Flu vaccine mandatory at Cornell...for white students

[Rhea]

Deeper into Woke clownworld we go. You couldn't make this stuff up.

Link title: editorial-cornell-university-makes-flu-vaccination-mandatory-but-only-for-white-students/

An Ivy League university is requiring that white students receive an annual flu vaccination, while providing an exemption for students belonging to any other race. Because of “historical injustices and current events,” Cornell University will grant to “people of color” an exemption from its requirement that all students get a flu vaccination.
You are forgiven if you get a migraine trying to untangle the logic behind the reasoning for this exemption.

I've read through a few articles to see if events are being misreported, given the clickbait headline. But they're not.

It beggars belief that people can honestly believe Rhea was not making fun of me when she wrote her "triggered" "OPPRESIONZ" comment.

It would still be true that she was being nasty even if had been triggered and I had made a hysterical claim of oppression.

Maybe you should think about that.

Metphor, I am so deeply sorry that my interpretation of your Opening Post caused me to reply as if you had made an hysterical claim of oppression, and in such a terribly nasty way (that you would never ever set the tone for yourself.). I completely recognize that it is nasty to accuse the writers of this article, the websites who promote it and, by extension, you, of being triggered into thinking of OPPRESSIONZ when you talk about Woke Clownworld that is definitely NOT misrepresented by the clickbait headline and, indeed, causes migraines to even try to untangle the logic. Migraines are definitely NO JOKE and not a symptom of being triggered at all and it was completely unfair of me to make that statement about a tolerant and open-minded person such as yourself. I apologize deeply for triggering you with my nasty behavior when I entered this conversation with no warning.

 

[Metaphor]

It beggars belief that people can honestly believe Rhea was not making fun of me when she wrote her "triggered" "OPPRESIONZ" comment.

It would still be true that she was being nasty even if had been triggered and I had made a hysterical claim of oppression.

Maybe you should think about that.

Metphor, I am so deeply sorry that my interpretation of your Opening Post caused me to reply as if you had made an hysterical claim of oppression, and in such a terribly nasty way (that you would never ever set the tone for yourself.). I completely recognize that it is nasty to accuse you of being triggered into thinking of OPPRESSIONZ when you talk about Woke Clownworld that is definitely NOT misrepresented by the clickbait headline and, indeed, causes migraines to even try to untangle the logic. Migraines are definitely NO JOKE and not a symptom of being triggered at all and it was completely unfair of me to make that statement about a tolerant and open-minded person such as yourself. I apologize deeply for triggering you with my nasty behavior when I entered this conversation with no warning.

Wow Rhea, keep it up. Nothing like taking the edge off your nasty behaviour by following up with a sarcastic apology.

You ought be sorry that you interpreted my OP as a hysterical claim of oppression, because it was neither hysterical nor a claim of oppression.

You are correct to call me out for being snarky, but I wasn't snarky to you. I was snarky to Toni after Toni pulled another one of her 'I'm so kind and wise and I'm vouchsafing my time and opinion to Metaphor' condescending shtick.

A claim that an event or opinion or policy is woke clownworld is not a claim of oppression. It's a claim of woke clownworld. But even if it were a claim of oppression, do you believe ridicule is the best approach to debunking a claim you don't agree with? And even if it were the best approach, are you suggesting that ridicule isn't nasty?

I didn't accuse you of entering the conversation with 'no warning'. I made the consummately trivial claim that you entered the conversation.

You were nasty out of nowhere, and you've doubled down on it with your sarcastic nonpology.

I'm sorry you were and that you don't recognise it.

 

[Rhea]

You know, you are right, Metaphor. I don’t think ridicule is the best way to deal with people who are upset, and I do agree that calling them triggered, when they actually are, is a destructive behavior that harms the very people that I usually seek to protect. And that indeed, even using the word “triggered” is a descent into the nasty behavior of the far right that I find harmful. Following your sarcasm with my sarcasm took me to a place I do not like being. So thank you for the mirror. I apologize.

 

[ruby sparks]

Triggered, yes, imo (and by a somewhat misleading article, unfortunately). Claims of oppression? Strictly-speaking, no. However, if memory serves, I think Metaphor has said certain things in the past at least slightly along those lines, about white people, perhaps especially men. Metaphor, can you clarify? If you do not think the right way or word to describe the situation is oppression, how would you describe it, what you might call the predicament of, for example white men, in modern western societies? I suppose you could leave the gender part out here, but it might be interesting to hear how you would include it when it comes to certain other, related situations.

