that it is acceptable to focus solely on specialised issues of interest, and present selected facts about it. ruby sparks recently, and more than once, has said it's "funny" how I never seem to write OPs about cases of societal discrimination against women, as if I never "stumble" across them. Don2, who has me on ignore, thought it was helpful to me to come into every single thread I started, say (and I'm paraphrasing here, just in case you think I'm lying by using quotation marks "this issue is peripheral, your OPs are shit, there are more important issues", and then leave.
As I've explained more than once, since feminists set the discourse standard of only ever presenting information about women's issues, I have absolutely the same right to present OPs about issues faced by men. Since multiple posters on here do nothing but present information about discrimination against black people, and literally call for revenge against white people as a race, I do not see a problem with presenting OPs about discrimination against whites by race. I know you don't believe white people can be discriminated against, but that does not mean you get to decide what I can post about.
I've also learned from feminists that simultaneously invoking the fragility of men and then mocking them for this weakness is perfectly acceptable behaviour--and I've noticed the same thing happening on these boards. But I'm trying to be better than that, even though my exasperation with deliberate obtuseness often leads me to engage in the same style of mockery. (See, for example, laughing dog's recent posts where he makes a federal case of his misunderstanding of what I meant when I wrote the words 'one post ago').
Your error has been pointed out to you repeatedly by multiple individuals.
So now it's not 'errors' but 'error', singular? And the error is that Cornell is not offering exemptions at all.
You don't seem able or willing to entertain the fact that perhaps your preconceived notion about Cornell is..wrong.
What preconceived notion?
It is wrong. In fact, the article you linked was deceptive in its interpretation which you seem to have swallowed whole. Others have taken a lot of time and trouble to try to help you see where you are wrong--and you are not willing to consider that.
I've explained a dozen times that I can see that Cornell may not, in fact, be offering BIPOC exemptions as BIPOC. I've explained a dozen times that it seems feasible to me that Cornell's desire to virtue signal created an implication (for me--I know
you were not confused) that it was considering exemptions for BIPOC as BIPOC.
Probably not and at this point, I doubt that you would recognize if it did demonstrate categorically that a student of color requested an exemption based upon US history of medical experimentation on POC and was refused such exemption. You read an article that told you what to think and now you think what the article told you.
I have already explained in this thread what would be evidence. This is all hypothetical as we're never going to get administrative records.
1) If Cornell changed its website to say "we are not offering exemptions for any student, including BIPOC, where the exemption request is based solely on the history of unethical and unconsented medical experimentation on humans by US government and non-government institutions. We understand the reasons students, especially BIPOC students, might feel the way they do, as explained on this page (link)"
2) If a white student asks for an exemption based on the history of medical experimentation concerns and gets it. That would mean that Cornell is offering the exemptions but certainly isn't restricting it to BIPOC students (unless the student lied about her race and Cornell was tricked).
3) If a BIPOC student asks for an exemption as BIPOC and gets it, and no white student gets one based on the same reason.
4) If a particular BIPOC student asks for an exemption as BIPOC but doesn't get it, that is weak evidence that Cornell isn't offering them to BIPOC as BIPOC, because the exemption applicants appear to need to make a robust and articulate and convincing case (as indicated by the medical and religious exemption rules), and any particular student might not have done it.
I'm sure there are other scenarios that would be evidence that I haven't thought of at the moment.