'Under attack', perhaps? 'Treated unfairly'? Increasingly so, as woke views are becoming more mainstream?

 

[ZiprHead]

Yes, it came out of nowhere. Rhea entered the conversation and I asked some questions and then she responded as if I was a hysterical white person 'triggered' by Cornell's policy. She caricatured me and she did it to mock me.

Protip: It's not a caricature.

 

[Toni]

What's important is that when people tell you you've been condescending to them, is that you discount any such testimony. That helps you grow as a person.



Every single response Toni, you manage to say something that climbs even higher to such staggeringly unbelievable heights of nastiness, I'm convinced you must have vertigo.

You thought it was more polite to say 'lead a human to knowledge but cannot make them think' than 'lead a horse to water...'?

You thought that was kinder? To so condescend to me that you think I do not understand the meaning of common English idioms? Or perhaps you thought I'd be triggered by being compared to a horse? And how kind of you, to lead me to this wellspring of knowledge so that I, too, can see the world exactly as you do.

We can all explain to you why you are mistaken but we cannot understand it for you. There honestly is nothing wrong with being wrong or not understanding the point someone is trying to make. Sometimes you just have to go back and re-read and re-think for a while.

Rhea did not enter the thread to be nasty. None of the people pointing out that your OP and the article linked in your OP are in direct contradiction to the actual Cornell verbiage regarding vaccines are being nasty, intolerant, condescending or vicious. People have politely and in great detail pointed out that Cornell isn't saying what your newspaper claims it was. You seem incapable of recognizing your error or of recognizing that there actually are people more familiar and with greater understanding of Cornell's policies and US history than you possess.

No. You seem incapable of entertaining any perspective other than your own.

I do recognize that you have a fondness for calling women nasty who disagree with you and call you out.

I don't recognize calling me or Rhea names as a valid way of expressing a point of view.

 

[laughing dog]

You think wrong.


Nah, it is your hypersensitivity working overtime. Frankly, your OP and responses do come off as a hysterical white person "triggered" by Cornell's policy. Maybe you should think about that.


[

It beggars belief that people can honestly believe Rhea was not making fun of me when she wrote her "triggered" "OPPRESIONZ" comment.

It would still be true that she was being nasty even if had been triggered and I had made a hysterical claim of oppression.

Maybe you should think about that.

Thanks for the proof you were and are triggered. And thanks for the observation that the truth is nasty.

 

[TomC]

You ought be sorry that you interpreted my OP as a hysterical claim of oppression, because it was neither hysterical nor a claim of oppression.

I rather interpreted it that way myself.

I realize that OP titles are often cryptic, hyperbolic, and suggestive. But this one was flat out wrong and in the OP you doubled down. Then you continued to misrepresent Cornell's policy, as described on the website, over and over. You've claimed that Cornell had special exemptions for BIPOC without supporting the claim with anything at all. You've consistently confused "We'll take your requests for exemptions" with "We'll grant your request for exemptions". Those aren't the same.

I don't claim to know much about Cornell personally. But I'm confident that Cornell's administrative staff is not the Woke Clownworld you described them as. I believe them capable of nuanced thinking and goal driven behavior. If their goal is 93% vaccination rate and 4% request an exemption they could rubber stamp every request, and handily beat the goal with 96% vaccination rate. But if 15% request an exemption, they have to drill down on the reasonableness of the requests. Maybe a pregnant woman, 2 months into a difficult pregnancy, gets one. While someone who says "My momma told me that vaccinations are from aliens who are trying to soften us up for the invasion." does not.


Sorry, but yeah. The OP title, the OP itself, and your many subsequent responses do look like hysterical claims about the oppression of whites. I, too, am often annoyed by Militant Wokeness. But that's not what's going on here.
Tom

 

[Toni]

Toni said:

My old boss used different words than I did, paraphrasing: You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink. I used more polite words because I really did not want to insult you.

If Toni meant her boss used words other than a close approximation to 'you can lead a horse to water...', she has been hopeless in communicating it. 'Paraphrasing' does not mean 'my boss said something completely different in tone and wording'.

Toni has accused me of not understanding before. What is troubling to me is how Toni can utter the exact opposite of the truth and not see the irony. I can see how some people have decided there is no exemption. But most cannot see the other side. They cannot even entertain the notion that a paragraph that talks about BIPOC who wish to seek an 'other exemption' may want to look at information informing them exactly why Cornell understands their position, and why providing this information in an 'other exemptions' category implies Cornell considers it a kind of reason that might count as an 'other' exemption.

As Toni has said to me, I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you.

I didn’t use an exact quote from my boss because that included a term that many find derogatory.

I agree that there are often multiple valid viewpoints but I do not agree that there is another valid side that plausibly interprets Cornell’s position regarding vaccination providing BIPOC students an exemption or discriminates against white students. It’s simply not what the policy says and is the exact opposite of what Cornell is trying to do by acknowledging past discrimination and pointing out that this policy is intended to protect everyone.

 

[Metaphor]

You think wrong.


Nah, it is your hypersensitivity working overtime. Frankly, your OP and responses do come off as a hysterical white person "triggered" by Cornell's policy. Maybe you should think about that.


[

It beggars belief that people can honestly believe Rhea was not making fun of me when she wrote her "triggered" "OPPRESIONZ" comment.

It would still be true that she was being nasty even if had been triggered and I had made a hysterical claim of oppression.

Maybe you should think about that.

Thanks for the proof you were and are triggered. And thanks for the observation that the truth is nasty.

I don't know how you regard what you quoted as proof that I was 'triggered'.

I was about to thank you (sarcastically) for using an opportunity to be nasty to me for no reason at all, but I'm not going to thank you. I indulge in ironic language a lot but I don't necessarily have to use it as much against board members as I have done.

Quoting me talking about how making fun of people for being triggered is unkind behaviour, and being nasty to me about expressing that sentiment is not appreciated.

 

[Metaphor]

You ought be sorry that you interpreted my OP as a hysterical claim of oppression, because it was neither hysterical nor a claim of oppression.

I rather interpreted it that way myself.

I realize that OP titles are often cryptic, hyperbolic, and suggestive. But this one was flat out wrong and in the OP you doubled down. Then you continued to misrepresent Cornell's policy, as described on the website, over and over. You've claimed that Cornell had special exemptions for BIPOC without supporting the claim with anything at all. You've consistently confused "We'll take your requests for exemptions" with "We'll grant your request for exemptions". Those aren't the same.

I did nothing of the kind. I said that if Cornell granted a request to a BIPOC student that it would not have granted to a white student, that would be evidence it had intended to allow some exemptions for BIPOC as BIPOC.

I don't claim to know much about Cornell personally. But I'm confident that Cornell's administrative staff is not the Woke Clownworld you described them as. I believe them capable of nuanced thinking and goal driven behavior. If their goal is 93% vaccination rate and 4% request an exemption they could rubber stamp every request, and handily beat the goal with 96% vaccination rate. But if 15% request an exemption, they have to drill down on the reasonableness of the requests. Maybe a pregnant woman, 2 months into a difficult pregnancy, gets one. While someone who says "My momma told me that vaccinations are from aliens who are trying to soften us up for the invasion." does not.

A pregnant woman with a difficult pregnancy would surely qualify for a medical exemption.

Sorry, but yeah. The OP title, the OP itself, and your many subsequent responses do look like hysterical claims about the oppression of whites. I, too, am often annoyed by Militant Wokeness. But that's not what's going on here.
Tom

I did not claim anything about whites being 'oppressed' by the policy. I said the policy discriminates by race.

I also separately pointed out that, even if I had been "triggered", pointing that out just to ridicule me for it is nasty and unproductive. And when I pointed this out, laughing dog responded (I'm paraphrasing here) 'lolz only a triggered person would SaY tHat!!11!'

 

[laughing dog]

I also separately pointed out that, even if I had been "triggered", pointing that out just to ridicule me for it is nasty and unproductive. And when I pointed this out, laughing dog responded (I'm paraphrasing here) 'lolz only a triggered person would SaY tHat!!11!'

For someone who has a meltdown when he feels attacked in a nasty fashion, you have no problem engaging in nasty attacks via blatantly false paraphrases.

 

[Metaphor]

I also separately pointed out that, even if I had been "triggered", pointing that out just to ridicule me for it is nasty and unproductive. And when I pointed this out, laughing dog responded (I'm paraphrasing here) 'lolz only a triggered person would SaY tHat!!11!'

For someone who has a meltdown when he feels attacked in a nasty fashion, you have no problem engaging in nasty attacks via blatantly false paraphrases.

A "meltdown"? Is calling me triggered no longer giving you the psychological satisfaction it did just one post ago? Got out your synonym dictionary?

 

[laughing dog]

I also separately pointed out that, even if I had been "triggered", pointing that out just to ridicule me for it is nasty and unproductive. And when I pointed this out, laughing dog responded (I'm paraphrasing here) 'lolz only a triggered person would SaY tHat!!11!'

For someone who has a meltdown when he feels attacked in a nasty fashion, you have no problem engaging in nasty attacks via blatantly false paraphrases.

A "meltdown"? Is calling me triggered no longer giving you the psychological satisfaction it did just one post ago? Got out your synonym dictionary?

That's right, let the falsehoods and nastiness keep on coming. I did not call you triggered.

 

[Metaphor]

A "meltdown"? Is calling me triggered no longer giving you the psychological satisfaction it did just one post ago? Got out your synonym dictionary?

That's right, let the falsehoods and nastiness keep on coming. I did not call you triggered.

Thanks for the proof you were and are triggered. And thanks for the observation that the truth is nasty.

I'll leave it up to the jury to decide whether that amounts to you calling me triggered.

 

[TomC]

I did nothing of the kind. I said that if Cornell granted a request to a BIPOC student that it would not have granted to a white student, that would be evidence it had intended to allow some exemptions for BIPOC as BIPOC.

Now you're just being disingenuous, to be charitable about it.

Here's your post #15. Quoted verbatim.

You knew jack shit as usual.

Any student can apply for a medical or religious exemption. No discrimination there, except of course once again we see people who believe things for bad reasons (religious exemptions) be allowed to indulge that, whilst people who believe things for other reasons (good or bad, doesn't matter - political, sociological, ideological) - no exemption on that basis.

The "other exemption" rule specifically names BIPOC students as students who would be given an exemption based on their BIPOC status, if they want one. That isn't a reason available to white students. Cornell is discriminating by race.

Try to actually think instead of mimicking what some conservative clickbait brays. Cornell is simply pointing out that a possible non-medical exemption for BIPOC who"may have personal concerns about fulfilling the Compact requirements based on historical injustices and current events, and may find this information helpful in considering an exemption." There is no evidence whatsoever that if white people can come up with historical injustices and current events that may generate personal concerns on their part , that they will be rejected.

Oy gevalt one obtuseness doth thread upon the other's heels, so quickly they follow.

BIPOC can be given an exemption as BIPOC. No white person will be given an exemption as white people.

Or, to put it another way: every single exemption available to white people is available to BIPOC people, but BIPOC can get an additional exemption solely for being BIPOC.

Nowhere in that post, which is similar to #9 and #12 and many others since, did you use the word "if".

IF Cornell actually gave exemptions "solely for being BIPOC", I'd have a problem with that too. But the website doesn't say that. So far, the only evidence you've produced to back up your accusation is that Cornell used the term BIPOC in a sentence.

Disingenuous is being charitable about it.
Tom

 

[Metaphor]

IF Cornell actually gave exemptions "solely for being BIPOC", I'd have a problem with that too. But the website doesn't say that. So far, the only evidence you've produced to back up your accusation is that Cornell used the term BIPOC in a sentence.

Disingenuous is being charitable about it.
Tom

No. Cornell referred to BIPOC in a paragraph about 'other exemptions' and linked to reasons BIPOC might want an exemption.

 

[TomC]

IF Cornell actually gave exemptions "solely for being BIPOC", I'd have a problem with that too. But the website doesn't say that. So far, the only evidence you've produced to back up your accusation is that Cornell used the term BIPOC in a sentence.

Disingenuous is being charitable about it.
Tom

No. Cornell referred to BIPOC in a paragraph about 'other exemptions' and linked to reasons BIPOC might want an exemption.

Along with reasons for why those requests could be refused.

You're still being "disingenuous". You switched from

BIPOC can be given an exemption as BIPOC. No white person will be given an exemption as white people.

to

if Cornell granted a request to a BIPOC student that it would not have granted to a white student,

The difference is important. I don't believe you're incapable of grasping that.
Tom

 

[Metaphor]

Along with reasons for why those requests could be refused.

You're still being "disingenuous". You switched from

BIPOC can be given an exemption as BIPOC. No white person will be given an exemption as white people.

to

if Cornell granted a request to a BIPOC student that it would not have granted to a white student,

The difference is important. I don't believe you're incapable of grasping that.
Tom

I did not switch. If BIPOC can be given an exemption as BIPOC, Cornell is discriminating by race.

It's my belief that BIPOC can be given an exemption as BIPOC, because Cornell listed BIPOC concerns in its other exemptions category. My belief has not changed.

 

[laughing dog]

Thanks for the proof you were and are triggered. And thanks for the observation that the truth is nasty.

I'll leave it up to the jury to decide whether that amounts to you calling me triggered.

That quote was not from "just one post ago". Your amply demonstrated difficulty with the truth is fascinating.